Jump to content

Talk:Tron/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Timo Maas

Timo Maas has a tron styled music video clip

New Tron annncement

"On January 13, 2005, Walt Disney Pictures announced a new Tron movie (possibly a remake), with more emphasis on the Internet."

Is there a link or some other refrence to back his up? I have found no other reference to a new Tron movie anywhere else. ---KatzztaK 18:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


200.38.162.21 18:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)I'm quite positive it's an error. Tron 2.0 was supposed to be that remake, and it was released in 2003. AFAIK, there are no plans for a new movie.

It wasn't an error. It just never amounted to anything. It was listed in Variety. You can find it on Google by looking up Tron and Variety. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theplanetsaturn (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

200.38.162.21 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)My point is, there was talk of a sequel, but that sequel (Tron 2.0) became the videogame. I corrected the main page.

No... The announcment in Variety i mentioned was from 2005. Long after the video game had been released.Theplanetsaturn 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Saturday Morning Series

I remember that one year the TV Guide in introducing a new saturday morning season said there was a TRON series slated to be introduced if another series failed to get ratings or something.

Video Games

This article mentions that video games were made based off the movie, but it fails to mention some of the popular ones, such as Armagetron and GLTron where would one put these? --JamesGecko

The Legacy section would be a good place. Next time, please sign your post. You can do this with either 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is preferred, as it also leaves a timestamp. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:50, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
The Legacy currently only contains licenced spin-offs. Perhaps a new Games or Unofficial games section should be created? Or maybe the current Legacy section should be renamed Spin-offs and a new Legacy section with otherwise unrelated games that have been influenced by Tron created? sheridan 12:32, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

The Tron video games are more than noteworthy enough to have it's own section, so I'm going to do just that.--Virulent 78 12:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

sections

The plot section currently features an extensive description of the light cycles game. This isn't really part of the plot, so I'm making a note (here) to possibly create a new section - games or contests listing/describing the various computer games 'parodied' in the film. sheridan 12:19, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

p.s. That will include things like the space invaders ships that appear later in the film. sheridan 12:22, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
Note: I decided to rewrite the plot section entirely - there was quite a bit of commentary and a number of assumptions about the characters' motives toward the beginning, and overall the plot summary was very incomplete. You get the basic jist of the various games featured, but in the version I wrote, the emphasis is much more on the overarching storyline, rather than the technical details. KieferSkunk 01:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
(PS: I am *VERY* familiar with this movie - I am a huge fan, and I can quote ALL of the MCP's lines verbatim. ;)) KieferSkunk 01:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

technology

To be able to create the film, Disney acquired the Super Foonly F-1?, the fastest PDP-10 ever made (and there was only one).

The above doesn't make sense. Does it mean it was the fastest of the PDP-10 series ever made, and the designation (of which there was only one) was Super Foonly F-1; that it was the fastest PDP ever made, of which only one was designated PDP-10; that there was only one PDP-10 or Super Foonly F-1 ever made, and by default it was the fastest (in which case it's a bit redundant to say so); or something else? Wish I could correct it, but I wouldn't know what to correct it to. sheridan 12:32, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

User:SteveBaker points out that they could have made the movie with a slower computer - it would just have taken longer. So perhaps this should say "To be able to create the film in the time available..." or something.

I have heard that to speed up calculations the computer graphics was rendered in grayscale and then hand coloured. Anything to back this up? // Liftarn

There are extensive notes about the computer graphics in the Special Edition DVD. I can research this and add more info. — KieferSkunk 01:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Moebius, Mead

Removed "of Silver Surfer fame" because that was just one issue by Moebius and Stan Lee. Blueberry and The Incal are the works Moebius is actually known for. Added reference to Syd Mead.

social commentary

Uh, am I the only one who realized that the plot of Tron is rather heavily salted with an anti-Soviet/Communist theme? The MCP desires control of all functions of information processing. His enforcers limit movement of programs "even within their own system" (i.e. intrastate / "papers please"). His mouthpiece Sark denounces religious belief in the "Users"/creators in favor of demanding loyalty to the MCP's governance (or face "deresolution"/death). Finally, the MCP and his minions are all red in color. Coversely, the "good guys" are blue, have faith in the "Users", and simplistically seek "freedom" for the system. Remember 1982, when many people thought they'd be nuked back to the stoneage at any moment? WarGames was released a year later! --141.158.229.246

So? It was a timely parable. Anything wrong with that? It sure wasn't anything new--the arts have been doing that forever. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
It's also a retelling of Jesus's death with Flynn being Jesus, minus Jesus's resurrection. The system would be Rome, I guess, but as always the similarities are touch and go. All I know is that it helped me define how Jesus "saved" me, as opposed to making me more condemned. (being responsible for the death of a God)

Why was the commentary about the thinly veiled reference to religion versus fascism removed? It added dimension to the plot of the movie that would otherwise have been over-looked by the casual viewer, and showed evidence that it was more intelligent than the average science-fiction movie. It also referred to the overall setting of the movie.

I rewrote the plot summary from the ground up because it was very incomplete, inaccurate and had a lot of discussion in it that really belonged in a different section of the article altogether. Plus, I believe some of what was in that section was subjective at best. We could certainly write a new section to discuss social commentary, though. KieferSkunk 18:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Let's do that. I would welcome the opportunity to add some social commentary about this film. I just do not know the technicality of adding an additional section within the article.

The section is there - I added a stub with a TODO comment. :) KieferSkunk 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
PS: To add a new section header, type == New Section Name ==. KieferSkunk 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's not do that. This is an encyclopaedia, a collection of a sourced facts about reality. It is not a forum for original essays on the symbolism and themes of Tron. You have been a Wikipedia editor for four days. You will learn.

Yeah, then explain me why the symbolism and themes of the Matrix, which was essentially inspired by Tron, are explained. Pikawil 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in because it is only a few short paragraphs, but is essential to the underlying meaning of the movie. Chicago Faucet.

Open Source != Free software

The Armagetron game is under the GNU GPL which makes it free software and not "open source." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosquitopsu (talk • contribs)

Is there a significant difference? The Debian Free Software Guidelines and the Open Source Definition are nearly identical. --Damian Yerrick 23:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The GNU GPL definitely makes it "open-source". Whether it's free that way depends on your understanding of "free". It is not necessarily gratis. However, according to the GNU GPL itself, this is certainly free and open-source software. --82.141.61.74 09:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Unless it's changed significantly recently, I thought the GNU GPL basically said "You can redistribute and modify this software however you want so long as you don't change the original licensing terms." Do I have that right? If so, then it's possible for the software to be both "open source" and "freeware", but the two are not mutually inclusive. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

alternate view

Suggested Revision for the "Alternate View" section. It's formatting does not adhere to Standard Written English, and it's content is disorganized and hard to follow. Also, I don't see the purpose for this being in the Article.

-ShatteredHorizon

Agreed - I've removed it and put the text here, if anyone wants to decipher and format it then go ahead, but I don't see why it should stay. Kiwimade 08:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"Alternative View"

Tron,had a very advanced concept computers,if looked at as the main characters are viruses one sees that the system fights.But at the end when the MCP was defeated and a blue light was sent all over the system,it shows that one little virus(In retrospect of the movie),code error,missapropiate sentence,the smallest tiniest mistake,causes a total system wide change.Highlighting the fact that it changes the computer,it shows a concept 20-30 years in advanced.Many movies have inspired scientific movements and other movements of that nature,but if computer scientists and inventers of that time saw what Tron,pointed out a messege of things to come,and if computer scientists and inventers did something, much of the effects of viruses,malware,and other harmful programs that occur in todays societys would be less effective than,how they are today.

