Tron 2 in 2010?

\possible spoilers















I was thoroughly disappointed with the storyline.

I thought they were making a new film rather rehashing the old one like this.

So as I understand this one, Flynn is actually making the tron world "grid" from scratch rather than being just sucked into it.

And he makes an avatar of himself to build it for him? called CLU or whatever which goes bad.

Then he finds people appearing randomly in his world called ISOz (lol??) of which olivia wilde is the last one.

The whole thing just felt awkwardly put together tbh. I don't really see the need for stormy weather either in this digital world!

On the positive side, the 3d effects and the soundtrack were the best i've ever seen yet!

sid
 
Just come back from watching it in 3D. Really enjoyed it. Action scenes were great. bits inbetween were a bit dull and pointless but overall still very entertaining and worth a watch. Really good use of 3D and sound was awesome as well.
 
Been a over a week since i watched it and considering watching it again. The actions, fights, motorbikes, cast, music really good. Don't care story was only 5.5/10 (<-- wont defend that).
 
Awful film, my sister enjoyed it more than I did due to the rubbishy mushy bits :(

The graphics and excellent but they can't help add depth to the cardboard characters (bar Michael Sheen who was the best thing about the whole film). Young Jeff Bridges looked very good as well, nearly tricked me a few times into believing it was a real person.
 
It would be interesting to see how many people that thought it was rubbish had actually seen the orignal or had an idea about the impact that it made for a film produced in 1982. Lets face it Tron was made before many people that frequent this board were born.
 
Just got back from the cinema. It was absolutely pants and my neck is sore for the crappy seats, I felt like walking out half way through. :mad:
 
I am disappoint.

Gorgeous to look at, decent soundtrack but pretty poor on the substance front. Hated the cheesy bits like the club scene, Michael Sheen's character, how they had to awkwardly squeeze Daft Punk into the scene and so on. Why do action movies always have to include brutal cheese scenes?

The first one was far more groundbreaking....obviously....but you know what I mean...
 
Saw this last night. And yes, I have seen the original many times. :)

Overall, I will echo what others have said. 5/10, too much talking, weak story, etc etc

Did anyone else think the movie peaked too early? For me, the best bits were the disc duals and the lightcycles.

However, it felt like whoever wrote the story though to themselves that they need to include at least one dual and lightcycle scene, so he did at the first available opportunity to get it out of the way?

Also didn't like the fact that the disc's have become less like frisbee's and more like hand weapons.

And am I the only one who doesn't find Olivia Wilde in the least bit attractive? To me she looks a bit weird, like someone has pulled the skin over her face back too tightly. :)
 
Needed to be more lightcycle fights!!! What was with the get away as well? Sitting on that freight train for like god knows how long, it was like they had to fill in the film with something and that was the most boring thing they could think of!
 
Azza said:
Needed to be more lightcycle fights!!! What was with the get away as well? Sitting on that freight train for like god knows how long, it was like they had to fill in the film with something and that was the most boring thing they could think of!
Click to expand...

Very good point.
 
melchy said:
It would be interesting to see how many people that thought it was rubbish had actually seen the orignal or had an idea about the impact that it made for a film produced in 1982. Lets face it Tron was made before many people that frequent this board were born.
Click to expand...

Well, I thought the new one was naff, and I have seen the original many times, and ultimately, the new one just doesnt compare in terms of visual impact for its time, or storyline.
 
