Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies

Tron: Legacy 412

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the you-saw-it-right dept.
In preparation for this weekend's release of Legacy, I re-watched the original Tron. Yes, I own the DVD. I thought I would watch it ironically and sarcastically, but it turns out I just can't. I really like the original. As for the sequel, I'm not going to write a full review, but I'll say that the visuals were pretty amazing. The CG Jeff Bridges was pretty darn close, but just not quite there. And the light cycles were awesome. What are your thoughts?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tron: Legacy

Comments Filter:
  • Thoughts? (Score:5, Funny)

    by gazbo (517111) on Monday December 20, 2010 @12:42PM (#34616604)
    My thoughts are: just because what you wrote exceeds Twitter's 140 char limit doesn't mean you should post it to Slashdot's front page intead.
  • Daft Punk (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sonny Yatsen (603655) * on Monday December 20, 2010 @12:43PM (#34616632) Journal

    Daft Punk is amazing. The soundtrack fits into a movie of this type so well, I just had to buy it right after watching the movie on IMAX. The Daft Punk music suits a movie like Tron so much more than the original's symphonic score, I think.

    Also, watching Michael Sheen do this unholy cross between Ziggy Stardust and Frank-N-Furter is hilarious.

    • Is it me or does Garrett Hedlund look like a young Peter Weller? They should get him for that Robocop reboot that has been in development hell for ages.

      • by Sporkinum (655143)

        Agreed with all of the above. I will add that I liked the hand drawn glowing effect of the original better, but the script and acting in this one are much better. I also missed the bits and the tanks (only in background not doing anything.). The 3d was completely un-needed and I wish the theater I saw it at had a non-3d version.

        • by Stooshie (993666)
          I saw an interview with some of the cast members and apparently their suits actually did glow. It wasn't CGI or hand drawn.
          • Yes, they wore suits complete with power supplies to provide all of the lighting. Apparently as expensive as they were to design and make work, it was cheaper than trying to go back in w/ special effects to deal with all of the issues of fake lighting...since the actors really were glowing, the lighting effects were accurate (reflections, shadows, etc).

          • Re:Daft Punk (Score:4, Informative)

            by EdZ (755139) on Monday December 20, 2010 @03:28PM (#34619242)
            The suits of Tron: Legacy DO glow, via EL panels. However he was referring to the original Tron, where the suit glow was an incredibly tedious multiple-matte effect using several exposures and manually cut and positioned gels whenever more than one colour was used on screen.
        • Re:Daft Punk (Score:4, Informative)

          by Jay Maynard (54798) on Monday December 20, 2010 @01:48PM (#34617692) Homepage

          The movie flattens well. Do yourself a favor, though, and make sure you're going to a theater with a top-drawer sound system. Seeing it in IMAX 3d the first time, with a killer sound system, spoiled me.

          • by Lumpy (12016)

            Exactly a THX certified digital theater at a place that is ran by a company that cares. the local theater here is falling apart and half assed badly. Last time I went to my local the subwoofers all crackled because they needed to be replaced.

    • by Ksevio (865461)
      I thought he was like Julian Assange - Pale blonde guy who's interested in information and lives a secret life.
    • by Lumpy (12016)

      The music certainly MADE the movie. It was a epic choice, Bravo for Disney using music from a non-sellout bubblegum artist. Maybe this is a sign of the corporation leadership changing from their conquer, destroy, and vanilla-iz to maybe producing something with merit...

      I dont share taco's love of the lightcycles. the Lightcycles they had in the movie in January for the technology preview were better. the "modified to match the toys" version in the final movie were nothing more than Could have been great

    • Re:Daft Punk (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mab_Mass (903149) on Monday December 20, 2010 @03:58PM (#34619762) Homepage Journal

      The Daft Punk music suits a movie like Tron so much more than the original's symphonic score, I think.

      In that case, you're not listening to the original score very closely.

      The original score was written by Wendy Carlos, who is one of the very early pioneers in electronic music. For that particular movie, she created a mix of orchestral sounds with synthesized sounds. Later in her career, as the technology improved, she started creating entirely synthesized music that sounded closer and closer to real orchestral music. Ultimately, some of this work led to the creation of synthetic instruments, whose sound was inspired by real instruments, but was impossible (eg, a percussive woodwind sound).

      In my opinion, this is an idea fit for the world of Tron.

      (The Daft Punk soundtrack to the new one was also awesome.)

  • Saw it Sunday (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kindups (1483627) on Monday December 20, 2010 @12:45PM (#34616670)
    Visually it was...perfect. It captured the feelings I got from books like Snow Crash and (especially) Neuromancer of a virtual world. The towers of darkness and light. The story was okay, not great but not awful. It more or less met my expectations story-wise but blew me away in the visual department. I actually got giddy the first time they showed the city from far away. Music was both good and not so good. Some of it was absolutely great and other bits a bit generic. And CGI Jeff Bridges was definitely skiing the Uncanny Valley. And while I was kind "eh" on Olivia Wilde beforehand I now have a huge crush on her. Sheesh.
    • Re:Saw it Sunday (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Monday December 20, 2010 @01:02PM (#34616948)

      Olivia was channeling Real genius Michelle Meyrink and Galaxy Quest Missi Pyle with a couple eye shots and black wig of Meg Ryan in "something wild".