But this also raises the question of,what if the Hacker,Cracker,etc.etc. aquires these alternative history tools.Well the simplist answer would be that since computer scientists and inventors would worry so much and put so much effort into a reliable protective system,and advancing computer technology to stay above the people who make malware.That pretty soon computers of say 1987 would look like todays and have the power of todays computers.It would turn to the style of manufacture and production we see today,which stats that for every basic PC sold on the market it becomes outdated in 4-6 months after the first series is released,Unless the computer was built to be used for years and not become outdated.The point of this is to show that Tron's production and release to the public could have changed the historical fabric of time(for computers) by showing that since computers are(1980's)fragile in terms of computing,why not invent machines more properly and more powerful to accomidate the changes.Computers dident begin to get powerful(i.e. Home use)till around 1995-1996(More or less,off-topic but making a point,when Nintendo64 and Playstation were released,this shows what computing can do).

Although the concept of Tron is not what we would expect 20-30,a hundred,a thousand etc.etc.years from now or in anything but a dream, a thought,and although it was like a Space Odysea,just a movie.It still an intreasting concept that was just a thought.Many ingenius concepts,ideas,revolutionary equipment the list goes on are based on a thought or a mistake.It shows that if it was more it could have been a grandior change.

TRON is (also) short for TRace ON

The title of the movie, TRON was inspired by the BASIC command TRON, short for TRace ON. This command enables the programmer to take a peek at the lines of codes being executed, as it happen.

And it fits all too well with the premise of the movie. I can't believe it wasn't mentioned in the article.

Sure it's also can be interpreted as being short for electron but this is just a nice side-effect that even the BASIC command name inventor was probably aware of. ---vltone 06/05/06

I removed it because TRON command has its own article--it doesn't need to be replicated here. If you feel strongly about it, you can add a short trivia item, but don't go in-depth on how the command works. If you want to wax eloquent on the minutae of the TRON command, do it in the TRON command article. Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Steven Lisberger has explained that he had no idea that TRON was a command. TRON was a character he invented for early animation work, and the name came from the word "electronic". Claiming that TRace ON inspired the movie is like claiming that the group RUN DMC took its name from the BASIC command RUN and the emblem on Delorean motor vehicles, which is also completely false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.218.36 (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Incredibly long excerpt from the comic

Am I the only one, or does anyone else feel the incredibly long excerpt from the comic starting with "PREVIOUSLY" is totally inappropriate? It's 10 paragraphs, for crying out loud, and lengthy quoting—even if it is cited—is dicouraged here on the 'pedia. After all, isn't it available from the website link (which I left in)? Should we include all the text of all of William Shakespeare's plays here on the 'pedia?

Theplanetsaturn seems bent on keeping it in, despite Wikipedia policies. Can anyone else support me in this? I'd like to resolve it here instead of going to an admin. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you check the link that you left in, it does not include that information at all. The synopsis provides a thorough and official history of the Tron universe not found online in any form, unlike the poor example of Shakespeare. By the logic you present, why do we include the detailed synopsis of the film? It is available for rental or purchase, after all.

Even if it isn't available in any online source, it doesn't belong here. The text of The Phantom Tollbooth isn't online anywhere, but we don't include it in that article either. Is the article totally worthless without the lengthy excerpt? No. Could it be summarized? Yes.

I still vote to nix it. Even though it's cited, it's so long it borders on copyright infringement, even if it never made it into circulation. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Length is not really an issue, any more than external availability. Again, if we apply the same logic to the rest of the article, the very lengthy summary of the entire film should be deleted as well. This synopsis introduces relevant history to the Tron universe and much of it is not found elsewhere.
If you want to summarize it, then do so. Much better than the blanket deletion you had previously applied. But if the summary seems lacking, I will either expand upon it, or re-add the earlier information altogether.

Still think this one should go. The argument about a synopsis of the film has no merit; it is a summary in one's own words. What you're doing with this excerpt is lifting an entire copyrighted segment of text. And yes, length 'is' an issue; it's one of the criteria used in determining a copyright violation. In addition, it's disproportionately long compared to the rest of the article. PacificBoy 22:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not copyright violation because I recieved permission from the publisher to list this. Subsequently, I still hold that length is not an issue in this regard. As I said to Frecklefoot, If you want to summarize it, then do so. But if the summary seems lacking, I will either expand upon it, or re-add the earlier information altogether.Theplanetsaturn
It doesn't matter if you received permission or not. Did the publisher release it under the GFDL? I doubt it. If not, it can't be included. AFAIK, Wikipedia doesn't have a copyright-but-with-permission allowance. I still think it should be paired down to a paragraph at most in length and the rest nixed as a copyright violation (whether or not the publisher gave you "permission").
Next, please sign your name with a timestamp. It helps keep posts sorted out. You can do this with four tildes (~~~~). Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how many times I have to say it (particularly as I already made it clear to you once). If you want to summarize it, then do so. Much better than the blanket deletion you had previously applied. But if the summary seems lacking, I will either expand upon it, or re-add the earlier information altogether. Now, you want to throw around your interpretation of policy while showing a history of practicing blanket deletion, be my guest. But don't blame me for reintegrating the information. The information is relevant to the subject. If you feel the presentation is inappropriate, then make the necessary changes. I have never stood in the way of this standard practice. Theplanetsaturn 19:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I thought my text gave a much better "summary" of the long piece, but I'm not going to change it anymore. Glad we got this resolved. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought your summary was fine, but much like the original summary directly from the comic, recovered ground detailed in the film or video game synopsis. I edited those parts down to avoid further redundancy, and readded the much shorter quote for clarity over the one piece of info I think is not covered elsewhere. Hope this version works okay for you.
I'm all for the back and forth editing process. Makes for better information, I think. :) Theplanetsaturn 19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Love?

The trivia section says that Tommy Tallarico is "in love" with Tron. I can find no information to back this up, and I suspect vandalization by someone who's not too fond of him.

Dark Mythril 07:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statement, I couldn't find if it was vandalism or not. Since it was unsourced, it can be removed without trouble. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

