Talk:Tron: Legacy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Plot section length

There has been a bit of talk regarding the length of the plot section, and while I agree that a plot that is too long or overly detailed can be a problem, I'm not convinced that the section in this article is extraordinary compared to others I've seen. Actually, I've been hard-pressed to find another article about a large-budget film that actually does conform strictly to the 400-700 word guideline (simply because 400-700 words is remarkably short, and often insufficient to properly cover the material). I guess what I'm getting at is that the plot section in this article is indeed long, but it is primarily comprised of summarizing information. It does not contain the "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" WP:FILMPLOT stipulates that the 400-700 guideline is meant to avoid. I am of the opinion that the length is fine, that it provides the sufficient amount of information relevant for a "summary" of this particular film, and that exception should be made. Zargabaath 18:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zargabaath (talk • contribs)

I tagged the section and to be honest I think the guidelines are a bit arbitrary, and I'd prefer if the guidelines recommended 1000 words and did have greater detail. Wanting is not having so instead I work with the guidelines and when a summary is really really long I will trim it and I do think there is room trim here. One way or another the plot section is going to be savagely rewritten over and over again for the next few weeks. At over a thousand words this plot section is just going to get flabbier, if it was tighter then we could still squeeze in details people though were essential. I'd rather tag it now and get people to look at it seriously than get stuck with 400 word summary from deletionist cabal of editors that is far worse than the bloat we have now.

When it comes to getting around the plot limitations - when I've given up battling editors who take the word count as a hard rule and just another guideline - I like to talk about the development of the film, particularly having a decent Writing* section under Production. How the actors interpret their characters can also provide another layer, not just a character description but a subtext. Sometimes the reviews too can help expand things, Ebert made a hilariously bizarre comparision of Tron to Jack Frost (presumably this Jack Frost (1998 film)).

What are the most vitally important plot points? I would encourage those seriously interested in the plot section to state here. The very essential minimum of plot is the story of father and son needs to be explained, Sam, Kevin (Flynn), and Clu. Rinzler is fairly important too. I suppose it is necessary to explain a little about Zuse and the ISO's as they in turn explain why Flynn was trapped in the grid. (*Knowing the intended subtext from the writers might make easy to write a very very short plot summary.)

If there are particular plot points or wordings that editors seriously want to keep then speak now, and ask us other editors to help prevent them from being deleted or rewritten, or at least let's help guide each other to keeping the better versions of the rewrites. -- Horkana (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot length tag was removed and unfortunately the editor did not discuss the matter here first. The edit summary said "given the complexity of the plot" but - to put it politely - critics are mostly praising the visuals of the film. The plot is certainly less complicated than Inception (film) which when I checked used just over 900 words and still manages to cram in a lot of detail.

The plot section even got longer since I tagged it earlier, in excess of 1200 words. While I'm happy to stretch beyond the suggested 700 words a but this is just too much. -- Horkana (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Just want to say thank you to every one that thought that the plot section should contain every single bit of information about the film. I don't need to go and watch it now (which is a good thing judging by the critical response and the fact that I think 3D is a pointless gimmick that'll go away in a few years just like it did at the end of the '70s). I am actually serious about that, thank you but the plot length needs to be trimmed and the detail smoothed out. You want to give an idea of what the film is about, not a scene-by-scene rendition. It's always tempting to add that little bit more - Don't. If I though it'd stick, I'd summarise the plot in about 100 words and leave it at that - think of what you get in a trailer or on the back of a book. (Plot: Flynn disappears - 20 years later his son, finally having mastered his shoelaces, notices and goes after him. Frivolity ensues and some people nearly die. Others do. The good guys escape and live happily ever after). Angry Mustelid (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