      Basically the short black hair, non-threatening pliable child adult, vaguely mischievous thing is very sexy and not nearly as threatening and 'real' as the bisexual "13" of House.

      Real women like real men are actually very difficult to deal with. Most people would want a faithful companion that matched them over an interesting companion who might show them up, leave them, or screw around on them.

    • Re:Saw it Sunday (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Toze (1668155) on Monday December 20, 2010 @02:12PM (#34618028)

      Actually, I thought the CGI Jeff Bridges was done brilliantly. See, while he did show up a tiny bit in the early 2D sections as "real" Flynn, the majority of his appearances were as the construct, right? Where better to see an uncanny valley version of Flynn than in his imperfect mirror image? That slight creepiness was perfect for the role.

      I also think that, while the plot might have been a little thin, the philosophy was pretty heavy on the ground. It's like Tron is for hackers what Avatar was for environmentalists; a beautiful explanation and exploration of the ideas that motivate and guide us as a group. The Taoism, the Grid versus the wilds, nods to real life contests between "free" and "control" information cultures, it all seemed like the movie was explaining to the audience the experience of hacker culture. You and I see such things as obvious, because we have the shared experience, but this is a film I think we can show to other people and say "look, this basically explains why I wear sarcastic T-shirts."

      • by QuantumG (50515) *

        Until right now I had no idea it was a CG Jeff Bridges.. I just figured they had decent makeup artists who could make him look the same as he did in '82.

    • Re:Saw it Sunday (Score:5, Insightful)

      by xero314 (722674) on Monday December 20, 2010 @02:18PM (#34618112)

      It captured the feelings I got from books like Snow Crash and (especially) Neuromancer of a virtual world. The towers of darkness and light.

      Could this be because it was based on the look of the original Tron movie which was released no less than 2 years before Neuromancer and 10 years before snow crash? Tron had a very clear influence on all cyberpunk writers, and many others in the cybernet arena.

  • The film was Tron merged with a Vin Diesel movie. And while some of it was good, and keeping Flynn having 80's exclamations as he's been isolated so long was a nice touch. Unfortunately the plot and writing hadn't evolved past the 80's like the graphics had.

    Overall, I enjoyed it and the sneaked in references to 80's movies but I think they could have done better.

    • by McKing (1017)

      Yeah, it felt like a bit of the Dude crept into his character. "This is messing with my Zen, man". Priceless.

  • But I liked it.

    And I got a kick out of the David Bowie-esque character. Hillarious.

  • Great, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Linker3000 (626634) on Monday December 20, 2010 @12:46PM (#34616682) Journal
    It was a good romp in keeping with the spirit of the original film, but I have to say that the 3D effects were, with one exception, uremarkable and few and far between. I was disappointed to note that the 3D glasses darkened the film in general and when I took them off for comparison during 2D scenes, the colours were much move vivid. Worth seeing for the effects and not so much for the storyline which strings them together. A good effort, but I wonder if seeing the film in 2D (ie: without the glasses) would be more visually stunning.

    End of Line.
    • by gstoddart (321705)

      I was disappointed to note that the 3D glasses darkened the film in general and when I took them off for comparison during 2D scenes, the colours were much move vivid.

      Well, from what I recall the few times I've seen a 3D movie ... the lenses are tinted. So, this seems hardly surprising.

      A good effort, but I wonder if seeing the film in 2D (ie: without the glasses) would be more visually stunning.

      At the very least, less visually straining. I find 3D gives me a headache and sore eyes for several hours after.

      • by gothzilla (676407)

        They're polarized, not tinted. They worked very hard to find polarization film that was as transparent as possible.

        • by Stooshie (993666)
          We ARE on slashdot, I suspect most of us know the difference between polarised and tinted. The lenses do darken down the image considerably. The best 3D cinemas I have been to use the system where each lens is synched with the projector. The lenses are clear, but blacked out when the other lens is being used.
          • by Corngood (736783)

            Either way, only half the light (minus absorption, plus leakage) is reaching each eye. Whether it's shuttered or polarised, it's going to be half as bright as showing the same image for both eyes and taking off the glasses.

        • by gstoddart (321705)

          They're polarized, not tinted.

          I'd buy that ... though, they also seemed to be somewhat tinted. Or at least, that's what I thought at the time.

      • Re:Great, but... (Score:4, Informative)

        by mcgrew (92797) * on Monday December 20, 2010 @03:09PM (#34618948) Homepage Journal

        find 3D gives me a headache and sore eyes for several hours after.

