Tron 2 is awesome
- Thread starter Zensteve
- Start date
Really?
I can't review any films during this festive period, so I've missed Tron Legacy. But most of what I've read is pretty indifferent. If there was ever a headache inducing film, this is it.
Still anything with Jeff Bridges and Olivia Wilde is worth a watch. And Michael Sheen, although I have no idea what part he's playing.
I may be showing my age here by every time I sit down to watch the original Tron, I can't help feel like 'WTF? Did people ever think that this look either right or good?'
I can't review any films during this festive period, so I've missed Tron Legacy. But most of what I've read is pretty indifferent. If there was ever a headache inducing film, this is it.
Still anything with Jeff Bridges and Olivia Wilde is worth a watch. And Michael Sheen, although I have no idea what part he's playing.
I may be showing my age here by every time I sit down to watch the original Tron, I can't help feel like 'WTF? Did people ever think that this look either right or good?'
That's what I've heard. I wasn't really a fan of the first, but I am looking forward to this one. Is Jeff Bridges on a late comeback streak or what? Good for him.
Interesting note: The director, Joseph Kosinski, seems to be into nostalgic redos. His next project is THE BLACK HOLE, which is also one of Christopher Nolan's fave movies. I never got into the flying trashcan robots, but, again, I'm looking forward to it!
It was ok, I guess.
I was a fan of the original, which is what kind of took away from the new one... I had heard it was a remake/reboot and it was a little too much of a remake, so I got bored not nostalgic.
The 3D was unimpressive to me and I saw it in IMAX 3D. It didn't help that it cost $31 for 2 tickets...There aren't too many movies worth that much money to see.
The 3D was unimpressive to me and I saw it in IMAX 3D. It didn't help that it cost $31 for 2 tickets...There aren't too many movies worth that much money to see.
Really?
I can't review any films during this festive period, so I've missed Tron Legacy. But most of what I've read is pretty indifferent. If there was ever a headache inducing film, this is it.
Still anything with Jeff Bridges and Olivia Wilde is worth a watch. And Michael Sheen, although I have no idea what part he's playing.
I may be showing my age here by every time I sit down to watch the original Tron, I can't help feel like 'WTF? Did people ever think that this look either right or good?'
I liked the original Tron myself. What I am surprised is that no one(that I know) even understands the spirituality overtones of the User/Program analogy. A couple of friends I pointed it out too, after I explained it, said "Well, some things make more sense then!" Haven't seen the Sequel, though from what I've read, I'll wait for DVD.
But I am glad you liked it Zensteve
That's the main thing!
Before this film, there was nothing that looked like it ever... the effects were really good and cutting edge. You're a bit spoiled graphically now, but if you look at all of the other CG stuff from the time, TRON was way ahead of them.
My household had a computer and was unusual in that aspect at the time... I was the only of my friends at the time to have access to a computer at all. It was right on the horizon though and films were coming out showing those of us with computers as social malcontents who could cause the end of the world through our actions (Wargames, TRON). The public was scared of computers taking over our society. While this sounds like a long time ago, it's only been 30 years since this was a real world. I would imagine it was the same kind of thing socially that Mary Shelley was commenting on in Frankenstein about electricity.
I'd like to see the 2-D version. Are they offering that anywhere? The whole 3-D thing ain't really doing it for me, but if it's the only way to check it out then I'm there.
Here's a hastily written idio(t)syncratic review I put together for a zine back in 1995, complete with misspelling and willy-nilly wordsmithing.
TRON (1982)
http://flickerpictures.com/tronreview-web.jpg
Agreed!
Here's a hastily written idio(t)syncratic review I put together for a zine back in 1995, complete with misspelling and willy-nilly wordsmithing.
TRON (1982)
http://flickerpictures.com/tronreview-web.jpg
Agreed!
Last edited:
And that's something to remember, the original was cutting edge stuff, and I hear you about the computers, people were scared (maybe rightly so-look how much we rely on them today!)
Very remiscent of Rik Mayall's portrayal of King Herod in Jesus Christ Superstar 2000
Yup, I continue to remain underwhelmed with the 3D trend. Free passes are the best way to see most first-run movies these days. Otherwise, I'll be at the second-run dollar-theater - which shows 3D flicks for $4. That's a much more reasonable price for a movie.
