Written by Emmanuel Gundran

TRON (1982) was one of the first movies, along with War Games (1983), to tell a story about video games before Super Mario Bros. (1993) would try to adapt a video game's story to the big screen. The film is set in a semi-futuristic 1982, present for the time, when machine could be more than a human instrument. Programs are the creations of computer programmers, but in the fictional, digital world of the Grid, they are far more advanced than any line of code shows. The programs take on the appearance of the creators, have their own distinct personalities, and even compete in several, deadly competitions or what the programs call "video games." Sound familiar? TRON sets out to predict how computers, and even video game programs, could advance as a result of the technological revolution going on during that time and even continues to boom today.

TRON puts a spin on video games as user entertainment and turns into a battle to the death between the programs controlled by the users. Though we think of video games as non-lethal entertainment, the very lives of programs are at stake with each game. Meanwhile, the programs think of us users as mythical gods, and believers in the users are labeled as religious nuts. Though this level of intelligence may seem strange in programmed video game characters, this type of technological advancement may not be as far-off as it looks. Daniel Wellman, a practitioner of Extreme Programming and Agile development methodologies, recalls an experience bizarrely similar to an event from TRON. 
​"One day, when Marco and I were playing against two computer opponents, we forced one of the AI cycles to trap itself between its own walls and the bottom game border. Sensing an impending crash, it fired a missile, just like it always did whenever it was trapped. But this time was different – instead of firing at another trail, it fired at the game border, which looked like any other light cycle trail as far as the computer was concerned. The missile impacted with the border, leaving a cycle-sized hole, and the computer promptly took the exit and left the main playing field. Puzzled, we watched as the cycle drove through the scoring display at the bottom of the screen. It easily avoided the score digits and then drove off the screen altogether. Shortly after, the system crashed. Our minds reeled as we tried to understand what we had just seen. The computer had found a way to get out of the game. When a cycle left the game screen, it escaped into computer memory – just like in the movie."
Of course, there is the chance that Wellman and Marco could have discovered a glitch in the system, but it's a chilling reminder of a major scene from the film.

The sequel, Tron: Legacy (2010), takes this intelligence and sentience in programs even further. In that film, it was revealed that programs could leave the digital world and come into our world as normal people. Even this concept of bringing the digital world to our world is something that our non-fictional scientists have attempted to replicate, as seen in advanced A.I. programs such as IBM's Watson, the upcoming Viv being developed by the makers of Siri, and the conversational Philip K. Dick android are prominent examples of scientists bringing a computer consciousness into the world of human consciousness.

The experience of being immersed in the game, a concept played with in TRON, is something that the video game industry has been trying to perfect in recent times. In TRON, Kevin Flynn gets transported by the advanced A.I. running the Grid, the Master Control Program, and participates in the death-defying games that the programs are forced to play. Virtual reality devices can replicate this sense of being in the video game experience. The Oculus Rift, for instance, immerses the player by utilizing a three-dimensional, binocular device that moves the player's character as the player moves their head in real-time. There are even extra peripherals that use the player's hands and feet for an even deeper, immersive experience.

Both TRON and TRON: Legacy are movies that try to get one step ahead of the technological revolution through their visual styles while also reflecting the current period. The first film shows the computer world as fantastic and bizarre. Yet, when one looks at the visual effects and technological concepts of TRON compared to today's, they're very outdated. Everything looks blocky, plain-colored, and basic; however, for the people of 1982, this was what the future could've looked like. TRON: Legacy updates the graphics of the computer-video game world. The buildings of the Grid appear less geometric, basic, and thus more aesthetically pleasing than they were in the first film. This graphical update in-between movies parallels the technological update from the early 1980's up to the 2000's. The 1980's made the very idea of the digital world fantastic, while the 2000's, and especially the 2010's, made the already established digital world look more pleasing to the eye. We went from the monochromatic graphics of Pong to the realistic, large-scale digital replica of Gotham City in the Batman Arkham series. 

Overall, the TRON series shows that video games and programs are mediums with which humans bridge the gap between the digital and the real worlds. Video games and programs allow for players and programmers to put their hand into the digital world and interact with the tools given to them. The TRON movies show what could happen if people stepped even further into the digital world and even give a glimpse of what could happen if the digital stepped into our world.

Sources Cited:
​
Wellman, Daniel. (2008). Real Life Tron on an Apple IIgs. Stay on Target. Retrieved from http://blog.danielwellman.com/2008/10/real-life-tron-on-an-apple-iigs.html

Written by Cayce Bower

​I have to say that I found the acting in this movie to be phenomenal. I thought all of the actors did a marvelous job, including the child actors (not something you can always say in movies). My favorite performance was Hugh Jackman’s portrayal of the infamous pirate, Blackbeard. I had never seen Jackman play the role of a villain before, so I was slightly skeptical that he could pull it off, but he did not disappoint. ​
​

Perhaps my only somewhat negative critique of this film is the chanting/singing of the song, “Smells Like Teen Spirit” by the band Nirvana. Since this film is supposed to be set during World War II, singing a song that was not yet written somehow seemed to pull me out of the film’s experience. Afterward, I decided to look into the song to see why it was chosen, and I found a link to the movie. When Nirvana wrote the song, they wanted to do it in the style of a band called the Pixies, and in the Peter Pan story, Peter uses pixie dust, so, there is a method behind the madness; you just have to look for it. I say this is somewhat negative simply because I believe the average movie-goer is not going to realize the history of that song, so that part of the movie will most likely cause some head-scratching.