Kawolski said:
My thoughts on seeing this last night;
Turned out it was in 3D not 2D as I thought, although I'm sure the difference is negligible. Seriously, with the potential this film had to make full use of the technology for the purposes of breathtaking visuals enhanced by 3D, I couldn't help but be hugely underwhelmed.
Couple points already picked up on here.
The soundtrack:
There was way too much of it, in fact to the point that by half way through the film you got the feeling that they were trying to shoehorn it in at any opportunity and it became annoying, 'oh listen more industrial/techno incidental music'...
On an up note, good to see Daft Punk themselves make an appearance, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they inhabit a world like 'the grid' for real.
The Visuals:
First off 'The Grid', as you would expect the world inside the system was visually striking and certainly a lot more sinister that the original. But to be honest, it all felt a bit samey (yes I understand its a computer system where uniformity and repetition are a given) and it just seemed to lack originality. Perhaps naively I was expecting it to impact me with its visuals much the same way the original did, I don't know.
The already mentioned CGI Flynn, or Clu to give the character his proper name, you just kind of got used too. Ok so it wasn't breathtaking imagery but it certainly wasn't the worst I've seen.
However, the possible reason for my readily acceptance of the visuals was the fact that the script was so shockingly bad. I'm sat in the cinema watching the film anticipating lines and saying to myself 'please don't say that, please don't say that' only for them to utter some cliche scriptwriting 101 drivel.

I'd better stop.

Being a child of the 80's and a fan of the original, (I know, it's not actually that good a film) I even had the duvet cover set, my excitement and anticipation for this film were palpable. Was it wrong for me to think that with 28 years to imagine and create a sequel this film was going to be, at least, a work of visual excellence showcasing the possibilities of 3D cinema?

Well for me, it wasn't.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this almost entirely.

The 3D was perfect, loved the way they alternated betwen 2D and 3D for certain scenes (although the message at the beginning did make it seem like it was designed for the lowest common denominator...) and it wasn't overdone. Films need to spend more time looking at Avatar to see how 3D should be done (and Tron did), no stupid gimicky 3D, just depth and clarity that would otherwise be lost in 2D immersing you even more.

The CGI helped, again a bit like Avatar, really drawing you into the epic world with its neon scenery. I'm guessing seeing the original Tron after this will really make the original look poor now.

As for the score that again was brilliant, we came out of the cinema and the first comments we made were about it. When it went silent for a bit I was almost willing the music to come back on it was that good, in fact I've just downloaded it so I can listen to it again.

I'd disagree about the visuals as well, saying it's samy is a bit like saying a regular film shot in a regular city is samey, there were at least 4 totally different "areas" in the film, all very impressive, but obviously fitting into the same theme, dark, red and blue...

The CGI Clu, I agree, he does look quite bad a lot of the time, but definately better than Arnie did in T4, it is rather difficult to make a photorealistic face though so I'll let them off.

As for the storyline, I thought it was pretty good, yeah there were a few cliches in there and it did drag on a little at the end (last scene over the sea comes to mind) but overall it was very solid, good acting from most and now seeing who daft punk are their scene was brilliant. :D

So yeah a definate 8 out of 10 for me and it's one of a few films I'd be tempted to go and see again at the cinema (Avatar was another), partly because the 3D really made the film.

EDIT: As for the piracy aspect, not sure really how good 3D would be at doing that. Am I right in thinking cinema 3D uses polarised light and the glasses are alternately polarised? If so all you need to do is stick a polarising filter over the camera lens... If you were really smart you could take in a 3D camera and stick a polarising filter over each lens...
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
The CGI Clu, I agree, he does look quite bad a lot of the time, but definately better than Arnie did in T4, it is rather difficult to make a photorealistic face though so I'll let them off.
Click to expand...

It is actually not as hard as you may think for a VFX studio as large as Digital Domain to produce better photorealistic characters than they did with this one.

The problem with feature film CGI is that almost always there are far too many people involved in the desicision making process. It's that final 10-15% window of tweaking and adjustment which is vital for getting further realism but is always replaced with "the execs and board members want to put their 2 cents in so lets just cram something in here"...
 
MissChief said:
I think the CGI was almost intended. Clu was a digital representation of Jeff Bridges character so it was right that he looked a little artificial.
Click to expand...

I can see that but *SMALL SPOILER* in the bit that shows him creating Clu, clu looks fine. Think it may just be a way of differentiating the age gap more but stil, not brilliant compared to the other faces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom