Robotech

One of the first Anime TV show imports from Japan back in the early 80′s, Robotech, I have no doubt, inspired a whole host of creators from my generation. It was actually three separate Japanese TV shows, re-dubbed (and in many cases rewritten) to be one large story line, encompassing the invasion of Earth by mechanized aliens, it’s liberation, and it’s subsequent reinvasion. Probably dated now, and the dialogue and characterizations were somewhat juvenile, but in spite of that, the overarching storyline for all three “generations” is pretty epic and well conceived. Taken as a whole it’s well worth a watch, especially if you remember it as a kid, like myself. The alien “mecha” in Robotech, especially the first and third generations, were a big influence on the Assembly’s walkers in CONQUERED EARTH.

Roadside Picnic

Fairly well known Russian cult sci-fi novel by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, published in English back in 1977. Set in Russia, with the fascinating concept that aliens visited the planet in a variety of locations. They landed, spent two days time, and then vanished. But the debris and refuse they left behind created areas of strange properties and effects called “Visitation Zones”, most of which are very dangerous. These zones are highly regulated areas, where only certain people are allowed in, called Stalkers. Roadside Picnic was the basis for Russian film maker Andrei Tarkovsky’s movie STALKER, and it has influenced numerous creators since, including myself. The Strange Lands, it will come as no surprise, while quite different, is still inspired by the Strugatskys’ “Visitation Zones”. The book goes in phases of being somewhat hard to find, but it’s well worth the effort.

At the Mountains of Madness

H.P. Lovecraft, one of my favorite authors, is generally considered a horror author, and that distinction is well earned. Most of his works are incredibly atmospheric monster stories, but if you look closely, you’ll see that many of them are, in reality…alien stories. When you delve into his “Mythos” (a grouping of tales all interconnected by a similar, creepy, epic mythology), you see that his “old gods” and ancient evil races are really just aliens from outer space. Which is pretty darn cool. AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS is my favorite Lovecraft piece, and is presented as a letter from a former member of an Antarctica expedition who recounts his terrifying experiences on the continent when his group finds the remains of a lost alien civilization frozen in the ice. Atmospheric and genuinely frightening, with an amazing level of realism (due to its format as a letter and the author’s tense, first person writing style), the entire thing fills energized with an aura of grim foreboding…which turns out to be very appropriate. I’m still sad about the loss of Guillermo Del Toro’s film version, though I have heard rumblings it might be back on.

War of the Worlds (Orson Welles Version)

While H.G. Wells’ WAR OF THE WORLDS is anything but an obscure choice, Orson Welles’ 1938 radio play version might be. Not because of its lack of notoriety (most people are aware of it), but because, sadly, not many actually seek it out for a listen. A fascinating example of both Welles’ ingenuity and vision, and of an early (maybe the first?) attempt at electronic, post-modern story telling. It might feel a little dated, but once you adjust to the language and style, it really is a gripping retelling of the science fiction classic, and it’s easy to see why so many people were fooled by its inherent realism. Well worth a listen.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Episode II

Continuing with the revisionist angle of WAR OF THE WORLDS, comic book legend Alan Moore’s second League of Extraordinary Gentlemen storyline follows a group of heroes repelling H.G. Wells’ alien invaders. The comic series, with art by Kevin O’Neill, manages to feel truly apocalyptic as the narrative unfolds, and Moore and O’Neill’s interpretations of Wells’ aliens is inspired and terrifying, as is the exciting plot featuring a host of Victorian era literary “heroes”, such as Alan Quartermain, Mina Harker (Dracula), Dr. Jekyll, Captain Nemo, John Carter, and Dr. Moreau among others. This series, like most of Moore’s work, contains adult themes, and is probably not for young readers.

Footfall

Larry Niven has long been one of my favorite science fiction authors, and he’s probably most well known for the milieu-style storytelling of his KNOWN UNIVERSE series. But in FOOTFALL, Niven, and co-author Jerry Pournelle, set their sights on something a little more plot oriented: an alien invasion of Earth. With a unique narrative, a large host of interesting characters, and a very well conceived, very original alien race called the Fithp, FOOTFALL is a fun and engrossing read. On top of it all, the aliens themselves look like giant, four trunk elephants with spaceships. How do you beat that?