​If you want a great adventure story, I definitely recommend placing Pan on your movie list!

Written by Anthony Watkins

​One of the many debates in the film industry over the last several years has revolved around the development and use of 3D exhibition in theaters. Some audiences love 3D, while others complain of motion sickness or just find the 3D technology to be a weak excuse for higher ticket prices. Whatever the case may be, one aspect of the technology has remained constant over the years since its inception: the use of 3D glasses. Before walking into the theater, audiences are given 3D glasses to wear during the film, since the images on-screen need to be discolored in order to achieve the 3D effect with the glasses. This aspect (besides maybe the higher prices) is the major drawback of 3D, since some people, especially those who wear regular glasses, find the 3D glasses to be a nuisance and cumbersome.
 
However, new technologies are being developed that could possibly put an end to 3D glasses. One of these technologies is lenticular lenses. Lenticular lenses are small lenses located on top of the display. These lenses display two sets of the same image and direct the light emanated from the images to your eyes—one image per eye. Finally, your brain stitches the images together and you perceive a 3D image.
 
Although the technology effectively gets rid of the need for 3D glasses, there are several drawbacks. First, as is the case with today’s 3D, the images need to be specially created to be compatible with the displays. Creators of the film need to interlace the two different sets of images together, or the effect will not work properly, as viewers would simply see a blurry dual image instead of one three dimensional image. A larger issue with the technology is that it would require a viewer to sit in a “sweet spot” while watching the film. If the viewer moved just a little to the left or right of the screen, the image would start to blur and the 3D effect would be lost. Although this seems like a major issue with the technology, a probable solution would be a camera that tracks the viewer’s position (hopefully enabling multiple viewers), allowing them to be relatively mobile during the movie (Strickland). 

Lenticular displays have been developed and are featured in some sports arenas and hotels. However, viewers that have spent a significant amount of time watching them have complained of motion sickness, a problem already inherent in 3D screenings. Furthermore, these displays hardly seem like the next step in cinema’s exhibition evolution, since they require a physical screen, not a projection. However, they could become the next step in home entertainment sometime in the near future if the issue of the “sweet spot” can be effectively resolved. 

What do you think? Will lenticular lenses or a similar technology replace our 3D glasses? Do you think 3D is a concept worth debating at all? Post your thoughts in the comments below.


WORKS CITED
Strickland, Jonathan. "How 3-D TV Works." How Stuff Works. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.       
           <​http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/3d-tv5.htm>. 

By Mark Young

One of the greatest challenges a filmmaker will ever take on is that of the biopic.  A biopic is a biographical film about a real person.  Biopics offer many unique challenges that one simply does not have to deal with on fictional films.  The challenge that is like the elephant in the room is the short length of most films.  People are complex, trying to reduce a person’s life to two hours is simply too great a task for most filmmakers.  Black Mass (Scott Cooper, 2015) may have fallen prey to this reoccurring trap.

Black Mass is the true story of James “Whitey” Bulger.  Bulger, played by Johnny Depp, became the “Godfather” of the Irish mob in the late 70s, and manipulated the FBI into taking down the rival Italian mob.  Bulger ruled South Boston for nearly two decades through a string of political connections, violent murders, drug dealing, and racketeering.  He was on America’s top ten most wanted list for twelve years.

This film in some ways is like many gangster films. The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972), Reservoir Dogs (Quentin Tarantino, 1992), and Goodfellas (Martin Scorsese, 1990) are a few examples.  It is casually violent, tonally grey, and filled with men who think they are doing what is right in their own way.  The difference for Black Mass is that it is based on entirely true stories from recent history.  I am aware that Goodfellas was also based on a true story, however with that film the style and portrayal was more mythic than the down to earth grittiness we see in Black Mass.

Black Mass makes a point to distance you from the film.  There are numerous scenes where the audience is separated from the action via windows and doorframes.  This tells me that the director, Scott Cooper, took the content of this film very seriously.  He doesn’t try to lessen the impact of evil acts with an unrealistic amount of blood, or with characters gleefully murdering other human beings.  Instead we get an outsiders view of the character's life.  At no point are we allowed to feel comfortable with what transpires on the screen.

Another tactic that was used to distance the viewer was the prevalence of wide shots.  Very rarely did we find ourselves up close and personal with the violence.  Often when someone is killed we see the victim and murderer in the same frame.  This allows one to view the act for what it is: brutal.  We don’t cut to a close-up of a mobster’s emotional face and see merely a flash of gunfire. And we don’t cut to a close-up of blood splattering across the screen.  We see brutal acts by vicious men for what they are: evil.

One of the central motifs of Black Mass is the negative connotation of being “a rat,” also known as an informant for the FBI. Yet, Black Mass does not miss the irony that every party involved at some point became an informant.  This is illustrated beautifully in the opening scene when Kevin Weeks, played by Jesse Plemons, starts his conversation with the FBI by saying, “First thing I want to say is that I’m not a rat.  I just want that on the record.”

At the end of the day what makes this film worth seeing are the performances by Johnny Depp, and Benedict Cumberbatch.  Benedict Cumberbatch continues to add to a long line of roles that simply accentuate his range of acting.  But, Johnny Depp is the one who truly surprises in this film.  After a string of typecast roles of the quirky, unusual that became so normal we stopped caring about Johnny Depp films, Depp reminds us why we all loved him in the first place.  He is an amazing actor who can play any role he so desires.  It is my hope that this film nets Depp many more roles outside the roles as the quirky, unusual factor.  Go see Johnny Depp in one of the finest roles in his career.