        That's because stereovision isn't really 3D. Your eyes/brain use a lot of different cues to discern depth; some like the various forms of perspective work in a true 2D environment.

        Stereoscopy is one kind of rangefinder, but your eyes/brain also measure where the eyes focus.

        So you go see a "3D" movie with the screen n meters away and the objects x meters away, and the focusing muscles are fighting with the movement muscles, since the focus is fixed on the screen itself, while objects portrayed on the screen appear to be in front of or behind the screen.

        The good news is, if you're over 45 it's not likely to give you eyestrain or headaches, as the eye's lens gets too hard for its muscles to focus, anyway (which is why geezers need reading glasses).

    • by hubie (108345)

      I was disappointed to note that the 3D glasses darkened the film in general and when I took them off for comparison during 2D scenes, the colours were much move vivid.

      When dealing with polarizers in general, you only get about 50% transmission through them.

      • At most. Polarizing filters you put on camera lenses cost 2-1/2 F-stops of light, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 18% transmission. 3D glasses aren't nearly that bad.

    • Re:Great, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Monday December 20, 2010 @02:36PM (#34618430)

      Ditto on the weak 3D presentation. I forgot I was watching a 3D movie at times. But, I haven't really been all that impressed with *any* of the 3D movies I've seen. Just a lame gimmick IMO to get $6/ticket out of me.

      But, I loved Tron. Even my girlfriend who "can't remember if I've seen any Star Wars movies" liked it. Seriously, how the fuck do you not know if you've seen Star Wars?

      • I felt that the fact that I wasn't continuously conscious of it being in 3D meant that the effect was being used with a subtle but effective touch that added to the visual impact on a subconscious level, instead of throwing piranha fish directly into your face every 30 seconds.
  • by iONiUM (530420) on Monday December 20, 2010 @12:47PM (#34616700) Homepage Journal

    For me, the sequel was a total bore. I mean, don't get me wrong, the CG was very good, and the soundtrack was amazing.. but I mean, the first one was mostly about exploring this new world and concepts and CG that had never been seen before. But the reality now is, CG is second nature; it's used everywhere. And the world? Well I already knew about it from #1. There was nothing new. They gave what the people who loved the original wanted to see, but new new ships or anything.

    More importantly, you can't just spend 90% of a movie on dramatic entrances and poor dialogue and expect it to hold up. If you don't believe me, re-watch legacy and count just how many dramatic entrances took place. The fact is, they had all the ingredients for making a truly amazing movie, and they completely failed to deliver. I wish it wasn't so.

    • by jaymz666 (34050)

      I felt there was a lot of exposition that didn't explain very much at all. The entire Tron aspect of the movie was kind of lost out there.

      • by Sancho (17056) *

        Exactly. In fact, I felt that the whole film was pretty much exposition with no purpose.

        Sam was nothing more than a MacGuffin. He manages to get sucked onto the Grid, participates in some games, and then serves only as a reason for other characters to explain things about the world. He's worse than Harry Potter in the early stories.

        I also never got a sense that the threat in the film was significant. So what if Clu gets out into the real world? Practically, what is he going to do?

        For that matter, how d

        • by jaymz666 (34050)

          I can't be the only one that thought ISOs was a stupid name to use, were they CD images?

        • by Tumbleweed (3706) *

          So what if Clu gets out into the real world? Practically, what is he going to do? For that matter, how does Quorra (or any of the ISOs) getting out into the real world change anything?

          They seemed to have left the details of the danger as an exercise for the viewer, but I think the threat was pretty real.

          In the digital world, once he had Flynn's disc, he could then create programs (which he couldn't do before). Once he could enter our world as a real person (and, essentially wind up being Flynn in our world,

          • by QuantumG (50515) *

            Essentially an infinite army. That's my take, anyway.

            Well duh.. and frankly I can't understand how anyone could miss that. "Oh no, he might get out!" "So what?" Shows rows and rows of soldiers who blindly follow CLU's every command.. what did you think they were going to do when they got out? Sell cupcakes?

            Personally, I was hoping he'd get out and we'd have a romp in the real world and get to see the iso's power.. but no, the movie had taken too long to get to the portal.

    • by jaymzter (452402)

      I second that emotion. If I could use one word to sum this movie up, it would be [b]boring[/b]. There were 20 minutes of action in a 2 hour movie and a plot that made little if any sense. CG was good, but how long can you show people in neon suits and preserve the WOW factor?

      And maybe my memory is failing, but was Kevin Flynn already channeling the Dude in the original Tron? I don't remember all that distracting Zen nonsense in the original.

  • I thought I would watch it ironically and sarcastically, but it turns out I just can't.

    That's redundant! Sarcasm is irony.

  • Tron 1.0 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by freeweed (309734) on Monday December 20, 2010 @12:50PM (#34616754)

    I've re-watched the original Tron on occasion over the years, and just recently last week in preparation for the new movie (which I haven't seen yet, because every theatre in my city has it in headache-vision only, but that's another rant).