Very remiscent of Rik Mayall's portrayal of King Herod in Jesus Christ Superstar 2000
Yup, I continue to remain underwhelmed with the 3D trend. Free passes are the best way to see most first-run movies these days. Otherwise, I'll be at the second-run dollar-theater - which shows 3D flicks for $4. That's a much more reasonable price for a movie.
See, this is what gets me: We keep hearing about "blockbusting/history making" opening weekends and takes these days, but yea 15 bucks a pop for a 3D film, no WONDER it's going to make more money-I'd like to see boxoffice takes pro-rated for the current "non-3d" theatre prices, 8-9 dollars-we'd see how history making they are.
I believe it was Speilburg who said that the movies shouldn't be based on boxoffice take, but on tickets sold, THAT is a far more accurate number IMO.
I will probably wait for DVD (don't have a theatre in my town and I don't have a car-yes I live in a small town LOL)
I think I'm going to go see it in a week or so (once my non-Christmas routine is back in full swing) but I'm also a little tired of 3D. Anyhow I think seeing it in 2D is kind of pointless...
I appreciate that the original was ground breaking at the time (I've seen The Lost World where they had Iguanas in tin foil hats for Dinosaurs) but I just don't understand how people thought that it looked good. It's a bit like the video game 'Pong'. If I had been making that video game I would have stepped back and thought 'I'm sure we can do better than this. Let's keep working.' And I would've been right! The proof of the pudding is in the playing of Red Dead Redemption
I appreciate that the original was ground breaking at the time (I've seen The Lost World where they had Iguanas in tin foil hats for Dinosaurs) but I just don't understand how people thought that it looked good. It's a bit like the video game 'Pong'. If I had been making that video game I would have stepped back and thought 'I'm sure we can do better than this. Let's keep working.' And I would've been right! The proof of the pudding is in the playing of Red Dead Redemption
It looked good because at the time, we were comparing it to pong... and "Adventure", and Pac-Man on Atari. And that was good -- at the time. Audiences knew King Kong wasn't real, but they let themselves be transported anyway in the 30s. They were just a smart as we were, but the basis for comparison didn't exist yet - so it was the best thing they'd seen. In 20 years, the films we're seeing today will look dated and crappy with people asking how we could have believed the images were convincing. It's the march of technology!
Well, I saw Tron 2 yesterday. It's good and worth seeing, but nothing earth shattering. The whole concept about trying to create a perfect world and a perfect being is what The Singlarity is about. That's when humans will surpass the biology of the world we live in with science.
That will never happen. Genetic mutation works WAY faster than we could ever dream of.
Anyway, I'm on my way to go see "Tron: Legacy". I hope you're right, Zensteve!
Oh, and I'm watching it in 2D.
Never say never, my friend. Sean Connelly learned that the hard way.
There is rumors of genetic engineering of humans going on behind closed doors with several governments around the world. Dark Angel is today's science fiction and tomorrow's science fact like the atomic submarine in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea.
I'm saying never. And his name is Sean Connery.
And the movie's pretty cool. I'm not crazy about it. But it's cool.
I'm saying never. And his name is Sean Connery.
And the movie's pretty cool. I'm not crazy about it. But it's cool.
Have you ever read the book THE BIOLOGICAL TIME BOMB by Gordon Rattray Taylor? The book is a very interesting read about genetic engineering.
Overall, I enjoyed this movie mainly because of the nostalgia, but there were a few things that bugged the hell out of me. Most notably, the digital plastic surgery done on Jeff Bridges was very poorly executed, IMO. It was barely better than the facial animation in Beowulf. Certainly not on the level of Avatar. Granted, if he didn't speak or emote, it looked great. But beyond that you could easily tell it was faked.
I had the same problem with the Crispin Glover character (Stayne) in the recent Alice in Wonderland. His head movement often didn't match his body.
Very annoying. We have all the right the technology available. There's no excuse for sloppy animation.
I had the same problem with the Crispin Glover character (Stayne) in the recent Alice in Wonderland. His head movement often didn't match his body.
Very annoying. We have all the right the technology available. There's no excuse for sloppy animation.
Last edited:
Meh. Pulp-science. Not real science. I'm sure it was an interesting read, but it should be taken with a grain of salt, especially since the study of genetics has advanced light-years beyond where it was in 1968.