Armor

Another in the “fun read you may not have known about” category, John Steakley’s ARMOR is an exciting novel clearly inspired by Heinlein’s STARSHIP TROOPERS, following a soldier drafted into a war fought with mechanized, powered armor against an overwhelming and mindless alien threat. An interesting analysis of the psychological ramifications of war and violence, combined with gripping action scenes, ARMOR is more adrenalized than TROOPERS, yet still has a lot to say. Steakley is probably more well known for his novel VAMPIRE$, which was made into a movie by John Carpenter in the 90′s. Sadly, Steakley, who grew up in my home town of Cleburne, Texas believe it or not, died while working on the sequel to ARMOR.

Monsters

An interesting, low budget, yet slick science fiction movie that might have slipped under the radar of many film goers, MONSTERS is set in the U.S./Mexico border region, where strange lifeforms sprang to life after the crash of a NASA space probe carrying alien bacteria. These lifeforms are big, mean, and now inhabit the landscape, making travel through the zone almost impossible. The story follows a man hired to escort a woman through the alien infested wilds in order to reach the United States. While the aliens themselves are well conceived (and deceptively complicated), the film is really a well done character study of the two leads’ growing relationship as they try and safely pass through a dangerous wasteland. An original and tense alien movie all fans of the genre should check out. A sequel is in the works.

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension

It’s hard deciding whether or not to label this incredibly quirky movie “obscure”. While BUCKAROO BANZAI was not a box office success in 1984, it did eventually grow to have a gigantic cult following in the years after its release. The story follows the efforts of the multi-talented Dr. Buckaroo Banzai (neurosurgeon, physicist, test pilot…and rock musician) and the Hong Kong Cavaliers (his team of eccentric geniuses) to save the world from inter-dimensional aliens called Red Lectroids from Planet 10. Over the top, non-sensical at times, yet thoroughly engrossing with a huge, well layered mythology, BUCKAROO BANZAI is as unique and fun a popcorn movie experience as you can have, and one of my favorite films ever. I’ve seen this movie countless times and I’m sure I’ll see it countless more, it really couldn’t be more special to me. I just wish we could have gotten BUCKAROO BANZAI AGAINST THE WORLD CRIME LEAGUE. If you dig the movie, try reading the novelization by Mac Rauch. The same outlandish story, but Rauch (to his credit) takes the subject matter completely seriously, and elevates it into something special.

The Abyss

Also probably not necessarily “obscure”, but I am continually surprised by how many people I meet who have never seen this movie, which, arguably, is filmmaker James Cameron’s greatest achievement, not just technically (and it is incredibly technically impressive), but also from a writing standpoint. Cameron’s best  script deals with the sinking of a U.S. Naval submarine after it collides with an unidentified object, and the group of underwater oil workers tasked with recovering it. As they set out to do so, under duress, they gradually start to figure out that what the submarine collided with was not of this Earth. Gripping in every way, with complex characters, exciting action sequences, a cool alien race, and the benefits of what turned out to be the most ambitious (and grueling) underwater film making experience in history, the Abyss is a must see, if for some reason you never have.

So, my recent completion of Telltale Games’ THE WALKING DEAD episodic, retro cool, point and click adventure spurred some interesting thoughts. This is a good thing, most games don’t spur much thought at all.

One of the really neat things about the game is that at the end of each episode, it gives you a rundown of how your choices compare to other players. Typically, this falls in the 50% range. “54% players chose to bring Lily with you in the RV.” I think the reason it’s so evenly split, is probably because most players are playing twice, and trying different choices each time. However, one choice, a really relevant one, stuck out to me. I was surprised that only 10% of players chose to not encourage Clementine to shoot you at the end, in order to stop you from turning.

I chose the opposite, and had Clementine leave me to turn on my own.

On the surface, having her shoot you may seem like the logical, moral choice, but for me, I felt that was an action I just couldn’t let her live with. It would be a memory she would always carry with her: having to shoot and kill someone she loved. And yes, she might be sparing me, but to a child that’s still a heavy burden to live with.

I felt that taking that burden onto myself, not giving my character an easy avoidance of turning by having Clem shoot me, was the more noble choice. I’m making a sacrifice for her. Instead of having her make a sacrifice for me.

It goes without saying that the game’s ability to illicit such complicated musings is a credit to the design and the story. I thoroughly enjoyed the series, it was like playing a modernized version of a Lucasarts or Sierra point and click adventure (I’m still waiting for FULL THROTTLE 2), and I really appreciated the emphasis on dialog and interaction over action and shooting things (not that I have a problem with shooting things).

However, the ending itself did make me think about the best ways to sell a “downbeat ending” from a narrative standpoint, which, this game ultimately has. Your character dies at the end no matter what you do, and you don’t get to continue on with Clementine, a character who you’ve come to really care about.

As much as I enjoyed the game as a whole, I felt like there were some missed opportunities from a character development standpoint that would have felt more rewarding at its conclusion. I think the main hurdle you face in doing a downbeat ending in any medium, is making that ending still feel satisfying. Stories which have downbeat endings and are not interested in being satisfying, I think, do a disservice to the reader/consumer. You can have a sad ending, without it being depressing and unsatisfying. Frank Darabont (the first show runner for THE WALKING DEAD on TV) is a master at that, and playing through this game helped me understand some of the mechanics to pulling it off.

I think the key is the character journey. And the lack of a true character journey for Lee (the player character) is the game’s biggest failing. You start out as a man on his way to prison for murdering his wife and her lover. A plot point that really doesn’t develop beyond that simple concept, with the exception that a few of the secondary characters recognize who you are from the papers, etc. There is also a moment where you can choose to admit your crime to other members of your group, but doing so seems to have no real effect on the narrative progression.

You start as a man who has committed a vile act and are repentant for it. You end the game as a man who has committed a vile act…and is repentant for it. This is not a character journey. And, the main reason, for me at least, I feel that the series’ downbeat ending is unsatisfying.

The ironic thing, is that all the pieces for what was needed to establish a true character journey for Lee and THE WALKING DEAD are already in place. I think it would have been far more satisfying if Lee had begun the story as a man who had committed a vile act…and was NOT repentant. Make him a bad guy. A dangerous sort. And through his interaction with Clementine, comes to see the world differently. He comes to care about someone for the first time in his life. He comes to feel responsible for them. And, at the end, he is willing to sacrifice himself to save them. Something that would have been impossible for him previously, before the story began.

When you add in this journey, suddenly the ending, as downbeat as it is on the surface, becomes satisfying. Because something good has come out of the negative. Lee has learned to care, he has found what it is to put other people before himself. He has grown. He has become something better. And that, in itself, is satisfying. It feels good when you get there…even though he dies at the end.

As it is now, Lee is the same person he was at the beginning of the story. He doesn’t grow. So the ending has nothing particularly redeeming about it. It’s just depressing and down beat. Which, is certainly modern and sophisticated (to a degree), but nothing I would want to experience again.

All in all, though, the five part WALKING DEAD game series was an excellently crafted experience, both from narrative and game play standpoints. I hope other developers follow Telltale’s lead and return to more intensely narrative driven storylines, such as this one.

As I’m sure you’ve heard, J. J. Abrams will be directing the next STAR WARS movie, EPISODE VII: (INSERT TITLE WITH EPIC SOUNDING WORDS HERE).

I was originally pessimistic when it came to this announcement, but I’ve changed my tune somewhat. Don’t get me wrong, I still have misgivings about the choice. They are, in no particular order (though I’ve always felt that making an order “non-particular”, is, in itself, a particular way to order something):

Inspired choice? Not really.

First off, I was hoping for something of a more interesting choice, something more outside the box. It could have been much less original for sure, we could have gotten Zack Snyder or Brett Ratner. Abrams is a clearly much more legitimate talent, and one with a unique “voice”, but at the same time, the guy has become an obvious goto for any sort of high profile franchise. MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, STAR TREK, and now, STAR WARS. Granted, he’s become a goto because he’s consistently produced films that make money. Lots of it. And that’s the real reason behind the choice. Disney/Kennedy weren’t looking for someone who would make the best STAR WARS film. They were looking for someone who would make the most profitable one. And not just by the film they eventually produced, but by branding it to an extent. And Abrams is a brand, one with name recognition that’s vastly popular.

And there’s nothing wrong with that mindset, by the way. The film industry is just that. An industry. It exists to make money. If it also happens to make interesting art, well that’s icing on the cake. I just think that, creatively, there were far more interesting choices. (Alfonso Cuarón, anyone?)