    Maybe it's just me, but I find it holding up less and less as time goes on. The first part of the movie is cut very poorly and frequently jumps around for no real reason. Once Flynn is in the Tron world, the movie ever-so-slowly gets rather tiresome and boring. Now, part of this is me just being used to modern movies that have a much quicker pace overall, but it's more than that. There really just isn't all that much story here. And all of it is hurriedly explained in the first 15 minutes or so, so the rest of the movie is just a Lord of the Rings style quest without much actually happening.

    Now, visually - I'm one of the few that still think the effects hold up. They just have a unique look to them that really exists in no other movie of its time or any time. It always surprises me upon re-watching to realize just how many computer graphics were used. Knowing how much effort when into them, I always think there must only be a few shots, but it never ceases to amaze me just how often you see them. Plus, the costume effect is just something we'll never see replicated again.

    If it's on in the background on mute, Tron is a pretty cool movie still. But actually trying to watch it? I'm just as likely to fall asleep somewhere around the 45 minute mark as not.

    Not sure how much this will be considered Flamebait on Slashdot :)

    • by 0123456 (636235)

      It always surprises me upon re-watching to realize just how many computer graphics were used.

      What surprised me on watching the movie with the DVD commentary were just how many of what, as a kid, I thought were CG effects were actually hand-drawn in Korean sweatshops.

    • Re:Tron 1.0 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Monday December 20, 2010 @01:06PM (#34617016)

      FWIW, I hate modern cutting. I frequently can't tell what's happening or form an emotional response before it cuts again to something else. The epitome of this is a Michael Bay fight scene. Some body part hits someone. It doesn't look cool and exciting. It looks like 30 to 60 seconds of incomprehensible mess and then they show you the outcome.
      I suppose they just don't want to pay money for decent fight choreography and think the cutting is good enough.

      Then you get a movie like inception and the fight scene in the hotel corridor with longer cuts and it blows you away emotionally. I think they are getting away from the hyper cutting.

      Agree on most of the rest. It was mostly "B" actors (who went on to be TV stars or secondary actors). And the plot/writing was average.

      • Re:Tron 1.0 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by McKing (1017) on Monday December 20, 2010 @02:01PM (#34617874) Homepage

        Yes, the hyper-cuts in most movies are distracting and jarring and you lose sense of who is fighting whom, especially in the Transformers movies. I can't wait for them to go away, along with the "shake the $200,000 camera attached to the $50,000 SteadiCam rig to simulate a handheld camcorder" effect used in almost every movie since Blair Witch. Or the "fiddle with the zoom as the actors are talking", a la BSG.

        Directors, these things don't lend "immediacy" to the shot, they distract us and take us *out* of the moment, and it makes some of us slightly nauseated after a while! Probably not the intended effect.

        • by 0123456 (636235)

          Directors, these things don't lend "immediacy" to the shot, they distract us and take us *out* of the moment, and it makes some of us slightly nauseated after a while! Probably not the intended effect.

          Indeed. Mel Gibson may be batshit insane, but if you listen to his DVD commentaries he does at least know what he's doing when shooting a fight scene.

      • by Chris Burke (6130)

        Then you get a movie like inception and the fight scene in the hotel corridor with longer cuts and it blows you away emotionally. I think they are getting away from the hyper cutting.

        At the very least Christopher Nolan is moving away from it, which is great. I really liked both Batman movies, but both of them suffered horribly from shakey-cam hyper-cutting on the fight scenes. Maybe the Batsuit was hard to move in and that was the way they compensated, I don't know, but the result was basically watching a

    • Maybe it was the fact that I was cuddled up with a cute girl at the time, but I actually did fall asleep at about the 45 minute mark. It was her first time watching it however (my umpteenth) and she did in fact really enjoy the movie. Maybe we just know too much about the movie and medium at this point.
    • It was exactly the reason I didn't care fro Tron 2. The first movie presented you with a world that it gave you a lot of time to take it all in. From the scenes of sitting around drinking the water, to wandering around through the crowds after crashing the Recognizer. The scene where they ride over the grid made it totally obvious, grid bugs etc.. In Tron 2, they jump scene to scene, and I didn't want that. I want to take my time and see everything. I wanted to know more of the world they created. Instead a

    • by NekoXP (67564)

      There are only 15 minutes of actual computer generated effects in the whole thing: all in all, not a great deal at all. Grid bugs, light cycles, tanks, the mountains in the background when on the solar sailer, but otherwise, the vast majority of the original Tron was hand-animated, pretty much in every scene where there's a person in it as well as some scenery. It's all cleverly disguised matte painting, cel shading. The light cycle scene where they escape the game grid is mostly CG but every time it cuts t

      • It's hard to spilt your time between running Babylon 5 and saving a user from the system. Delenn is always nagging, the shadows are moving in. The whole life work balance is hard. I'm not surprised he wasn't' in the film more.
    • Not sure how much this will be considered Flamebait on Slashdot :)

      If the general public likes the movie, then what you say will be Insightful. If people generally hate it, then your post will be modded as flamebait so everybody here can show off how sophisticated their taste in movies is.

