I am clearly the only person that enjoyed this movie.
replies(6):
The primary beefs seem to be with the supposed plot holes and one-dimensional characters. I won't argue that this movie is perfect because it isn't but IMO the proliferation of video essays on film has turned everybody into a critic. Many now think that narrative works have to fit into a "hero's journey" template where we have to identify with extensively-developed characters just because some guy with a beard on YouTube cut together some clips from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" while ranting loudly and quickly about the Platonic form of narrative structure as executed by blockbuster 80s films. These people clearly don't understand that large swaths of narrative entertainment don't fit this mold and Tron is one such franchise. Complaining about the admittedly-cheesy MacGuffin and Jared Leto's wooden acting in this movie is tantamount to saying that there weren't enough car chases in "Pride and Prejudice". It's a feature-length music video with sci-fi themes, not a modern epic. Enjoy it for what it is.
I'll never see this movie again but I was satisfied with what my $17 bought. I'd recommend seeing it in IMAX before it goes away because the experience won't translate at home.
You end up building this circle for each character, where the plot becomes the vehicle for them seeking and satisfying (or failing to) some need. You don't need purple prose, you just need characters that have motivations that are self-consistent and understood by the viewer. Such understanding does not require sympathy, either.
Much of the complaint over modern narrative is that what we're presented takes on the structure of propaganda pieces [1], not stories for entertainment. We're supposed to be entertained by the propaganda, instead. Many who grew up on good-guy wins against bad-guy don't resonate with story structure broken in service of some message.
I'll probably still see this movie eventually, and I'm not claiming Tron: Ares has these issues (no idea). I'm just not in any hurry to go see it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
>> Propaganda can often be recognized by the rhetorical strategies used in its design. In the 1930s, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis identified a variety of propaganda techniques that were commonly used in newspapers and on the radio, which were the mass media of the time period. Propaganda techniques include "name calling" (using derogatory labels), "bandwagon" (expressing the social appeal of a message), or "glittering generalities" (using positive but imprecise language). With the rise of the internet and social media, Renee Hobbs identified four characteristic design features of many forms of contemporary propaganda: (1) it activates strong emotions; (2) it simplifies information; (3) it appeals to the hopes, fears, and dreams of a targeted audience; and (4) it attacks opponents.
How does "2001: A Space Odyssey", arguably one of the greatest films ever made, fit into this framework? Are we ever apprised of HAL's motivations? Does the crew have some deeper desire that we aren't aware of besides completing a mission? Is it ever explained what specifically the monoliths do? Many of these questions are only answered in the sequel which does take a more traditional tack and had less critical acclaim.
Nobody's saying that this formula doesn't work. I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be the one that successful narratives follow just because the Rick and Morty guy happens to like it.