Kathleen Kennedy and Disney undoubtedly lobbied Abrams aggressively, as is evidenced by his admission several months ago of having no designs on directing the next STAR WARS, both out of loyalty to TREK and because he wanted to “be a fan” in the audience and not know what was coming. And yet, Kennedy and Disney still pursued him. It makes me wonder what kind of deal it took to secure his involvement.

Hollywood cannibals

Another reason I dislike the choice is that there seems to be something almost morally wrong and off about having the same guy helm two such completely iconic (and different) franchises. STAR WARS is a far more mythological storyline than STAR TREK, and everything Abrams has done to this point has been much more grounded in reality (which, TREK lends itself to more). It’s kind of his thing. I’m not sure he really has the right sensibilities for STAR WARS. You can’t do a gritty, realistic version of STAR WARS. It just doesn’t work. But, beyond that, it feels like Hollywood is cannibalizing itself here. You’ve taken the two most successful, iconic, relevant science fiction franchises in film history…and given them to the same guy. Why not branch out some? There’s a lot of talent out there, and a lot of guys who are a better fit creatively, than simply asking Abrams to punch his time card on something else.

Musically speaking

Another thing that worries me is the possibility of a Michael Giacchino film score, who is seemingly Abrams’ go to composer. Giacchino is decent at what he does, but I don’t think he really has the chops to fill in for John Williams. I’m not suggesting Williams should come back, he’s getting up there in age (though, I wouldn’t complain if he did), but I do think the music to STAR WARS has always been an integral part of the story. The music to those films is beyond epic. Hyperbolic is probably the right word, it’s so over the top, and I mean that in the best possible way. That music defined much of my childhood, and I still listen to it regularly.

Giacchino isn’t a hack, he’s actually very talented, but, like most composers (or artists in general), he has strengths and weaknesses. He’s great with stirring, emotional theme work. No question. It’s one of the reasons LOST resonated so much on an emotional level. But, his contribution to JOHN CARTER, for me, showed he isn’t as great with epic, climactic action music, which, hopefully, Abrams’ STAR WARS will need a lot of.

I just believe that Giacchino is the wrong choice to replace Williams, when there are so many other incredibly talented orchestral composers out there whose style is directly influenced by the man. Sadly, I don’t think all filmmakers really have an affinity or understanding of just how important film music is to a movie. We’ll see if Abrams does or not.

That other Sci-Fi thing he did

But, my biggest worry about Abrams helming STAR WARS is his treatment of his other Sci-Fi staple franchise. I found STAR TREK to be an utterly forgettable film, riddled with plot holes, logic faults, shoddy characterization, a paper thin villain, a disjointed plot structure, and set pieces that felt like they were developed by a committee rather than anyone with a singular vision.

Obviously, I was not a fan.

But, my biggest criticism is the one which worries me the most about Abrams’ involvement in STAR WARS. It is this. The reboot of STAR TREK shows, by anyone involved creatively in that project, no understanding (or a complete disregard) of what STAR TREK actually is.

STAR TREK is, and always has been, a ship based story. The Enterprise is an integral part of that world, indeed, its most critical aspect. Everything should revolve around that ship. It is a character unto itself. But Abrams (and the dynamic duo writing team of Kurtzman and Orci) seem to have approached the idea from the opposite viewpoint. The Enterprise becomes just another ship, an expendable part of the story that no one is very interested in exploring. Traveling to other worlds is a secondary (if not non-existent) concern (which is pretty shocking, considering the second word of the series’ title), replaced with an emphasis on clichéd “Saving the World” plotlines, wrapped up in an uninspired revenge story. The trailer for STAR TREK 2 does nothing to suggest this story will be any different (you don’t even see the Enterprise in that trailer, other than a ship coming out of the water which may or may not be it). In fact, it reconfirms that approach, with the (angering) inclusion of one of the series’ most iconic villains, and a revamp of its most successful past film’s revenge story plotline. Would it have killed Lindelhof, Orci, Kurtzman or Abrams to come up with something original and new, instead of trying to recycle the emotional impact of an almost perfect movie from the 80′s? Apparently, it would have.