  • Real Unix! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GreggBz (777373) on Monday December 20, 2010 @12:55PM (#34616852) Homepage
    There were several real, appropriate examples of UNIX in the movie. Things like "ps -ef | grep badprocess" and "kill -9 badprocessid". I caught that as it went by very quickly and was surprised at the accuracy.

    One of the displays showed a very Solairs looking version of top and login. I doubt this circa 1983 teminal had Solaris on it however.

    I also thought it was cool that the son looked to see what the father was up to by starting a bash shell and running something like /usr/bin/history to see what his last commands were. That whole sequence was pretty accurate. Overall though, I left the movie feeling a bit uninspired. Not that it was bad movie... it was just felt rushed with no real sense of drama.
    • Re:Real Unix! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Sonny Yatsen (603655) * on Monday December 20, 2010 @12:59PM (#34616902) Journal

      During one of the brief looks at the console, it noted that it was "SolarOS", which I think is a nice reference to SunOS, which would've been around at the time Kevin Flynn disappeared (1989).

    • by Marillion (33728)
      I also liked the references to other movies. Flynn's lair was an homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey. His line, "The only way to win is not to play" is from Wargames. "You're messing with my Zen" is from The Big Lebowski. And of course, the references back to the original movie.
    • I caught a glimpse of the version of the OS. It was Solaris 4.0, and some minor revision.
    • Was running SunOS 4 (Solaris was SunOS 5), which is roughly contemporary to the original Tron, but slightly later (exactly as would be needed to have set up the new Grid). He was also running iostat, and the blk_writes went up as the laser switched on.

      Somebody, somewhere, cared about that scene.

      Cheers,
      Ian
      • by Chelloveck (14643)

        Somebody, somewhere, cared about that scene.

        Yeah, I liked that. The only part that bothered me was the super-modern touchscreen keyboard connected to the old 1989 computer. They got all the tiny OS details right, but they flubbed the hardware big-time. Should have had an old Sun keyboard and a Mouse Systems mouse with the tracking grid... Ah, memories...

        • by zehaeva (1136559)
          Super modern touch screen? IIRC there was a similar system in the original TRON in Dillinger's desk. Also if you check up on it the touch screen technology we use today was developed in the 70's!
    • by Sporkinum (655143)

      I can go with them on the Solaris as the workstation is supposed to be circa 1989, not 1983.

  • Tron:Legacy was like watching glow-in-the-dark paint dry. This was like "Avatar: the Last Electronbender"

  • Saw it opening night (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jockeys (753885) on Monday December 20, 2010 @01:00PM (#34616916) Journal
    and all I'll say is that the new one made me feel the same way (as an adult) that the original made me feel as a child. Yes, the graphics are cool, but the coolest thing is the sense of infinite possibility you get from the scenery. CGI jeff bridges looked alright but didn't sound great as they had to use old jeff bridges voice with young jeff bridges face. Lots of nods to the original, definitely rewatch before seeing the new one. Overall very good. Some pacing issues, but that is similar to the original.
  • After watching it, I was quite disappointed. It was all flash and no story (at least in my opinion). A few of things really bothered me....

    1. They build up Flynn's kid to be some computer hacker/x-treme athlete in the beginning of the movie, but really doesn't use any of those skills once inside "the grid". (Sure, he jumped out a window with those fairy wings, but seriously, that was it??)
    2. Jeff bridges "clue" character was so "wax" like, that it was a huge distraction. I'm sure this technology will get better
    • Aye on the special powers. I thought the dismembering was to allow Flynn to regrow her arm showing his user powers.
      Ditto on the bar scene. It felt out of place and matrix like (more than star wars) tho I liked "Zeus" character who sparkled.

      The isos were basically Lulu from 5th Element. Translated into the real world, they do change philosophy and likely change a lot of medical technology and genetic science. However, given only one of them, the government would snap her up in a second as soon as they fo

    • by HTH NE1 (675604)

      2. Jeff bridges "clue" character was so "wax" like, that it was a huge distraction. I'm sure this technology will get better with time, but it's not there yet.

      I think I can forgive that. After all, the MCP didn't look much like his programmer(s) either.

    • They build up Flynn's kid to be some computer hacker/x-treme athlete in the beginning of the movie, but really doesn't use any of those skills once inside "the grid". (Sure, he jumped out a window with those fairy wings, but seriously, that was it??).... In the original, Flynn had special powers because he was a user. They really didn't explore or take advantage of that in this one. Not sure why.

