tron legacy

[dr shottie]

YouTube - OFFICIAL HD Tron Legacy Comic-Con 2009 (2010) TRAILER! VFX Test for 2009 Movie
will this film rock going buy this yes

[Ruthful]

My friend ran across someone online the other day who didn't even know what Tron is.

HOW INSANE IS THAT?!

[dr shottie]

that is a major FAIL lol

[Kidd Ikarus]

This trailer looks friggin awesome

[dr shottie]

i know i had to post it and thread it here for people to see it and chat about it

[ola]

I'm just happy it has Jeff Bridges in it!

Watched the old Tron recently with a MST3K-style commentary track by Riff Raff Theater, it's worth the work of syncing it up (if you like that sort of thing)
http://www.rifftrax.com/iriffs/riff-raff-theater/riff-raff-theater-tron

[turtlex]

Bruce Boxleitner is listed in the credits as well.... fingers crossed they don't screw with the whole premise too much.

[pinkymcfatfat]

Daft Punk is set to do the soundtrack...and it's said they will show up somewhere in the movie.

[cozener]

Bruce Boxleitner is listed in the credits as well.... fingers crossed they don't screw with the whole premise too much. I heard he was actually going to play Tron again.

[ArtherEld]

This was an awesome sequel. And a stand alone movie.

3D was used as more of an artistic gimic rather than "come watch our 3D moviez!1!!!1"

The action sequences were great.

Lives up to the original. Did not seem like the typical Disney movie. Not just because of the rating. Pirates of the Carribean series was pg-13. But Pirates still had that fun Disney feel to it. This movie was still the same cult scifi genre that makes you go, "This is Disney?"

A lot of people had issues with the story that it was not cerebral enough. My question is what in the holy rat penis were you looking for? I don't know if I'm ready to get into an argument on what makes a movie "cerebral". But the plot was had the same ammount of that as the first movie, even more in my opinion.

The movie took real chances on making a commentary on religion that at least competes with "Da Vinci Code". The whole thing about Flynn the creator having nothing to do with the new lifeforms (the ISOs) showing up.

The idea that AI will be the next form of life in evolution is still a rather new and hard to accept idea. For those who think such a theory is preposterous will be asking for their money back when they see the ending. Also, you'll have to get over "what's preposterous" unless you are not a fan of the first film. Real life people are physically transported into a videogame. You don't take the sequel as the starting point to complain about this idea.

Oh, yeah, and let's deal with it shall we? The CGI Young Flynn/Clu. Look I know I'm one of those who defends cgi a lot. But it's not that simple. I only hate CGI when it's clear that it's done lazily.

There is nothing lazy about the effects in this movie in my opinion. And that includes Young Flynn/Clu. I thought he looked amazing. Yes, I could tell he was CGI. But creeped both me and my girlfriend out because they did such a good job. If you leave the theater going, "how did they do that?" They did their job.

Now look, yes, he looked animated (barely imo, but yes, I'll give it to you). And critics will say, "Well, WETA did a superb job on Gollum and he looks more realistic than Clu in this movie, and LOTR is how many years old?" Yeah, I get that. The thing is Gollum has a lot of definition to work with. He's dirty, he's rinkly, and he's not a real person. This makes a lot of difference and allows a lot of room for error when trying to make Gollum look realistic. (And to add, though I agree that Gollum looked amazing, I could still tell he was animated too).

Now the challenge in Tron Legacy is to take someone, who is a real life actor, and animate him. That's challenging in itself. They've done it before, but for short takes, like a monster picks up a guy and eats him, or better example, when Legolas jumps onto his horse in The Two Towers (a section that looked horribly animated by the way). But for prolonged scenes. Especially scenes like in the beginning where there's absolutely no action. It's young Flynn talking to his son. Not sure anyone has even attempted this yet (and I'm very possibly wrong on that).

But not only is the character a real life actor, but they have to do a younger version of him. A younger, clean shaved version. If they were doing ancient Flynn that would have been easier, but still you'd tell.

Maybe had they waited a couple years when cg animation was really, REALLY good they would have pulled it off.

So is that the question? Should they have waited for sfx to get better before they did this? Really? And should the filmmakers waited before making the original King Kong before they attempted trying to make a huge gorrilla? That movie is amazing! The are still fantastic and yet you can still tell, King Kong is fake.

I got into a debate at work about cgi. Again I said I was okay with it as long as there's visible effort involved, and it's not just done lazily. The argument my colleague gave me was, "if they can't do it for real, don't do it at all, that's how I feel." Really? If you believe that, then you don't understand filmmaking. I don't believe that crap and I still don't understand filmmaking, but I do know that attempting the impossible has always been the objective of special effects.

The movie was great. The story was great. The action was awesome.

It wasn't perfect. My one gripe is that Tron the character had almost nothing to do with the story. But then Tron is the name of the video game, so Tron is actually the setting if you wanna be technical about it. (Last time I saw the first one was about 6 years ago, and I could have sworn that Tron wasn't that big a character in their either.)

The acting could have been better, but Quaid was superb. Zeus will get on your nerves and that's it.

That's all I got.

[OchrisO]

I thought the movie was good, but the 3d was horribly disappointing. The world of Tronis the sort of setting where 3D should be at its greatest. They could have used it to make the audience feel like they werebeing drawn into a computer world, but the failed miserably in that aspect.

[Merlin1958]

I thought the movie was good, but the 3d was horribly disappointing. The world of Tronis the sort of setting where 3D should be at its greatest. They could have used it to make the audience feel like they werebeing drawn into a computer world, but the failed miserably in that aspect.

I haven't seen it yet (Wasn't gaga over the original), but too often they sort of "Add-On" the 3D process. "Avatar" is the first film I've seen that was shot "in" 3D. Too often they call too much attention to the Efx and don't let it "just be an experience. Avatar didn't hit all the marks (story-wise), but I loved the 3D atmosphere.

[JRM]

TRON was filmed in 3D.

I've heard it's a pretty disappointing film, though. As far as story and acting is concerned. But I still want to see it -- in 3D. I doubt it'll be as great as AVATAR's 3D (there was a lot going on in that world), but I expect entertaining escapism.

[Merlin1958]

TRON was filmed in 3D.

I've heard it's a pretty disappointing film, though. As far as story and acting is concerned. But I still want to see it -- in 3D. I doubt it'll be as great as AVATAR's 3D (there was a lot going on in that world), but I expect entertaining escapism.

I know it was. Just that most folks don't know how to properly do that. They almost make the EFX a character. Avatar, didn't though IMO. Know what I mean?

[ur2ndbiggestfan]

I saw it in 3D IMAX. I liked the visuals, but the story was sort of uninteresting to me. I saw TRON such a long time ago that I could hardly remember it, but I pieced together what was going on. And it still didn't hold together too well for me. I had a bad headache though, so I don't even trust my OWN opinion on this one! Also, I am not a big fan of IMAX but that was the only way I could see it in 3D at my local theater. The women's eyelashes were very nice though.