Look, I get that it’s a reboot. I get that we’re updating it. But, if you don’t want, at the very least, to stick with the foundational principles of what STAR TREK really is…then why make STAR TREK at all? Why not make something original and unique? Is it just to have a title with brand recognition? The pessimist in me thinks probably so…

In the end, it’s either a failed understanding of a landmark franchise, or complete disregard for the tradition of what made something great. Neither option bodes well for Abrams’ involvement in STAR WARS.

Doom and gloom

But, I’ll be the first to admit I seem to be in the minority who hold this opinion of STAR TREK. The film was a monster hit and I don’t have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I’ve heard people singing its praises, fans and non-fans alike. I’m not sure what lesson I should draw from this. Is it just a question of style over substance? Direct something with a cool enough brand, make it visually cool enough, get enough cool actors to read their lackluster lines in a cool way, have some cool music, and you will rake in a cool audience response? I don’t know. Maybe…

But, it’s not all doom and gloom. For one, Kurtsman/Orci aren’t writing STAR WARS. A major step forward. For all the reasons I think Abrams is an unoriginal choice for the directing chair, Michael Arndt is a pretty interesting choice to pen it. There are far more uninspiring scribes they could have gone to, with a connection to Lucasfilm. I’m looking at you, David Koepp.

And for all its perceived failures as a story, STAR TREK certainly looked great. Abrams has a great visual style, one that’s definitely more sophisticated than George Lucas’. It’s possible (though unlikely with all the chasing around Kennedy/Disney must have done to land him) that Abrams will have less control on the story than he did for TREK. If he has a true willingness to stick with (and be bothered to understand) the heart of what STAR WARS is, and not try and radically revolutionize the entire franchise to something he is more comfortable with, he might turn out to be a great choice.

I understand that the counter argument to that, given the lukewarm reception of the prequels, might be that the franchise needs a radical re-visualization. Touché. I just can’t say I’ll be very interested in watching, if that’s the case. Then again, I doubt Disney really cares. I’m sure it will be a giant success, either way. And STAR WARS does get to live on. That’s no small thing…

Who would have been your dream choice to direct the next STAR WARS?

I think he saved the best for last. It’s a moment fairly early in the book, where we get our first real encounter with the Assembly. The walkers seen here are of the “Mantis” variety, one of many types the alien invaders have in their arsenal. The image also nicely features the book’s two main characters…at an early point in their relationship.

As always, click for the full effect.

I’d like to thank Evan once again for all his effort and energy into making these three really amazing pieces of art. Check the first and second images if you haven’t already.

June 08, 2012 03:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time

 

Director Shane Acker (“9”), Ireland’s Brown Bag Films, Producer Gregory R. Little and Author J. Barton Mitchell Launch Animated Undersea Adventure Film “DEEP”

LOS ANGELES–Today, from the Annecy International Animated Film Festival, Darragh O’Connell, co-founder of Brown Bag Films, announced the launch of “DEEP,” an undersea adventure set in a post-apocalyptic Earth with Shane Acker (“9”) attached to direct. “DEEP” is an animated film unlike any other, produced by a team of industry all-stars including Acker, Ireland’s Brown Bag Films, producer Gregory R. Little and author J. Barton Mitchell, using new technologies that result in high-quality production value at a fraction of the time and cost. The project will be produced by Little and O’Connell.

 

With the feel of an underwater Western, “DEEP” is set in a not-too-distant future when what’s left of humanity has moved undersea to stay alive. The story revolves around the crew of the nuclear submarine Norwood as they race to uncover the secrets behind the Wayfarers, a mysterious splinter group with the potential to wipe out humanity altogether.

 

The DEEP team has been working in collaboration with Valve, one of the world’s most successful video game developers whose hit titles include the Half Life and Portal franchises. Valve has provided the “DEEP” team with new tools and technologies based on the developer’s Source game engine. The tools enable flexible cinematography and editing, a simplified character animation process and economical lighting, sound and visual effects. Render time is cut to nearly nil, enabling rapid revisions to animation, which brings dramatic savings in time and money over traditional production.

 

…

You can see the full press release here. Very excited to be working on such an awesome project with this amazing group of talented people and organizations.

Stay tuned for more stuff, including additional concept art and progress updates on its various pieces and parts.

It’s this: giving that story world a sense of “real”.

Making it feel alive and plausible and vibrant. Making it breathe. I think it plays a role in why a lot of very involved and detailed story worlds simply don’t connect with their readers.