      Flynn's kid might well have been very good with computers outside, but once in how do you know how to interact wi

  • by King_TJ (85913) on Monday December 20, 2010 @01:20PM (#34617204) Journal

    I went to see it on Saturday night. I opted for the 3D version, and purchased tickets in advance, via "Fandango". Despite all the warnings I heard about the Friday opening being "packed full" -- it turns out I shouldn't have wasted the extra few bucks on service fees getting my tickets online, in advance. The theater for the 10:05PM show only had about 15-20 people in it!

    Here's the stuff I found most notable:

    1. As everyone else is saying, the visuals were top-notch. I really liked the "updated look" to the light cycles, and especially the ribbon trails they left behind them. The effect of people getting de-rezzed was amazingly good too. Even the re-imagination of the traditional Walt Disney castle logo at the beginning of the movie was very cool. The 3D was subtle, which I actually liked. If you were expecting to see Flynn chucking a disc so it looked like it was headed right out of the movie screen and into the theater? Nope... sorry. No gimmicks like that. Just a little added depth to the digital world. I think you won't lose any enjoyment if you skip the 3D version, but as long as you're paying today's ticket prices to see it on a big screen anyway? It's worth going with the 3D version, if it doesn't cost extra, or the extra fee is less than the price of a small soda!

    2. The Daft Punk soundtrack fits the theme of the movie, and yes, it's not bad. But in certain spots, I thought it was mixed too loudly and becomes "overbearing", as if it's competing for your attention with what you're actually trying to watch on the screen.

    3. I still have kind of mixed feelings on how "60's hippie" they tried to make the Tron world. I mean, Jeff Bridge's character's whole "zen" thing wasn't something I expected at all out of this sequel. Does it work? Yeah, because it helps explain a few questions you might be tempted to ask, like "If he's the creator of this whole universe and has the power to revise code, at will? Why has he been so restrained at doing proactive things to better the situation for the inhabitants?" But you couple all of that with the "Zeus" character who has that crazy David Bowie vibe going on, and arch-enemies who all do things in the vein of "big corporation" or "trying to take over the world" -- and you're looking pretty squarely at the hippie vs. establishment stereotypes.

    4. There really wasn't much Tron in this Tron. He practically made a cameo appearance! Since he's many people's favorite character of the original, I thought he deserved a little more screen time.

    Overall? I enjoyed/liked this movie, and I think they did a good job of trying to respect the original, instead of stomping all over it, like SO often happens when they sequel a movie that was made so much earlier. In the end though? Given the original's whole premise, I'm not sure how this could have been re-made to have a fully believable story-line or deep plot/message? Much of the "magic" of the original Tron came from the fact that back in the 80's, computers were still a brand new and fascinating thing for a lot of us. As kids, we saw Tron and said "Wow.... that's a pretty cool way to imagine what the inside of a computer would be like if you could really become a part of one!" Now, almost 30 years later? We've all progressed far past the extent of computer games being things as "basic" as a light-cycle or person vs. person battle with throwing discs, and computer have become as much of a commodity item as our washers or dryers. We've all seen plenty of movies covering more expansive concepts like the entire Internet (The Matrix, etc.), too. So in a sense, the magic has evaporated with time -- and the best they could do is try to give back a little with the visuals and some nostolgia.

    • by Tumbleweed (3706) *

      4. There really wasn't much Tron in this Tron. He practically made a cameo appearance! Since he's many people's favorite character of the original, I thought he deserved a little more screen time.

      SPOILER ALERT!

      Tron was in almost every fight scene in this movie, you just didn't know who he was until the end. Tron was a fucking bad-ass in this movie. And I really want to know who did his martial arts moves (and how much of that was real), because that was some amazing shit.

  • The sequel was nicely done. I was a bit worried about exaggerated 3D effects, but they were well done, subtle and immersive. In fact I really didn't notice which scenes were done in 2D and which were 3D - that's how subtle the use was.

    The new light cycles are most excellent, apparently they can switch on and off the deadly wall-trails at will. The new "recognizers" are much more believable as actual vehicles, and look really cool as well. The new virtual cityscapes look really creepy and neat - especial

    • by PCM2 (4486)

      I was a bit worried about exaggerated 3D effects, but they were well done, subtle and immersive. In fact I really didn't notice which scenes were done in 2D and which were 3D - that's how subtle the use was.

      YET AGAIN! People are always saying this about these modern 3D movies: "The 3D was so subtle it was hardly distracting at all!" Not distracting? I'm asking you -- begging you -- why the Hell do I have to wear glasses to watch movies these days if I can't even tell which scenes are 2D and which are 3D? What is more distracting than wearing glasses when you don't need glasses?

  • Some of the visuals were delightful and the audio was remarkable for its amazing rumbling low end, but as a story this movie really stank. A young CGI bridges is hardly a worthy villain. The plot was just hollow and boring. I hope I never see the lead actor again. Other redeeming factors: fine girls in tight, fetishy outfits and smokey eye makeup, daft punk, linux commands on Flynn's computer, and the English guy. Really irritating: Tron magically changes his mind and what little suspense they had manag

  • by Chelloveck (14643) on Monday December 20, 2010 @01:27PM (#34617340) Homepage

    I enjoyed it a whole lot more than I expected to. The visuals were great and the soundtrack fit them perfectly. The story was merely passable, but at least it was no more insipid than your average action flick. If you're fond of the original you'll probably like this one (unless maybe if you're a lightcycle purist who thinks they should only go in straight lines, dammit!) Conversely, if you didn't enjoy the original there's nothing here for you. It's a worthy successor to the original Tron, no more, no less. Take that however you like.