sound

I know I read somewhere once that some of the music in TRON was created on APPLE II and ATARI home computers. Has anyone else ever hear or read that anywhere? 163.192.21.44 16:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, they wouldn't have been capable of the wide range she used. Wendy used analog synthesisers for composing Tron, and there are several interviews from the time up at her site. --Marty Goldberg 17:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Redoing my reply: I am the son of the person who invented the Alpha Syntauri (an affordable wave synthesizer for the Apple II). Chances are that the link between Apple and Atari computers above is accounted for by the synth's name (Alpha Syntauri, which sounds kinda like Atari). There is a common rumor, one I've believed personally for years but have not been able to confirm, that Wendy used the Syntauri for some relatively minor aspects of the film's score. But there is no official source that either confirms nor debunks this claim - all I have to go on really are rumors floating around the 'Net and my own father's claims of pride that his invention was used in a major motion picture.
I've actually sent an email to Wendy Carlos through her website asking if she could describe her experience with this synth (or tell me that she never used it). If/when I receive a response, I'll post it here.
I haven't checked to see if the Alpha Syntauri has its own article here on WP - if it doesn't, I'll probably start one at some point. But in a nutshell, the Syntauri is a MIDI-like keyboard controller (long before MIDI itself came around) that hooks up to an expansion card for the Apple II. This card is essentially a waveform-synthesis sound card driven by custom software on the computer, so the computer plays host to the card but doesn't do the synthesis itself. Unfortunately, this synth was well ahead of its time at the time and did not do well in the commercial market, and it faded into obscurity when the market embraced the MIDI standard and wavetable synths and samplers. I personally have one of the original prototypes, but unfortunately no Apple II to run it on, and at this point I doubt the floppy disks are good anymore. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
An update on this: I sent another message to Wendy more recently and got a reply in email. It might also show up on her site at some point, but the gist of it is that she did not use the Syntauri or any other computer-based synths during the production of TRON, and that any claims that she did are rumors and urban legends.
I'd be interested to know if this or any other rumors about her instrumentation are proliferating anywhere on the 'Net, and if those rumors are at all in the realm of WP:N. If they are, and if Wendy posts her reply to my email on her website, we'll be able to use that as a reference. (Can't do anything with it except post here about it now since email obviously doesn't a reliable source make.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

I've proposed a move of this page and Tron. See talk:Tron#Requested move for discussion and survey. Please don't reply here so that discussion is kept together.

Peter Isotalo 16:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What level may that be?

It says that there is a bonus level in Super Smash Bros. Melee that resembles something from TRON. What level is that? Final Destination? Battlefield? What? Lordofallkobuns 11:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a bonus stage in Adventure mode - the third one in the game before you go through the last three battles. It basically just looks like a set of flat polygonal walls with bright borders, and the music accompanying this stage is reminiscent of Wendy Carlos's work for TRON. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You mean Race to the Finish? Lordofallkobuns 11:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Also, the same Tron-like music can be heard in one of the main levels, the name of which I forget at the moment. It's the platforms level that you fight the 10-man and 100-man melees on, against the wire frames. The game seems to pick randomly between two music tracks on this level, one of which is the Tron-like score. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Novel?

I own a version of this story as a book, in paperback. Is this a novelization of the movie, or was the movie a derivative of the novel? And should this be added as trivia or some such in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.255.106 (talk • contribs)

I'm fairly certain the movie was an original work, though I could be wrong. Yes, mention of a novelization should be included in the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we still need the maintenance tags on Trivia?

Since the {{toomuchtrivia}} tag was added to this article's Trivia section, that section has been cleaned up considerably. Do we still need this tag there now? I say we don't, now that most of the non-Trivia and section-specific trivia (like production notes and video-game references) have been moved to more appropriate sections. The trivia that remains is true Tron trivia, such as two of the main actors meeting again in Babylon 5 and the TRON BASIC command. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing the trivia tag for now. If people believe it needs to be put back, go ahead and put it back, and discuss it here. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Visual Effects

I'm curious exactly what they did to create that glowing effect. I came on here to find out for a quick referance and there was nothing...I am shocked! Shocked and filled with awe by the disproportionateness of useless trivia to meaningfull knowledge! 65.54.155.58 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Production section, which describes the backlit animation process they used to produce the scenes inside the computer world. That's how the glow was created. And keep in mind that one man's useless trivia is another man's meaningful knowledge. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the flickering of the character images, I remember reading on the interet somewhere (of which I unfortunately don't have the reference for anymore), that the problem that caused the flickering was that the cells were organized in order within boxes, of which they were following the ordering, but that they overlooked that they were supposed to use the boxes of cells in a particular order. Once they figured that out, it eliminated most of their flickering problems. You'll see that some sequences are far worse than others in terms of flickering.

Tron Fan Site discussion

Been seeing a revert war about this link:

One person keeps adding the link, saying fan sites are allowed under WP policy. Another person keeps removing the link because it isn't "encyclopedic". So here's my take - please discuss and come to a consensus before making a decision about the disposition of this link.

On one hand: The site in question is arguably one of the best-known fan sites on the Internet devoted to Tron. And considering that Tron has such a large cult following, it may be appropriate to include this link, as it opens the door to a lot of materials fans of the film would find interesting - trivia, get-togethers, games, discussions, costumes, derivative plots, etc. Some official information about the film can be found on this site as well. (Note: I am not promoting the site itself, but rather providing one point of view as to why its presence in the article can be justified.)

On the other hand: It *is* a fan site, not an official Tron site, and as such it does not provide a substantial source of official information about the film. From what I've seen, WP strives to be bound only to official sources of information, and not to information provided by fans.