Because, no matter how richly defined your world may be, how many geographic features you invent, how much depth you give its cultures and races, or how many decades of its history you think out – none of it guarantees your creation is something that audiences will get lost in.

So what does guarantee it? First off, I’m not Frank Herbert. I can’t guarantee anything, all I have is my opinion. And my opinion is the following: it’s the details, I think. The little ones. And lots of them.

I’ll explain…

There’s a scene towards the end of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK where the Millennium Falcon is about to rescue Luke Skywalker as he precariously dangles from the bottom of the cloud city, with tens of thousands of feet of nothing below.

As the Falcon comes to a hover under him, Lando Calrissian rides an elevator up through a tight tube to what turns out to be an access hatch on the exterior. Right before he emerges into open air, he pulls a rope from his belt with a clip attached to its end and snaps it into place on a small railing. Clearly, the clip and railing are designed to keep whoever uses the hatch from falling or getting sucked away in whatever turbulence might be outside.

Okay. Fine. But why show this? Isn’t it just a throw away moment?

Lawrence Kasdan, presumably, took the time to write it, and Irvin Kershner covered it with two different shots. Why not just cut straight to the chase and get to what this scene is supposed to be about: Lando rescuing Luke?

Because it’s the small details, like the clip and the safety railing and Lando’s intention of using them, that are the most useful in making a story world feel real, and, by proxy, the story itself.

I don’t know about you, but when I watch that moment (and numerous others like it in that same film), I get a little giddy. I smile internally. I think it’s because my sub-conscious is acknowledging a character doing something practical in a highly fictitious story world. It’s a character not doing something essential to the plot itself (the story goes on with or without this detail), but rather doing something the character would do in a situation if it were indeed real.

You as the reader/viewer acknowledge these moments, consciously or not, and they help you buy into the world you’re watching. The more a creator/writer/author layers his or her work with these kinds of details, the more that world feels as if it really exists, I think, because he or she is illustrating that everything within it operates under a system, and that system usually (but not always) directly relates to a system the reader himself operates under.

My novel MIDNIGHT CITY required a great deal of “world building”, but I also spent an equal amount of energy trying to make that world feel “real” using little details of this kind.

For example, the world contains a geographical area known as the Strange Lands, a place where the laws of physics have broken down and no longer work correctly. It’s a very dangerous place to explore, but certain kinds of treasure hunters have learned how to safely navigate it and bring back things which still exist inside its ruined cities, which they simply call “artifacts”.

Artifacts are everyday items made unique by whatever force created the Strange Lands – paper clips, batteries, pencils, magnets, watches, coins, mirrors, they’re all imbued with strange properties, and, used correctly, can give their owners other worldly abilities. Used wrong or carelessly…and they can hurt you in very bad ways. Items from the Strange Lands can also be combined with each other to make even more powerful artifacts.

All of those elements illustrate world building, at least in regards to one specific area of the story. But they don’t necessary give it a sense of “realism”. After all, they’re some implausible, fantastical ideas to absorb.

I believe it’s the details, the small ones, which help sell the idea (at least, I hope they do).

For example, since artifacts are dangerous things to mess with, the world marks them with a specific symbol (if you’re curious, it’s the little icon next to my URL at the top of your browser). The reason for this should be plain: live (or “active”) artifacts are dangerous, and they’re marked to distinguish them from other everyday items. It’s the same way you mark a bottle of poison or a radioactive isotope in the real world. This detail, that the population takes the time to mark these dangerous items in a special way as a warning, lends a sense of realism. After all, if artifacts and the Strange Lands did exist, this is probably exactly what you would do.

Another moment from THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK comes to mind.

Earlier in the film, when the empire is hunting the Millenium Falcon in the asteroid field near Hoth, we see an establishing shot of star destroyers blasting their way through the maze of rocks. We then see an asteroid slam into one of the big ship’s control centers.

When we cut into Darth Vader’s ship, the Lord of the Sith is having a conference with the captains of his fleet via hologram projections. The captain in one of the projections shudders suddenly…and then his hologram fizzles out.

The conclusion the audience draws from this is obvious: this is the captain of the star destroyer that just got hit, and the impact of the asteroid has damaged something critical. The audience is witnessing the result.

Again, it’s another inconsequential moment as far as the plot goes. But, combined with numerous other small details just like it, it serves to add realism to the story and the world. It’s showing that the world has rules: holographic communication systems are physical things that can be disrupted when giant rocks slam into them.