A good encyclopedia gives you the whole story. If you want to avoid spoilers then you should not read Wikipedia and especially not the plot section of a film article. (A good article will not spoil the story and say things about the Plot outside of the plot section but unfortunately there are very many bad articles and editors who are just plain jerks who will try to spoil the film at every opportunity.) Wikipedia has a policy of not censoring articles and does not give WP:SPOILER warnings. The guidelines WP:FILMPLOT recommend 400-700 words, and while it would be impressive if you could summarize the whole story including ending in just 100 words it is important to include the whole story, even the ending. Sorry if that isn't what you thought Wikipedia was about and this article spoiled the film for you, but you might still enjoy the soundtrack from Daft Punk. -- 01:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Per policy, a concise plot summary is appropriate to complement real-world coverage about a fictional work. A plot summary is not supposed to exist on its own; its presence is intended to provide an understanding of the article's coverage. Readers are able to understand coverage of characters, settings, and themes when they have an idea of what is going on. WikiProject Film has guidelines to keep summaries between 400 and 700 words to maintain that concise length. It's particularly explicit because the natural tendency of a plot summary is to grow in size with added detail that is more about defining the story for itself and not for the rest of the article's contents. I support the presence of the tag until the summary can be within the range, but I'm open to arguments that this two-hour Hollywood blockbuster really is that "complex". Erik (talk | contribs) 02:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

See also a discussion about Plot length guidelines -- Horkana (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My issue was not so much that the film was too "complex," but rather that the summary adhered to all of the WikiProject Film guidelines, with the exception of the length. 400-700 words would be sufficient if one were providing a SYNOPSIS of a film (ideally, it would be even shorter). However, a PLOT SUMMARY is supposed to be just that, a comprehensive summary of the plot explaining the events in the film as they transpire, but avoiding being a word-for-word account. In many cases, 400-700 words is just not enough to present a proper, comprehensible plot summary (as evidenced by about 85% of the Wiki film articles I've seen). I did notice that this summary has been radically shortened since my original move for an exception, and though I'm sure it now complies with the guideline, it is rife with grammatical errors/inconsistency and is no longer a sufficient summary of the film. But, I guess as long as it adheres to every aspect of the policy, then there's not an issue. Zargabaath 18:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zargabaath (talk • contribs)

If anyone wants to massively overhaul the Plot section I would strongly encourage them to work on the article in their own user space WP:SANDBOX and bring it back to this article after having done work to tidy it up.
In case anyone would like to read a version of the Plot section that is over 1400 words you can check see the article history for this older revision from December 31, 2010.
I would also be appreciate if editors could avoid speculation: "signifying the regaining of his identity as Tron"; instead allow readers to decide themselves what they think events in the story signify, and draw their own conclusions. -- Horkana (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention the original 1400+ word count plot section was very well written. Kudos on it even though it was too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.44.228 (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think though that word count may not be a reliable yardstick of the writing quality; I agree that it should be concise, but adhering to a number puts a damper on creativity and flexibility. I believe that the objective here, gentlemen, and Horkana in particular, is to have a smooth, flowing plot summary (not synopsis!) and the way to do this is not by writing to a particular word count but simply cutting away contrived writing &c. I would suggest a straw poll on which direction is better (word count or 'tight' writing) but I think these decisions should be arrived at organically. --Nmatavka (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The original 1400 summary was well written, but too long. "Tron: Legacy" is NOT that complicated and the article can certainly be kept to around 700 words to adequately summarize the film. The current revision is very well written and quite nicely sums up the films important plot points while staying within the 700 word range. I managed to edit the current version of "Inception's" plot summary (which is a much more complicated film) down to 700 words and still included the major plot points. I think too many writers want to include unnecessary tidbits of information. Nice job to whomever submitted the current version KeithLD (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We arrived at the shorter word count through an iterative process involving at least 3 editors if not more. I'll try to outline some of the changes I noticed or made myself in a moment.

I got the impression that User Nmatavka went back to an earlier revision, expanding the summary (to almost 1400 words) then tried to trim it back to (only getting down to 1200 words). The problem with this was that for over a week myself and a few other editors had already trimmed the plot from about 1100 words down to between 700-800 words.

The introductory third of the film is by far the easiest section to cut, another editor did that and it worked so I was happy enough to go along with it. It might have been nice to include more detail but if we are making efforts to keep close to the recommended length in the guidelines that was definitely going to take a hit.

We never actually see Zuse die. People keep adding back in notes that he was destroyed, some adding notes about Gem dieing but we don't know that for sure either. Removing this speculation freed up a few more words.