    But am I the only one who couldn't stop thinking of Rinzler as The Stig's evil digital cousin?

  • They've got uploading someone into a computer, and obviously teleportation... and all they could do with it was make a video game.

            mark "Hollywood, where the producers' IQ
                            is equal to their shoe size"

  • I liked the fact it wasn't quite realistic, and I do think the film makers knew it too. It made him look a little more deranged, a little more mad. The effect worked for me.

    I liked the film. Very different in tone to the first - my kids love the first (eldest is 9) but I doubt they'd get on well with the second. That's fine though - the film is aimed at mid-to-late thirties like me, people who saw the original and wanted it taken one step further. Lots of doom-laden portentous imagery, but that's fine.
  • by PCM2 (4486) on Monday December 20, 2010 @01:36PM (#34617500) Homepage

    I can hardly count the number of things about the script for Tron: Legacy that made no sense whatsoever. As the subject says, although I'll try to keep it tame, there be spoilers here:

    • The first thing that happens to Sam when he enters the computer world is they cut off his clothes and re-clothe him in "computer clothes." Huh? Are they used to guys just showing up wearing Earth clothes now? When Flynn entered the computer world in the original Tron, he looked like all the other computer programs.
    • Computer clothes look like clothes. Walls look like walls, floors look like floors, doors look like doors. You can actually slam the door, in a computer. If you drive a computer car on a computer racetrack, your tires leave computer rubber on the road (rubber?). There are clouds in the sky (why?), and ships use thrusters to fly around (is there even air?). Basically, this wasn't the world of Tron from the first movie -- it was Attack of the Clones with extra neon.
    • If you're the absolute lord and master of the world of the computer, and you want to blow up a building inside the world of the computer, you have your goons stick magnetic explosive discs to the inside walls of the buildings as you make your dramatic exit, then watch the upper floors of the building explode from the street below, like it's Die Hard.
    • There's a major villain type character that's hunting our heroes throughout the movie -- that is, until he decides he's actually a hero type character, for no apparent reason whatsoever.
    • Similarly, Sam is told to go see a character who is supposed to be able to help him out. Said character has been living a double life -- outwardly he's a flamboyant club promoter (do computer programs need entertainment?) but secretly he's a super something-or-other. But NO! He's not, because he reveals that he's actually been secretly leading a triple life, because he's actually a villain after all, despite the fact that this seems like a really bad idea for a guy who's been living a double life, as evidenced by the fact that the guy who he's supposed to be secretly serving just decides to kill him.
    • At the beginning of the film is a bunch of techno-gobbledigook and mumbo-jumbo about ENCOM OS 12 and how it used to be free but it's not free anymore, except oh wait, Sam, in a bold act of base jumping with a parachute, managed to post it on the Web, so it's on the Web now, so it's free, but wait, we'll issue a press release and say it was always supposed to be free, on the Web, and this was all part of the plan, and uh... wait, don't we make videogames?
    • At the beginning of the movie Sam is a rebellious character who like to play nasty pranks on ENCOM, such the aforementioned acts of twiddling servers with a Nokia phone and jumping off buildings. By the end, he decides to wise up and seize power as the majority shareholder of ENCOM. That's all well and good, but just what was it that happened in the computer world that convinced him to do that? How did CLU 2's plan for world domination have anything whatsoever to do with the struggle for control of ENCOM -- a struggle which wasn't even happening before Sam went into the computer?
    • CLU wants to lead the programs out of the computer to rule the real world, the same way that Sam got in. How does that work, exactly? Well, it must work, because Olivia Wilde's elf character manages it at the end... but no, seriously, how does that work, exactly?
    • Isomorphic algorithms. They'll cure disease, end hunger, and generally save the world. Because they're isomorphic, I guess.

    I give up. The list goes on and on. This movie pretty much required you to check your brain at the door -- and frankly, I didn't find the visuals all that impressive. Avatar tried to create a realistic alien world with its 3-D computer rendered visuals; Tron: Legacy tries to create a sterile, inorganic environment dressed in neon and glass. It gets old to look at. In fact, the whole movie gets old, fast. I found myself looking at my watch often and I was glad when it was finally over.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      they were giving him armor for the games. rogue programs are rounded up by the recognizers and sent to the games. did anyone else on Sam's recognizer look like they were ready to participate in the games, no they also would have been armored up by the Sirens. what is wrong with blowing up the End of Line club he had to go there first to get kevin's identity disk so on the way out he place some C4. not seeing why this isn't okay. Tron always fought for the users, at that point he had lost both his identit
    • You must be a riot at Christmas parties.