If you feel your readers are having trouble connecting with your world, consider taking a pass through your script or manuscript to see if opportunities present themselves for layering in little nuggets of realism; small details illustrating that your world, and the characters within it, function under a system of rules.

By themselves, these details may seem trivial, but as a unified force they can generate a powerful subconscious connection to your story on the part of the reader.

While it’s visually stunning, the film itself, sadly, leaves a lot to be desired. Which is a shame. To me, this movie is a tremendous missed opportunity for Disney to establish a dynamic, unique, massively entertaining franchise. And not just a film franchise. Done correctly, LEGACY could have easily transitioned into animated television, video games, books, comics, and additional sequels. The property, at least from a log line stand point, is truly multi-platform.

The original TRON, though flawed, is one of a number of personal catalysts that directly led me to become a writer, and I know it’s the same for numerous other creators. At the time, it was an amazing anthropomorphic imagining of an inanimate environment, and a fairly brilliant one too.

You have to remember that in the early 80′s the computer was still an almost mystical thing. No one was particularly familiar with it, not in the way we are today. In fact in 1982, the same year that TRON released, Time chose “The Computer” as the “Machine of the Year”. That’s how novel it was, and I think it was that unfamiliarity that in part made the film resonate the way it did.

Well, that and light cycles…

TRON attempted to personify the digital world with a mythological slant, which was a pretty ambitious idea. But if you think about the very structured, limited way that software, hardware, and people all interfaced with each other back then, it does fit the mold.

In the film, programs inside a computer system were personified as characters, who thought of their software engineer creators as gods. It allowed for high adventure stories in the mold of Tolkien or even Homer, all the while being wrapped up in a very unique, science fiction aesthetic. TRON still to this day looks like no other film, and is one of a handful of genre movies that probably won’t ever really age.

Because of how new the use of computers was, we were still trying to predict the effect of its course and impact. In some ways, the film spoke to fears regarding the rise of the computer culture and our growing dependence on technology in general.

These days, with computers so prevalent and part of our everyday lives, the mystique surrounding them is kind of gone. It meant LEGACY would have a much more difficult time engrossing a new audience.
Unfortunately, for all its intentions, the film just didn’t pull it off.

One of the main problems I have with it is that it does very little to try and sell the idea of a personified world inside a computer. The original film took pains to do this, especially in terms of the characters it presented us with in the Grid (the name of the story world). What these programs were actually designed to do in the real world was represented in the computer world in cool and interesting ways.

In LEGACY, the programs really do nothing that is at all representative of…well, being programs. They’re bartenders, DJs, audience members at a gladiatorial arena, even businessmen.

Essentially, LEGACY’s programs aren’t all that different from us…they just dress in neon clothes.

And for all the money that went into the film’s (admittedly) very impressive visuals, the ironic thing is that the original’s special effects work much better for the story and the world. They sell the idea in a way that LEGACY’s millions of dollars can’t.

Computer graphics at the time of TRON were at their infancy…and thus primitive. What it resulted in were graphical assets that were not only pixilated but also made primarily out of polygons (geometrical planes of straight edges). Making 3D objects that were rounded and smooth was an incredibly difficult task at the time, computers just didn’t have the power for it.

But I think it was that very primitiveness that made the production design work so well.

TRON was a world populated with angular, pixilated objects that very much looked like what I would imagine an object inside a digital world would look like. They looked digital. They looked electronic. They were clearly graphical constructs of digital parts, they couldn’t be anything else.

In contrast, the world of LEGACY is a highly polished world of rounded corners and smooth lines; distant vistas with flowing mountains that, other than their colors, look similar to our own; vehicles with spinning wheels; flying machines with visible turbines; and characters who sit on couches and eat food at dinner tables.

In its attempt to be visually masterful…it lost something.

It lost the aesthetic idea that what we’re watching is happening in a digital realm. To me the world of LEGACY looks more like a far future version of the physical world than anything inside a computer. It’s beautiful and impressive, but it doesn’t serve the story.

It feels like no one on the creative team thought through just what it was that made the original resonate so much. If you’re going to create a sequel with the hopes of capitalizing on a built in audience…wouldn’t you want to do this?