Personally, I feel the link to TRON-Sector should stay, as it represents a large portion of the film's cult following and its fan base - part of why the film has remained popular to this day. It's a grey area, to be sure. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. People don't come to Wikipedia looking for information on Tron bobblehead dolls. Fan sites are largely unremarkable and 99% unencyclopedic. This particular fan site is no different. The editor who continues to readd the link was the person who inititally added it [1] and has reverted any attempt to remove it since that time [2] [3]. I am not the first to remove this site, he simply continues to add it back. IrishGuy talk 19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia: External Links "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such." Frankly, that's the end of the discussion. And by the way IrishGuy, I am NOT the person who intially added this link. Please research your facts before making ridiculous claims.Theplanetsaturn 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, WP:EL doesn't say that so it isn't really the end of discussion. What it does state under "Links normally to be avoided" is: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. and Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". How is a fan site anything other than "unverifiable research"? How does your fansite provide a unique resource beyond that the article would containt were it a FA? IrishGuy talk 19:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Because, especially in this case, it represents the cult following of the film, which IS a significant portion of this film's WP article. The same cannot be said of all movies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
A simple mention of the cult following with media links to illustrate the fact would be far more encyclopedic than one guy's fansite. IrishGuy talk 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a direct quote, copied and pasted from Wikipedia: External Links "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such." And by the way, it's not MY website. Thansk for making ridiculous assumptions though!Theplanetsaturn 19:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:EL. That quote isn't there. And stop adding the site back until this discussion has reached some level of consensus. IrishGuy talk 19:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
[4]"If there are many fansites for the topic covered by the article, then providing a link to one major fansite (and marking the link as such) may be appropriate.". Apparently, this aspect of the rules has been deleted since the time I reasearched this originally. As for consensus, we currently have one. It's simply not the one you would prefer. Until there is a consensus supporting the removal of the link, there is no reason not to include this information.Theplanetsaturn 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It has been removed numerous times. You are the only one who readds it. That is hardly consensus for inclusion. The link doesn't belong. It isn't encyclopedic. You have been informed of this but you simply ignore other editors and add it back anyway. IrishGuy talk 20:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
2 to 1 does not make a consensus, Saturn. I support leaving the fansite link there, but I also agree with Irishguy, that other people have also removed that link in the past, meaning that there are more than just Irishguy that feel it doesn't belong. That's the point of this discussion - to get more than just the two of you (and now myself) involved, and to come to a real consensus on the issue. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
@Irishguy: As I recall, before this conflict here only one other editor and I had issue over the inclusion of this information. And I supported the inclusion of the information based on the guidelines of the time, which that particular user was in violation of. If you could bother to look past your miscomprehension of my motivations, you'll see that I deleted other links as they violated the specific rule of ONE fansite link and I deleted aggrandizing descriptions of said fansite. You act as if I am on some crusade for the inclusion of this, and that I am the lone supporter of this. You repeatedly allege that this is MY website, that I initially added the information. All of these things are misleading and incorrect and your suggestive tone in this discussion is only diminishing the quality of the discussion. The rules allowed for the inclusion of this information when I made my prior reverts. I have shown this clearly. So you dredging up these reverts as if they were somehow not according to guidelines is a poor attempt at misdirection. Discuss why this is valid or why this is invalid. But knock off poor attempts at defining my motives.Theplanetsaturn 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
As I noted above, under "Links normally to be avoided": Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. and Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". How is a fan site anything other than "unverifiable research"? How does the fansite provide a unique resource beyond that the article would containt were it a FA? IrishGuy talk 20:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
"You have been informed of this." The rules at the time supported the inclusion of the website. Frecklefoot's deletion was in direct violation of this. You pretending this was not tehe case does not alter the facts.Theplanetsaturn 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the current rules and the inclusion of a link to the site, I cannot justify it's inclusion. I do support the inclusion of this site because I support the past rule of linking to a limited number of fansites. The rules as they stand now do not expressly prohibit the inclusion, and this appears to be a notable source of information for the film and it's impact. But lacking any strict guidelines in this matter, I'll leave the justification for those more inclined to dissect the unspecific nature of todays interpretation. The fact that the guidelines of Wikipedia have just been shown to be extremely malleable leaves me with teh belief that strict adherence to those guidelines is rather pointless. Perhaps tomorrow the rules will simply change again, and whatever criteria we use to make our conclusion will become invalid.Theplanetsaturn 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is why I'd like to get more opinions involved in this discussion. We don't have enough people right now for any sort of a consensus. By coming to a real consensus either way on this matter, we can not only make sure the decision was made logically and fairly, but we may also be able to help set a precedent for future policy decisions of this type. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What we do have is the slippery slope style argument of what might happen if we allow this one major fansite. In some cases, this concern might be valid. But let's be realistic. The page has stood with the one major fansite for months without this concern evolving into the reality. At what point do we disallow content on "what might happen"? In short, we need a stronger justification as the guidelines do not expressly prohibit the inclusion, and there is at least a precedent set from prior versions of the guidelines.Theplanetsaturn 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) Also: It appears that the policy you're quoting, Saturn, was removed last October - more than six months ago. You can't quote a policy as justification if it's not current and hasn't been current for such a long time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Didn't I make this clear myself just a short while ago? "Apparently, this aspect of the rules has been deleted since the time I researched this originally." Yup. I sure did. Until that moment, I was unaware of this particular policy change. As soon as I discovered this, I posted the fact that policy had changed without my awareness. Since that point, I have not used this to justify the inclusion of said information. However, the fact remains that this WAS the rule at the time, and Irishguy repeatedly pointing to me upholding policy when it WAS still policy as evidence of me ignoring modern policy is bullshit of a high level.Theplanetsaturn 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, calm down and don't shoot the messenger here, please. You're dangerously close to violating other behavior policies as it is. (Both of you, actually.) Now... whether it WAS policy at the time or not does not change the fact that it's not policy now, and thus Irishguy was in the right based on the current policies. I believe he tried to point out that the policy didn't currently exist a couple of times before you realized that. So I can see how he'd believe that you were deliberately ignoring it - even if you weren't, the way you came across sorta made it look like that.
You'd have a point if Irishguy had not continued with his allegations AFTER I had made clear that the rules had been altered AFTER I had used said rules to justify the inclusion of the webiste link with Frecklefoot. Painting the scenario as one of me ignoring another editors appeal to the rules is nothing more than a misrepresntation of the facts.Theplanetsaturn 21:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Except your interpretation of policy is flawed. While the old guidelines did allow for one major fansite, they didn't forbid the removal of the link. You are claiming it was removed against policy. That isn't true. Nor was there any discussion on this talk page to underline why that specific link deserved to stay while others didn't. IrishGuy talk 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of the brief instance last October, the policy allowed for one major fansite, and it was deleted without discussion on the talk page and with a justification that ignored the policy. I reverted the deletion and cited the guidelines that allowed the inclusion. If an editor is going to delete information that is allowed under the guidelines, they should have been the ones to instigate discussion, hopefully justifying the removal without ignoring relevant qualifiers in Wikpedia Guidelines. Suggesting that the inclusion was allowed but that the removal was also allowed simply because it was not expressly prohibited is fallacious. It is implicit that information allowed by the guidelines should not be deleted without just cause or discussionTheplanetsaturn 21:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What we have now is a LACK of policy (the EL page does not state that fansites are allowed, nor does it explicitly bar them), so now we have to interpret the remaining rules, and I believe Irishguy does have a point that, important a fansite as it might be, this site doesn't contribute valuable information directly to the article's content. Plus, while TRON-Sector is one large, well-known and well-staffed fansite, it's far from the only one with a significant following. By excluding fansites altogether, we avoid a potential conflict on which fansite should be considered THE representative fansite of the Tron community. IMO, that's probably a better ground to take here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That is basically why it isn't on the WP:EL page anymore. Arguments were rampant with various sides fighting over which single fansite should be allowed. With any given subject, there is very rarely one clear fansite that is larger and more informative than all others. Either articles become linkfarms, or the talk pages become battlegrounds (an example here). It is easier just to keep them out entirely. Any information that is essential can simply be referenced within the article itself. IrishGuy talk 21:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
And it is worth noting that this has not been an major problem on this particular article. Some websites were cut, while one major fansite was allowed. But other than the occasional reintroduction of deleted material, there has been little discussion or conflict over the decision to leave this particular website and no other. In short, that is a bridge that can be crossed when we come to it. If a full scale war over which fansite should take prominence erupts, I will happily cast my vote in favor of the strict removal of all such fansites.Theplanetsaturn 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
IrishGuy said: "People don't come to Wikipedia looking for information on Tron bobblehead dolls. Fan sites are largely unremarkable and 99% unencyclopedic." Well, I'm sure IrishGuy would say I'm biased (since I run a fan site for another topic -- unfortunately I can't mention what the fan site is or IrishGuy will scream at me for spamming everyone with my site...). Anyway, as a fan of many topics I do want to see fan sites after reading Wikipedia articles. And I would surely disagree that 99% of fansites are unworthy of visiting. Of course we don't need pages of fansites of dubious quality, but surely for many topics there are a couple leading fansites of long-established quality that would warrant inclusion. It certainly would benefit visitors. And, FWIW, could my vote for including the fansite in the TRON article.Kevin Crossman 00:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Your links were removed because you were promoting your own websites. I am absolutely amazed that you would look through my contributions and come here and vote to keep another fan site....not that you would be using this discussion to try and eek your links back into articles or anything. IrishGuy talk 00:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You know, I can't win with you. If I don't mention that I run a fan site, you tell me I need to disclose. When I disclose you claim I am promoting the site (even though I didn't even include a link). So, which is it? Kevin Crossman 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you ever think that maybe I was a fan of TRON? Kevin Crossman 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You are a fan of Tron who just happened to come upon this thread having to do with fansites...and made your first edit here after your own fansites were removed from other articles? Sure, it is possible. But the coincidence is rather large don't you think? IrishGuy talk 17:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Irishguy, WP:Assume good faith plz. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this discussion is bound for the archives. :P Here's my opinion, though: Saturn strongly feels that TRON-Sector should be linked. Kevin wants other sites to be linked. I can probably find a dozen other fan sites that are arguably "major" sites as well. How major are they? How do they compare to TRON-Sector? Quite frankly, it doesn't matter - the fact that there's room for disagreement, room for dispute on which fan site should be linked - is reason enough in my mind to disallow any such links. I'm no longer in favor of keeping that link. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel strongly that it should be linked? I clearly stated that my primary reason for supporting the link was that it was policy the last time I looked. I was unaware that policy had changed. I feel that the allowance for one fansite of note should be included within the guidelines, but I thought I made it 100% clear that I would not be in favor of this policy if it meant it would lead to multiple fan sites vying for attention. Now Irishguy has advanced the slippery slope argument that this parade of insistence WILL happen. KieferSkunk is adopting this view as well. But it most be noted that they are the ONLY ones advancing this. The supposed hordes demanding equal attention have yet to materialize. If they do, then mark me down for the removal of any and all links to fansites. In regards to whatever personal feud apparently exists between Kevin Crossman and Irishguy, I see now that Irishguy has a habit of accusing individuals of promoting their own websites. Perhaps justified in the instance of Kevin. However, a word of advice for you next time Irishguy, not everyone making an effort to uphold policy as they know it is indulging in self promotion. All your repeated accusations and inferences that I was exhibiting this behavior have done is create a hostile environment for discussion. Antagonizing individuals in such a presumptuous manner is a poor way to contribute to Wikipedia. You can be as "amazed" as you want at another editors behavior, but when you repeatedly purposefully misrepresent peoples past arguments out of context, it calls your "amazement" into question. In short, why act surprised that anyone would search for new arenas to argue with you when you act in such a provocative manner? @Kevin Crossman: If you're using wikpedia to promote your own fansites then you are part of the problem. I don't mean to be rude, but in my opinion you should not edit articles you have a close personal connection to.Theplanetsaturn 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Saturn's assessment of this discussion - it has become quite hostile. You all need to back off and approach this more logically and rationally - accusing one another of assuming bad faith is not helping anyone in this situation.
Saturn: I don't agree that we're on a slippery slope here. While we still don't have a clear consensus on the matter, I'm taking the viewpoint that whether or not such a "horde" shows up, it may be best to avoid that eventuality entirely. Unlike movie articles such as Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (which links to a fansite that is undisputed in its community as a primary source of important information), I do not believe that TRON-Sector qualifies as the same kind of site at this point. Furthermore, you can see just by the level of contention in this discussion that we're unlikely to come to a full agreement just amongst ourselves, and so my opinion is to take the safer route and not link the site. Note that I do not set policy, and the policy is not clear-cut in this case, so I'm not in a position to hand down a decision. I'm simply making an argument for my own viewpoint. But if the revert war continues, I will get a WP admin involved, and he/she can make a more official decision. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I am an admin. Fansites are removed constantly because they fail WP:RS and they rarely bring anything of value to the articles. As you noted, TRON-Sector isn't Theforce.net. It isn't a universally recognized site and therefore the inclusion of this link as opposed to another fan site would be based on personal opinion....and that isn't neutral or encyclopedic. IrishGuy talk 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I was unaware of your status as an admin. Knowing that now, I must say I'm a little disappointed with the way you've been participating in this discussion. But that's all I'll say on that. I agree with your viewpoint about the fansite, and I'll help to keep the article clean, unless (like I said earlier) a clear consensus pointing the other direction is reached sometime in the future. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I lost patience with Theplanetsaturn rather quickly and that was unfair. For that I apologize to him. Kevdo, however, is a blatant single purpose account. He is here to promote his own views and websites for lip balm and "frat pack". As his links were removed, he has now taken to attempting to find any loophole in other article so he can get his own WP:COI links restored. IrishGuy talk 19:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Irishguy: "For that I apologize to him." - Appreciated. My apologies as well.Theplanetsaturn 20:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Truly, I shouldn't have lost my patience like that. I really do apologize. IrishGuy talk 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Took a bit to find, but here is relevant information regarding this website and it's status as fansite versus offical. I would say this information negates the reasoning for removal. I'll leave this for two more days for opinions, but barring a logical argument against I will revert the article to include the website.Theplanetsaturn 09:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Compositing CGI with Live Action