      Okay everyone, look, Santa isn't real, neither are elves and reindeers! Why are we decorating for this crap when it doesn't exist!? Why are we singing Christmas Carols about Santa Claus, Frosty the Snowman, and Rudolf the Red-nosed reindeer?!
    • by SuperKendall (25149) on Monday December 20, 2010 @02:30PM (#34618340)

      The first thing that happens to Sam when he enters the computer world is they cut off his clothes and re-clothe him in "computer clothes." Huh? Are they used to guys just showing up wearing Earth clothes now?

      Why would they care? The programs job is to put on game armor. They would have cut off whatever they were wearing.

      As for the clothes not being in the first movie remember this is a while different laser system in operation, if Flynn was going in there all the time why would he not want to keep whatever clothes he had on at the time?

      omputer clothes look like clothes. Walls look like walls, floors look like floors, doors look like doors. You can actually slam the door, in a computer. If you drive a computer car on a computer racetrack, your tires leave computer rubber on the road (rubber?).

      Again, this is a much improved system which could explain better visual fidelity, and honestly who wouldn't want to look at clouds? Although I have to admit the more realistic physics bothered me, because why even have them?

      There's a major villain type character that's hunting our heroes throughout the movie -- that is, until he decides he's actually a hero type character, for no apparent reason whatsoever.

      Dude, that was Tron, from the first movie. He was reprogrammed to be subservient to Clu, but in the end hunting users reverted control to his primary purpose.

      Similarly, Sam is told to go see a character who is supposed to be able to help him out. Said character has been living a double..triple life

      That made plenty of sense to me in the context of earlier events. He was helping the ISO's, and was caught be Clu. He was allowed to live on the condition that he reported everything back to Clu and kept in contact with the resistance. The flamboyant thing was just a disquise to keep too many people from pestering him and keep alive the mystery of Zeus.

      That's all well and good, but just what was it that happened in the computer world that convinced him to do that?

      The whole AI spontaneously forming from nothing?????!?!?!? That was not important at all?????

      He's taking over the company to finish what his father started, to show the world there is artificial life with independent thought. That was also why they showed her thirst for reading and understanding, to show that she really was on par with humans and not just a program.

      Well, it must work, because Olivia Wilde's elf character manages it at the end... but no, seriously, how does that work, exactly?

      Ok, that certainly requires a bit of suspension, but given that we accept it can re-integrate a human from the dust that was left after a full laser scan, there's no reason it couldn't simply print out another being - part of the "magic" of the iSO's might well have been they had complex enough DNA to actually survive the transition.

      I kind of thought during the thing that if Clu succeeded it would have just meant 4000 soldiers and Clu re-created in the same basement space - awkward. Not sure he thought that through really.

      Isomorphic algorithms. They'll cure disease, end hunger, and generally save the world. Because they're isomorphic, I guess.

      They'll change the world, because they are true artificial life. Curing disease would actually be more than possible if you could be taken apart by a laser and put back together without whatever ailed you, so from that standpoint just perfecting the transition technology could have been part of it too.

      Mind you, I don't think the movie was perfect. I just don't think it had nearly as many plot issues as I was expecting.

    • by ductonius (705942) on Monday December 20, 2010 @02:36PM (#34618438) Homepage

      Here are some quick answers I just pulled out of my ass after watching the movie once.

      #1: There were plenty of programs walking around in non-glowing cloths. Cloths that glow seem to be a dress convention, rather than a strict rule. Like jeans and a t-shirt or a suit, white shirt and tie.

      #2: You're complaining that some things in the computer world were represented literally instead of metaphorically or as a pixelated analogue. Ah bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo.

      #3: If I was lord and master of a virtual world I would kill people like that all the time, or however else I wanted.

      #4: The movie strongly implies the villain in question is intelligent and has a degree of free will. The character obviously summoned his strength to exercise his free will in a way contrary to his masters wishes.

      #5: People who play both sides usually end up getting killed by one of them.

      #6: You're really bad at watching movies.

      #7: Does the movie really need to explain the details of how a flesh and blood person can go into a computer? It's hand-waved because explaining it would be stupid. It would also be stupid not to just assume that programs can go out the same way flesh and blood got in.

      #8: You're nitpicking in the most pedantic way possible.

      #9: You just used "Avatar" and "realistic" in the same sentence.

      In conclusion: Tron: Legacy could have used a better script but it did cover its bases and didn't really fall down anywhere. A solid B+. Would watch again, maybe not in 3d the second time though.

  • by Gothmolly (148874)

    You realize CLU was supposed to be a CG version of Bridges, right? He's SUPPOSED to not look 100% perfectly real.

  • Big Lebowsky, Jedi Master

    /Not a perfect film, but a pretty good sequel

TRANSACTION CANCELLED - FARECARD RETURNED

Working...