And it isn’t just the special effects. Honestly, if LEGACY had gotten its story ducks in a row, I wouldn’t even bother complaining about the visuals.

When I think about the story, the biggest problem for me is the choice of villain, which, in the case of LEGACY, sort of pre-determined the narrative. By choosing a generic, digital bad guy, the villain plot (which is what drives this particular story) was also generic and uninteresting.

I mean…really?

The bad guy is going to port over his army of bright neon spear wielding soldiers into the real world and invade it? How does that work anyway? From what I’ve seen of the transportation process in both movies, it takes about three minutes to “undigitize” and reconstruct something back where it came from. And you’re going to do this for millions of soldiers…one at a time? What are they going to do while this Herculean troop movement process goes on? Grab a coffee? And how are these light spears going to help your soldiers (who I assume are now tangible and solid) against their real world equivalents with projectile based weapons?

It’s kind of beyond silly.

Another problem was the removal of the Grid out of Encom’s computer system. In the original, the story took place inside the network of Encom, presented in the movie as a giant technology firm. The villain was an artificial intelligence called the Master Control Program that ran the company’s computer system. And because Encom was a growing, multi-national company with its hands in everything from government infrastructure to defense contracting, the MCP was in a very believable position to do some damage in the real world.

There were actual stakes involved, implausible as they might be.

But in LEGACY, Flynn (the main character from TRON) has built a new Grid inside a computer in the back office of his arcade. And that’s where the story takes place. Not exactly fodder for intense real world drama, is it? The computer’s not connected to anything, so who cares what happens in it?

It feels like the creators struggled with coming up with a novel approach for the sequel. Which is a shame, because, to me, the answer for the narrative is fairly plain.

I mean, it’s right in the title. The movie’s called TRON, after all.

The creators’ primary struggle seems to come from the problem of trying to brand a franchise with a young lead actor, but having to deal with a set-in-stone title that features the name of another character. It’s a legitimate problem. After all, it’s maybe not the best idea to make a $200-million dollar tent-pole franchise film in 2011…with Bruce Boxleitner in the lead role. I get it. But there are ways to address the problem that don’t result in a heavy handed band-aid solution.

One answer to me is fairly obvious. Instead of making a generic villain simply for the surprise value of seeing young Jeff Bridges again…you make the villain Tron himself.

For my money, that’s already a much more interesting narrative. It does what all good sequels should do: turn the original on its ear in some way.

The story now becomes a Heart of Darkness type tale, where your young lead ventures into the Grid after his vanished father (just as it is now) who’s been taken captive by Tron, his former friend and ally, and sets off on an odyssey to free him.

In the original movie, Tron is essentially a revolutionary, struggling to free his world from oppression and tyranny. If you reverse this in the sequel, then it has the built-in thematic material of analyzing how the revolutionary almost always invariably becomes the despot, the very thing he was fighting to overthrow. There are numerous real world examples of this, Fidel Castro being maybe the most obvious.

In addition, your villain’s character arc is pretty self-evident as well. He believes what he’s doing is the right thing, but he’s been corrupted by power. He just doesn’t see it. The story contains his path of self-revelation and redemption, facilitated by the primary story of the main character and his father.

I would also have put the Grid back into the Encom computer system, so that what happens there is actually relevant.

I think this solution would have yielded a fairly novel and compelling narrative, while also legitimately including the very character the movie is named after. As it is now, Tron feels like an afterthought. He’s not really a character at all.

But, of course…they didn’t ask me.

TRON: LEGACY isn’t the first misfire of a tent pole franchise attempt, and it won’t be the last. We’ve already had two this year, one of which deserved it (BATTLESHIP) and another which, quite frankly, didn’t (JON CARTER OF MARS, also by Disney; but that’s a topic for a different blog post).

For me, the failure of LEGACY is more tragic than those two because of its almost limitless potential (had it been done right) and the fact that it’s based on a very influential cult film that’s not only grown to have a tremendous following, but also inspired a whole host of other creators. I wish it could have had the success it deserved back in the 80′s.

Oh well, so it goes. At least Disney got THE AVENGERS right.

The Scorewall and Midnight City, Evan Cagle

In addition, Evan has allowed me to include some exploratory sketches he did as he envisioned and fine tuned the final piece. While not as polished, they’re still interesting glimpses into his working process, and pretty amazing images in their own right.