Because the technology to combine computer animation and live action did not exist at the time, these sequences were intercut with the filmed characters.

This point is not really valid. In terms of compositing images on film, computer animation is not more difficult to combine with live action footage than for example, live-action bluescreen shot with another live-action background. Travelling matte has been used since 50's... With proper motion control - cgi combination many shots would have looked much better...

I think the point was that digital compositing didn't exist at the time, so they would have had to use older composition methods. There is at least one scene where a computer-rendered image appears on screen at the same time as a live character (the one I'm thinking of is where the Bit flies over Flynn's head in the damaged Recognizer), so they did do some compositing. But I'm not sure if they made it clear what method they used to do that.
You're probably right that the fact needs to be rewritten for clarity, though. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I remember reading somewhere that the company that created Bit, printed out mattes and pictures of Bit for compositing and animating.--Mr. Sinistar 21:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Forbidden Matrix

I believe there was an Adventures in Odyseey video from about 2001 called "Escape from the Forbidden Matrix" in which two main characters (Dylan and Sal) somehow get hold of a beta-version of a program resident geek Eugene Meltsner was working on, and somehow they got trapped into a Tron-like universe. Add? WAVY 10 21:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Legacy = Trivia?

Why do people keep adding a {{trivia}} tag to the Legacy section? That section describes, by and large, this film's cultural impact, so it is more than just mere trivia. There is an actual Trivia section further down on the page that would be more deserving of this tag (and I think it already has one). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Article trivia

This article is one of the worst examples of trivia and why it should be avoided. Everything in and below the Legacy section is trivia. Any relevant information should be convered to prose and moved into the article (including creating new sections as needed). Bulleted lists of information like this is not enycylopaedic. /Blaxthos 08:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A question, then: How do you propose that we incorporate such trivia as "Two actors from this film would star together again in Babylon 5" and "TRON is a BASIC command meaning "Trace On"? There are a lot of pieces of loosely related trivia that help explain how this film is notable, and without them, the film has very little going for it. In some cases, the film's following and the things it makes references to (as well as the things that reference it) are more notable than the film itself. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Blaxthos. The majority of information in that section is trivia. As for notability, I think the films place within the history of digital effects alone is enough without showing the endless stream of irrelevant references in pop culture. The legacy section should cover official Tron material that has surfaced since the original film (game, comic, park attraction), not how it had a wink and a nod in a Family Guy episode or a limited edition track jacket. This section should be purged.Theplanetsaturn 19:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
What about notable video game references, such as Metroid Prime 2: Echoes, which contains an entire section evidently inspired by Tron's visual style? And if we decide to keep references like that, where do we draw the line? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't really say any of these things are notable. Simply pointing to the fact that this film has had tremendous impact on many aspects of the entertainment industry is sufficient. And this can be integrated into the main article rather than consisting of a subsection.Theplanetsaturn 22:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I realize this is for the film page, but I might suggest following guidelines similar to the Pop Culture Citatins guidelines at the Video Games Wiki Project's guidelines. And I agree, I think it looks rather haphazard and encyclopedic with all those bullet points. It'd be much better served integrating much of the worthwhile material in to actual entry paragraphs. Just taking a quick gander under "Video Games" section for example, the entire lead 6 points (from Atari's plans for a space paranoids game to the Game Boy Advance release) could be put in to paragraph form discussing the movement of Tron in to actual video game format and properties. Under "Games that reference Tron" the only things of note I see are the Square Enix, Virtual Magic Kingdom, NetHack, and Deus Ex are of any note. The rest are all non-notable "bears a strong resemblance" or "appears to have been inspired by". So I think its quite feasible to cut down, rewrite, and reorganize. --Marty Goldberg 07:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Did they include a Dexter's Laboratory episode with an obvious homage to Tron? If it wasn't included, I think they should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.76.103.97 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I just went ahead and deleted all the trivia, since it really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. That and it wasn't sourced. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I restored most of the Video games section - specifically, all of the direct Tron games and the information about Kingdom Hearts II. KH2 is notable because it directly uses the world of Tron (wasn't just inspired by it). All of the information in that section can be easily sourced. However, I did not restore any of the "video game references" items, since those are more difficult to source and are less likely to be notable. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It'd probably be good to move this section to prose formate as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

20th Anniversary DVD?