Other editors were speculating that when "Rinzler changes colour it signifies ..." which again is speculation. There are better ways to lead readers to the same conclusions without setting off the speculation/original research alarm bells.

There are other minor phrasings, writing style, and grammar, that taken together probably gave one or two hundered extra words.

At this point I think details about the real world and Encom are better fit into the production details, if we can have the director or writers explain any real world parallels he was making that would be great. There is plenty of potential to write a section of the article about costumes, it was discussed a lot in the publicity for the film. I don't there is much more we need to put in the plot section but I understand is always tempting since there is not the same requirement to have references for everything. Still if you feel something important is missing please discuss it here and maybe we can add it back in without bloating the Plot summary. -- Horkana (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Flynn

There is a slow motion edit war going on, the character Kevin Flynn keeps getting changed from Kevin to Flynn and from Flynn to Kevin in the Plot section. I have ignored it so far. Normally in a film article we would use the characters first name. I think this case is an exception and we should use Flynn since that is his username/nickname, his first name is rarely used in either Tron or Tron:Legacy. Anyone disagree? -- Horkana (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree in the sense that there are now two character's from the Flynn family involved, and that designating them by their first names substantially decreases the potential for confusion within the article. That, and the fact that Kevin is rarely referred to as "Flynn" in this film, but rather as "my father," "your father," "the creator," or, as Clu states, just flat out "Kevin Flynn." Zargabaath 18:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zargabaath (talk • contribs)

Flynn is called Flynn more than he's called Kevin. Sam is pretty consistently called Sam. Your comment reminds me that I can go through the article and similarly change the wording to "Kevin Flynn" the first time it is mentioned and father, etc in other places to avoid the slow motion edit war we have at the moment. I had hoped to get a consensus to stick with "Flynn". -- Horkana (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, "Kevin" is not used widely throughout the film. I was just trying to be objective and take into consideration those who had not seen the original film and might not be especially familiar with the nickname "Flynn." I suppose it doesn't really matter either way though, I just thought it might be prudent to make the distinction. Zargabaath 06:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zargabaath (talk • contribs)

What's wrong with this?

This really doesn't constitute synthesis or anything of that nature; at least, I don't think so. You'll find several sites that will establish the fact that UNIX commands were used in the film; I simply checked it out frame-by frame and noticed certain commands that EVERY computer user should know, such as "vi" and "rm". Why was it deleted when it would make a good start to a trivia section? .

• The computer at Flynn's Arcade appears to be a SparcStation running Solaris; Sam Flynn uses the command whoami to identify the currently logged-in user, and several other UNIX commands, including: uname -a, login -n root, and cat bin/history. Similarly, one sees the command history leading up to Kevin's digitisation into the system: we see cd, vi, ps, kill, and touch. The command to activate the digitising laser is LLLSDLaserControl -ok. (reference: TRON: Legacy, 22:00)

• Perhaps it is also interesting to note that, prior to entering the system for his last time, Kevin Flynn used vi to edit his last will and testament, foreshadowing his discovery of the "miracle" within the computer. --Nmatavka (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If there's several sites establishing the information, I'd recommend reinserting the information, including those sites as references. The information strictly as presented above, with no reliable sources to back it up, would constitute original research. This is reinforced by your use of the phrase "appears to be", which suggests we're gussing. Also "Perhaps it is also interesting to note that..." is really not very encyclopedic. Why not just start with "Prior"?

All that being said, the information does strike me as TRIVIA. One doesn't need to know this to understand the film, and it's not really behind-the-scenes information, more in-universe stuff. The film isn't different if Sam's entering gibberish. However, if the people behind the film specifically chose to use real-world stuff, that should be sourced and would make this more interesting, to my mind. Doniago (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There are some sources [1] [2] [3] and even more discussions about "Solar OS" which is a nod to Solaris/SunOS but I don't think any of the sources are great and the way they present the material it isn't really notable enough to include in the article, at least there isn't any clever way to include it I can think of yet.