This article does not mention the 20th Anniversary DVD, save for a passing mention in the bit about the planned sequel, TRON 2.0. I feel that this deserves a mention, as most film articles contain them. --Schmendrick (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

TRON character merge discussion

Since nobody appears to have started a discussion about merging Tron (character) with this article, I figured I'd start it.

  • Support: The character page discusses multiple characters within the movie, not just TRON, and also goes into depth about his role in Kingdom Hearts II. The article appears to be mostly WP:OR and fancruft, and is written almost entirely from an in-universe POV. If you remove the extra characters and boil down the rest to what is relevant to the out-of-universe POV that articles like this should be written from, there's probably not a whole lot left. I do think that a viable alternative to deleting the other article would be to create a "Characters in the Tron universe" article, but only if we can demonstrate notability of more than one or two of those characters. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Tron (character) makes an appearance in kingdom hearts. This article is for the film; not the characters. If one of the characters (but not all) makes an appearance in a different series, that should be noted on the character page; not for the film which the character came from. RC-0722 communicator/kills 15:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree: The character TRON does indeed show up in KH2, but I don't see why that necessarily merits a separate article about the character. IMO, it would be most appropriate to mention his appearance in the KH2 article and link to the movie article, where his original context is clearly described. As I said above, without going into a large amount of in-universe prose and trivia that is more relevant to the game than the character, a TRON character article wouldn't have much in it, and it doesn't make sense to have a stub like that. (Compare Samus Aran, who has many notable appearances in multiple games and media and quite a bit of verifiable information about her as a character, not just her roles in her various games.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wrong question: I don't care so much about where there's a separate Tron (character) article or not. What I would like is for more consistency on the issue of which Tron characters get their own pages. It's pretty weird for a bunch of characters to be lumped into the Tron (character) page, while Sark and the Master Control Program get their own. And the humans seem to be pretty much ignored. Maybe there could be a single Tron characters article with data on every character instead of the current setup. Hiergargo (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support For the reseaons above. RC-0722 communicator/kills 15:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: I would argue all of the sub-articles are unneeded. The movie covers the character's contributions to the plot in sufficient detail, and all that remains in the sub-articles is unsupported fancruft. Merge and delete. Maury (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Result: Merge

This discussion has been going on since January, and it looks like we have a strong consensus at this point to merge the character article with the film article. I'll go ahead and perform the merge as time allows. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Major cleanup

I've gone through and cleaned up several sections of this article. For example, the cast section listed too many inconsequential actors so I removed them (people can go to the IMDB if they want more) and fixed most of the citations so that they are properly formatted. I plan to add more to the Production section and added proper citations as there are several paragraphs with none.--J.D. (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

TR2N page - why has it been removed?

Why have we suddenly 'lost' the TR2N page that had been painstakingly created over the weekend? Would someone care to explain?--Gaunt (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it isn't lost. See this objection to the merger. Ottre (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Where did the actual merge discussion take place? It looks to me like it was just unilaterally merged without discussion in any article namespace or WP:CSD, so if there are objections to it, I'd recommend we undo the merge and go through the process of discussing why it should be merged.
That said, the version that was up before the merge appeared to have several problems relating to WP:CRYSTAL, mainly that WP is not a place for speculation and rumors. Aside from the teaser trailer at ComicCon and the stub IMDB entry, very little official information exists about the movie right now. With little to no official info to go on, a short paragraph or two in the main Tron article seems appropriate. We can always split it back out into its own movie article when there's more official info on it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge content

I am about to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sark (Tron) as redirect to Tron (film). It was suggested that this information - from Sark (Tron), Bit (character), and Master Control Program (Tron) - be merged either into this main article or to a new, separate one, such as Characters of Tron. I presume that you interested folks can hash out here the best place to merge this content, which can be accessed via page history on each of these redirected articles. Tan ǀ 39 20:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Light Cycle

This article has very little notability, and would boost the content of this article if included here instead. It would help create a Good article, and eliminate a permanent stub. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 17:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral on this one. The light cycle concept has extended fairly far beyond just the scope of this movie (there have been quite a few official and homebrew games surrounding the light cycle arena), so limiting the scope of the concept's discussion to just this movie article might be too limiting. On the other hand, nearly all references I've seen on them have pointed back to the movie, so it's a toss-up. I agree that we can get to GA status partly by including info on the light-cycles, but I also think that we're in danger of over-bloating the article with trivia again by going into depth about the movie's fictional elements - we already had a problem with that before. This is one of those grey areas where it's hard to know what the right balance is. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been a long time since anyone had anything to say about this, so what is the verdict? magnius (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think based on the lack of response and the fact that the current Light Cycle article consists mostly of information that is (or can be easily) covered here, other unsourced information and trivia, and hardly any unique info, that the article should be merged. The trivia that's listed there is not sufficient IMO to warrant a separate article, for the same reason that some of the characters were merged. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
So, will you do the merging, KieferSkunk? PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and merged the articles. magnius (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Chess program"

Dumont: Yes, I'm old... old enough to remember when the MCP was just a chess program. He started small and he'll end small!
Sark: Very funny, Dumont – maybe I should keep you around just to make me laugh!

IT WAS A JOKE. WillOakland (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, I see the joke with "He started small and he'll end small". I also believe he was once a chess program. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I hate to spoil the party, but this isn't a forum. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This isn't forum material, it's a discussion directly related to the article on the purpose of improving it. -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how pointing out that Sark's comment was a joke is anything more than trivia. Since we're not including that exchange in the article to begin with, and the exchange doesn't contribute significantly to either Sark's or Dumont's notability as characters, this info really doesn't have anything to do with the article in its present form. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
One thing that has always been a bit confusing is what happens at the end of the film when the MCP "de-rezes" after being killed by Tron. His big red head collaspes into a computer chair and there is an old man with a moustache that is seen for a few seconds then he disappears. I have always wondered who exactly that was. He doesnt appear as a real world person so I wonder if its the original programer of the chess program that Dumont talks about. Opinions? -OberRanks (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Since the MCP had been assimilating ("appropriating", in the movie's jargon) other programs into itself, if there was any significance to the face shown, it was likely to be some sort of amalgamation of all sorts of different programs' representations, so it would likely not map to any real-world programmer's face at that point. According to an exchange between Dillinger and the MCP, though, Dillinger wrote the MCP, starting it as a chess program.
Stepping into WP:OR and WP:FORUM for a moment, there are two reasonable explanations for the way the MCP and Sark are represented in the movie, given what the viewer knows from the dialogue: (1) Dillinger wrote both the MCP and Sark (hence Sark's likeness to Dillinger), and the MCP went on to evolve into something greater than Dillinger's original design. (2) Sark may have been created directly by the MCP, passing Dillinger's likeness to him while it went on to evolve.
That said, further discussion on this should be moved to a forum because this is not actually relevant to the article as it stands right now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Fine. Give us a forum! Wikipedians deserve their own forum! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.48.167 (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit details for 8/29/08 at 2:32pm PDT