Did find loads more links about the Tron gadgets and peripherals and the official page for Tron gadgets. -- Horkana (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just watch the movie -- "vi last-will-and-testament.txt" as it appears on the screen should be perfectly clear, unless you're stupid and use emacs (eight megs and constantly swapping) ;) --Nmatavka (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Paring it down, Mk II

I have cut down the 1400-plus word long original version of the synopsis to just over 1200 wds. I can't cut down 1200 to 700-800 without help. I concur with Horkana---I'd rather cut it down to about 1000 (again, word count is an unreliable yardstick here), but <sarcasm> policy dictates 400-700 </sarcasm> so I'm sticking with that.

I also tend to concur with Zarg., that

My issue was not so much that the film was too "complex," but rather that the summary adhered to all of the WikiProject Film guidelines, with the exception of the length. ... In many cases, 400-700 words is just not enough to present a proper, comprehensible plot summary (as evidenced by about 85% of the Wiki film articles I've seen). I did notice that this summary ... is rife with grammatical errors/inconsistency and is no longer a sufficient summary of the film. But, I guess as long as it adheres to every aspect of the policy, then there's not an issue. Zargabaath 18:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC

Could somebody help me cut down 1200 to a more convenient amount, please? Without using the undo tool? And trying to keep the spelling errors to a minimum, please? As I intimated above, it's better to try to minimise wordy, clumsy language than to remove plot details. That's where the mistakes were made the first time: instead of focusing on tightening up the grammar, Horkana et al. removed plot details, like the whole bloody prologue!--Nmatavka (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Swearing is not appreciated. Polite warnings to use the Sandbox were ignored. Reverts by both myself and Donagio were ignored. You showed little respect the edits that came before you, you reintroduced speculation that had been removed repeatedly, you did not engage in any discussion on the talk page about what you felt missing, only belatedly after you had been asked to stop several times, so frankly no, I have no interest in helping you pare down the long plot summary you added.

If you stop making the plot summary excessively long and discuss here what aspects you feel are missing - falsely blaming me for removing the prologue is not appreciated either - and see about working to add more to the short summary instead of expecting others to trim the excessively long summary then maybe, maybe I might ignore your earlier behaviour and on good faith consider helping you but if you continue to ignore polite suggestions you risk being blocked, see WP:3RR. -- Horkana (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for acting like a prick. I've found that it actually weren't your edits that were problematic---there were a couple anonymous users making mistakes like "there" for "their" etc. I did find some stuff that needed a bit of fixing, but I did act on your suggestions and found that it was better to edit with vi and then put the finished edit on WP rather than put unfinished edits on WP. That works well when I'm the only editor on an article, but not so well when I edit collaboratively. Again, sorry for acting like a total and utter ass. --Nmatavka (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest adding a brief explanation of what "The Grid" is after its first mention in the opening paragraph. Obviously, anyone familiar with the film's mythology would understand, but it may be prudent to mention something along the lines of:

While exploring the arcade, Sam discovers a concealed computer laboratory and unintentionally transports himself to The Grid; a virtual world designed by his father and described as "a digital frontier in computer technology."

(I'm sure someone could come up with something better.) The point being, The Grid could be briefly described by only adding 10-15 more words. The Grid is where 90% of the film takes place, I think the article could/should acknowledge a description of it. I also suggest adding that Sam is captured by a Recognizer ship. I'm currently working on an article about the Recognizer ships and plan to add it to the article describing the Light Cycles. Perhaps someone else is already doing this as well? I would, however, be willing to wait until my Recognizer article is complete and then request adding the description but figured I ask for feedback now. KeithLD (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In accordance with your suggestion I added "... The Grid, a virtual world inside the computer" which I hope is enough of a description for readers completely unfamiliar with the previous film to understand what is going on.

I think it will be difficult to mention the Recogniser ships in a tidy way, I'd use a neat little wikilink but some editors have a super retarded strict interpretation of [[[WP:EGG|what you should be allowed use for link text]] and if you don't [[[WP:EGG|call a spade a spade]] they will refuse to accept it, and allow only the most literal interpretation of the Easter Egg principle. (Meanwhile most editors do thing like saying "link here" instead of saying what they are actually linking to or should be linking to an article about "good writing style".) Hopefully you can find a way that doesn't add too much plot bloat. -- Horkana (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}}

I would like to have the article reverted to this revision to remove plot bloat and other unhelpful edits. Thanks in advance! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 05:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Page has since been unprotected... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 06:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)