Regarding this edit:

  • Two important details about the MCP: It was originally written by Dillinger ("Now wait a minute, I wrote you!"), and it is a self-evolving program ("I've gotten 2,415 times smarter since then."). It's important to note these points about the MCP in the plot summary, though I'm not sure if we need a citation for the second point.
  • The terms "de-resolute" and "de-resolve" are never used in the film. The only term used to refer to killing a program is "de-rez" ("de-rezzes", "de-rezzed"), which leaves itself open to interpretation as to what it means. Since to my knowledge we have no official source that states what this term means or what its expanded form is, I think it's best that we stick with using the term as stated in the movie.
  • Dillinger doesn't refuse to reinstate Alan's access to Group 7 - he simply tells him to be patient.
  • Flynn doesn't convince Alan and Lora that Dillinger and the MCP are dangerous - he simply tells them that he's been wronged and is trying to prove it. About the only implication in this exchange that Dillinger and the MCP are actually dangerous might be that Dillinger is on a "meteoric rise" through the ENCOM ranks and most everything is run by the MCP. ("Well, now there's nothing to stop him.") But there's no exposition in this scene that should impart any danger to anyone here. (The MCP's supposedly evil intentions aren't revealed until later, and outside Alan and Lora's context.)

Hope this helps. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, turns out I'm wrong on the "de-rez" comment: Sark, in his speech to the group of Programs, says "If you lose your disc or fail to follow commands, you will be subject to immediate de-resolution." - this confirms what the term is, and that "de-rez" is short for "de-resolve". (The result of resolving something is a "resolution". There is no verb "resolute".) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Vehemently disagree! However, either statement is original synthesis. Let's stick with the terms actually used in the film. Bulbous (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
What do you disagree on? Look it up - the word "Resolute" only exists as either an adjective or a noun. "Resolve" is a verb, with its noun form being "Resolution". The term "de-rez" is a shortened form of something, and Sark clearly uses "De-resolution" in one scene, which establishes the full form of the term. Therefore, it's not original synthesis, but application of logic to what's given in the film. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert details for 10/16/08 at 8:43am PDT

I reverted several edits in the Plot section that, while I thought they were great edits made in good faith, they changed a few too many of the essential plot details. Here are some of the reasons why I did the revert:

  • The plot is probably too detailed as it is, and could definitely use some cleanup. However, the point about the MCP claiming it could run things better than humans is essential to understanding the character and its importance in the story. Just calling it a "megalomaniac" (while true) isn't sufficient, IMO.
  • The point that Crom is still "faithful to" the Users is unimportant in the context of the Jai Alai scene. He's simply one of Flynn's "own kind", in Sark's words.
  • I'm not sure how the novelization handles the User issue, but Users as divine beings seems somewhat underplayed in the movie. I think because there's relatively little emphasis on Users playing a direct role in the daily lives of most of the Programs, it's unnecessary to call this relationship out explicitly in the plot summary.
  • Toward the end, the MCP doesn't visibly begin absorbing Programs - it simply tells them it's going to.
  • It's not clear that Sark was "fatally" damaged by Tron's attack. The context from the rest of the film would seem to say that if Tron's attack had killed Sark, he would have de-rezzed on the spot, and the MCP would likely have handled that differently. The film seems to treat this hit as a damaging blow - enough to incapacitate Sark, but not enough to kill him.
  • I'm not sure if it's important to call out what happens to Alan and Lora in the novelization at the end. The only important point I'm aware of is that Flynn is reinstated in the company and has become "the boss" after proving Dillinger's wrongdoing. Beyond that, the movie doesn't give any details.

To the IP user who did those edits I reverted: My apologies if they came across as me dismissing your work as invalid - that's certainly not true. I'd like to see if we can reincorporate some of the non-questionable items back in, and work together on cleaning up the plot summary. There are more details in there than are really needed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Toward the end, the MCP doesn't visibly begin absorbing Programs - it simply tells them it's going to." Is he? Toward the end, the programs are connected to boards. Clu, around the beginning, was connected to a similar board, and seemed to be absorbed as a result. - 97.124.1.28 (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Near as anyone can tell, CLU was destroyed on that board, not absorbed. There is never a clear indication of what being "absorbed" into the MCP actually looks like, and the other programs are only seen at the beginning of that scene, then at the end when the MCP is self-destructing. So in terms of what's seen on screen, we have no real indication of what's happening - just the MCP's stated intent. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Would a "pop culture" section in this article be okay? For example, the title character of the show Chuck has owned a Tron poster since he was 12 which is mentioned several times thoughout the series. And the poster has gained significant importance in the latest episode. --DanMat6288 (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. This article used to have a HUGE trivia section, both with pop-culture references (of varying degrees of importance and magnitude) and production-note trivia (such as noting how two of the main actors appeared together again in Babylon 5). It was refactored, debated and eventually removed because of Wikipedia's trivia policies and guidelines (basically, WP looks down on trivia). And unfortunately, there is so much Tron trivia in the form of the kind of reference you just mentioned that we'd have a hard time working out which ones are truly notable. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I had a feeling there might have been a reason for there not being such a section, which was why I asked first. --DanMat6288 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
And I appreciate you asking. :) Trust me, I agree on the sheer amount of trivia that Tron has showing that it is indeed notable (not just in its own right, but also in terms of cultural impact). But it's something that has been a pretty tricky issue in the past. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


LIGHT BIKE

A new version of light cycle is available through Ipod touch, but i do not know whether it's actually from Tron merchandise. i have the game and has striking similarities to the movie. Still, i was wondering if it should be mentioned here.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


Year of TRON ?

I like to know in which year the story of TRON takes place. For example the Blade Runner story is set to the year 2019, Total Recall is set to 2084, Demolition Man is in 2032 and Soylent Green 2022. --Solphusion (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Tron-Sector.com again

And lo and behold, we have a new revert war about Tron-Sector.com again. (The link goes up to the previous discussion we had on this more than two years ago.)

Based on the edit summaries, it looks like User:ThePlanetSaturn contends that "consensus was formed by lack of revert", where the last comment in the previous discussion pointed to an announcement on Tron-Sector.com that asserted that site as an official forum for the Tron comic book. He would add a link to the site back to the article in two days if there were no objections expressed. None were expressed, so presumably the link was re-added and then deleted again sometime later. Now, revert warring is happening again.

So here's my two cents: The link to the forum announcement is not sufficient to prove that Tron-Sector.com is THE authority on all things Tron, unlike TheForce.com or Nausicaa.com for their respective properties. First off, it falls under self-published sourcing, although to satisfy verifiability, one could look at one of the comic books and see if a link to the site exists. But basically, a site declaring itself as the authority is not good enough - unless it gets third-party press that also asserts the site's notability as THE go-to site, we don't really have anything to go on but the site's own word.

So, had I seen that comment at the time, I would have said this then, but real life interfered and it apparently slipped through the cracks. (There were also other talk-page discussions happening at the time, so that comment likely didn't show up in my Watchlist since another comment probably came in after it on a different topic.) But I do not agree that a consensus was ever formed or that we have a "you win by default" situation here. So here's hoping that we can have some new, meaningful and civil discussion about it. Have at. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you in regard to consensus. We had an ongoing dialog on the topic, and despite the topic being quite active, no one argued against inclusion once new evidence was introduced. That said, once again changes in Wikipedia policy have undermined the foundation of my original argument. When I re-added the deleted web page, I was unaware that in the time since we last debated this, some specific information has been added that regulates (in theory) the official or unofficial status of a fansite. To clarify, the rules now state that official recognition or official status is not sufficient to guarantee inclusion. "[...]even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented."
However, it's important to remember that fansites are not automatically to be deleted. The section of the rules is explicitly titled: "Links normally to be avoided". Not "Links to always be avoided".
Because of it's semi-official status, coupled with the lack of a more official source of information, this easily could fall under the "Links to be Considered" clause. Specifically: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
If we're going by the rules of Wikpedia, though the past justifications for inclusion no longer exist, the modern rules make allowances. In short: There is no reason to exclude this link, other than a strict adherence to a rule that is, by it's very definition, not meant to be interpreted or in a strict manner. Obviously, I vote to include the link.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Established consensus is that this link does not belong. Please stop edit-warring over this, or you will be reported and blocked. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an attempt to discuss the issue and establish a formal consensus. Either contribute something meaningful or do not post.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you owned this article and could dictate terms as to who can and can't edit it. Silly me. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I get it. You're a ((personal attack removed)) Understood.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
And you're courting a 3RR violation should you continue your edit warring. Believe what you will, but your attempts to redirect the focus from your own inappropriate actions speaks volumes. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you were the Wikipedia police. I haven't broken the 3RR rule and I have no intention of doing so. I have outlined reasons both for and against the inclusion of the link. You can either choose to participate, or you can be a troll. I really don't care either way.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
No, you're just skirting the edges of 3RR and now apparently trying (poorly) to make a point. Have fun. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry Wikipedia policeman. I forgot you were in charge of everything everywhere.
There is plenty of room for you to explain why my justification for inclusion is invalid. You haven't attempted to offer anything meaningful to the dialog, instead you came in with a dismissive attitude. ((personal attack removed)) Okay.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

All right, you two. I asked for a CIVIL discussion on this, but all I'm seeing is you two sniping at each other. It's totally unnecessary.

PlanetSaturn: As I said, I don't believe that consensus was established in the last discussion. It sorta petered out, and I'm willing to bet that was partly because people got tired of arguing about it and wanted to move on to other things. But that doesn't mean you win by forfeit - even if the site reference had not been immediately removed, that doesn't mean an argument has been made to keep it there. That's why I brought this up again. But attacking Mike and being snide isn't going to help your case at all - it's only going to get you blocked.

MikeWazowski: Similarly, please stop sniping back. If Saturn is attacking you, it doesn't help to attack him back or accuse him of acting in bad faith. We're trying to solve a content dispute here. We're not trying to point fingers and make anyone out to be a bad guy. Let's focus on the topic at hand.

My personal opinion is that I haven't seen anything that shows Tron-Sector.com as being an authoritative source on the Tron universe, in the same way that TheForce.com pertains to Star Wars. The comic book may refer to it as a hosted site for forums, but how well connected is the comic book to the movie? Set in the same universe, but is it an official Tron product? I honestly don't know, so some more info gathering could be done there. But beyond that, I'm mostly on the side of excluding the link. Willing to change my mind if evidence shows it's in the same class as the Star Wars site I mentioned, but I haven't been convinced of that yet. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering MikeWazowski repeatedly posted a very hypocritical, passive aggressive "warning" to my discussion page, and made the first reference to someone "trolling" (language he later took great exception to) I'm going to have to disagree with your accusation of who threw the first stone. But generally speaking, if you want people to let a particular subject go, don't interject unnecessarily. The last post by either he or I was many hours before yours. Frankly, barring new input, I was already done. (ThePlanetSaturn)
I didn't make any accusation of "who threw the first stone". I was telling you both to cool it. And a matter of a few hours is trivial on an international message board - you might as well have said "The last post was a few minutes before yours" - all that indicates is that I logged on "many hours" after the discussion had its last posting, but there was no indication to me that it was over. That said, I'm not going to continue to argue semantics on this - my point is that you BOTH were out of line and I'm calling you BOTH on it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
And again, if no one disputes the inclusion when asked, how is it supposed to be taken other than as consensus? I get that you are clarifying NOW, but as no one spoke up at the time, or for about a year afterwards, so there wasn't really much room for any other interpretation.
The comic is official, published by SLG and licensed through Disney. It is set in the same universe and fleshes out the story from before and after the film. Picking up where the game left off. The collected volume includes a quote from Lisberger. The book lists the website specifically. The website in question is used as an official site for the publication, and is frequented by people who were involved in the comic, the original film, the game and the upcoming film. It includes a great deal of information (both official and unofficial) not found easily or reliably elsewhere. All of these things make it allowable according to WP: EL. After reading policy closely, I noticed that many of the other links were far more against policy than the Tron Sector link. So I deleted them. I find it odd that people are repeatedly going after this particular link, while ignoring the ones that violate more heavily.
In short, I think there is a bias against anything that resembles a fansite. There is good reason for that, but the rules can be taken to far or interpreted to literally. This site is a resource for the topic unmatched online elsewhere, and while it's semi-official capacity is not enough to guarantee inclusion (according to the new rules added since we last debated this), when you couple that with the rest of the facts, there is simply no reason for deletion.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Points well taken. Thanks for clarifying the role of the comic. In that light, I'm willing to accept the site as a valid link under the policies you mentioned, but again, I'm not the only person who gets to make that decision. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I'll give it another few days. And unless someone is willing to offer a reasonable argument against the inclusion, I will be re-adding the link.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you summarize (yes, summarize) specifically why you insist that the site should be included? Even after reading all the previous commentary where consensus for its inclusion was not met, it appears on the surface that you may have a WP:COI in promoting that site as strongly as you have here. SpikeJones (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Again-The website in question is used as an official site for the the Tron comic series, and is frequented by people who were involved in the comic, the original film, the recent game and the upcoming film. It includes a great deal of information (both official and unofficial) not found easily or reliably elsewhere. All of these things make it allowable according to WP: EL.
If you have read the previous commentary you will have seen where I specified where the (recent) rules do work against continued inclusion. That's if the site is viewed only as a fansite, without any extra-ordinary qualities. I believe that is the criteria being used to justify deletion, and that amounts to a failure to consider the rules or the website in full context.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. To me, an "official website for the comic book" is not a valid external link *on this page*, but would be better served as a link on Tron (comic book), Tron: The Ghost in the Machine, or other more specific comic-related article than an article about the film. That "people involved in the game/film/etc" frequent it is not important by itself, otherwise we would be able to include Google or any number of random social networking sites (I exaggerate for humor purposes, but I'm sure you understand my point). If the site contains valid, verifiable information related to the Tron film that can't be found anywhere else, then I suggest that the site be used as as a citable reference rather than as a random external link. My three cents. SpikeJones (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair points. Barring any disagreements, I'll add it to the comics page instead.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tron/Archive_1&oldid=1137268498"