I think this cancellation might signal Disney likely going to give up on setting up their own action franchises now they have SW and MCU in their pockets.
Tron 3 is coming (and Garrett Hedlund is confirmed to come back)
- Thread starter Mach5
- Start date
I think this cancellation might signal Disney likely going to give up on setting up their own action franchises now they have SW and MCU in their pockets.
Especially since pretty much everyone one they have tried since the first Pirates of the Carribean has bombed. Which is a shame because some of them, like Legacy and John Carter, were actually really good movies. If I had things my way we'd be on the fourth or firth Tron and second or third Barsoom movie by now.
Last edited:
http://variety.com/2015/film/news/d...a-sequence-into-live-action-movie-1201511401/
Soooo, they can't find room on their release schedule for TR3N, but they can remake Pete's Dragon, give us Tim Burton's Dumbo, and now... this...
Soooo, they can't find room on their release schedule for TR3N, but they can remake Pete's Dragon, give us Tim Burton's Dumbo, and now... this...
Why doesn't Disney like animation anymore?
What Disney likes most of all is money. Ping-ponging its back-catalog from one medium to the other is just the modern equivalent of its "cheapquel" policy from about 10-15 years ago (you know, Lion King 1 1/2 and things like that). I also wouldn't be surprised if they turned the Lion King musical into a film either (similar to the Producers which became a musical and then a film version of the musical).
Considering that Disney owns Pixar and the haul Frozen just made, I don't think its commitment to animation has gone anywhere. They just want to keep expanding.
Did the Klingons really get that reference? I never was 100% sure...
It isn't just "Disney" anymore. There's also "Walt Disney Animation Studio". Then there's the co-productions like Pixar and Lucuasfilm, plus others. Check out the Future Releases gird at the bottom of this link to sort out who's making what and/or with whom. It also features a color coded column for determining what types of films, (Live Action, Animated, Nature, etc.) are being made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_films
----------------------
So Clooney killed another one, eh?
Oh, no. No. NO!
BatClooney memories! Please! Somebody make them go away! ARGGGGH!
----------------------
So Clooney killed another one, eh?
Oh, no. No. NO!
BatClooney memories! Please! Somebody make them go away! ARGGGGH!
Yeah, but only 3D animation. The studios don't seem interested in 2D animation anymore.
Probably not directly. But the curtness of the response was probably at least enough to infer that it wasn't a good thing. Chang's follow-up "I beg your pardon?" alluded to that uncertainty.Did the Klingons really get that reference? I never was 100% sure...
That's SO last century, man!
Probably not directly. But the curtness of the response was probably at least enough to infer that it wasn't a good thing. Chang's follow-up "I beg your pardon?" alluded to that uncertainty.Did the Klingons really get that reference? I never was 100% sure..."We need breathing room!"
"Earth; Hitler; 1938."
That's SO last century, man!
it feels so far away, it might as well be last millenium!
See, that's just the problem, this idea that 3D animation is some kind of a technological advance beyond 2D "cel" animation. That's like saying sculpture is an improvement on painting, or rock music is an advance beyond jazz. They're just different artistic styles. They should coexist rather than competing. It makes no sense to shut one out in favor of the other.
And the weird thing is, we still get stop-motion films like Coraline and The Boxtrolls. There's still a market for that "old" animation technique -- even though stop-motion has been completely supplanted by CGI as a special-effects technique in live-action movies. So how come American studios are still okay with stop motion as an art form but have no interest in cel-styled animation? (I say "styled" because even traditional animation is drawn in computers these days, or at least the original pencil drawings are scanned and digitally inked, painted, and animated.) It's a silly double standard. 2D animation can be quite gorgeous.
And, of course, it's possible to blend the two. It's become common to use cel-shaded 3D animation for vehicles, backgrounds, and the like in productions with traditional character animation. Futurama is a well-known example. Otomo's Steamboy is probably the apotheosis of that technique, blending the 3D so well with the 2D that I didn't even realize it wasn't hand-drawn.
And the weird thing is, we still get stop-motion films like Coraline and The Boxtrolls. There's still a market for that "old" animation technique -- even though stop-motion has been completely supplanted by CGI as a special-effects technique in live-action movies. So how come American studios are still okay with stop motion as an art form but have no interest in cel-styled animation? (I say "styled" because even traditional animation is drawn in computers these days, or at least the original pencil drawings are scanned and digitally inked, painted, and animated.) It's a silly double standard. 2D animation can be quite gorgeous.
And, of course, it's possible to blend the two. It's become common to use cel-shaded 3D animation for vehicles, backgrounds, and the like in productions with traditional character animation. Futurama is a well-known example. Otomo's Steamboy is probably the apotheosis of that technique, blending the 3D so well with the 2D that I didn't even realize it wasn't hand-drawn.
^The answer is probably that at the lower end of the market, 2D cell animation is a lot more expensive and laborious than CG rendering. While at the upper end, these days they seem to want to release these big summer animated movies in 3D theatres, which is a lot easier if the movie is CG to begin with.
So without any big movies being made in 2D, the studios that specialised had to transition or die as it simply wasn't cost effective anymore. I'm pretty sure most 2D work done today is farmed out to South Korea and even there, actual 2D is being supplanted by CG cell shading which is simply more efficient from a production standpoint.
Short version: it's just how the market has gone and it's partly due to the way trends have of becoming self re-enforcing in a risk averse industry.
So without any big movies being made in 2D, the studios that specialised had to transition or die as it simply wasn't cost effective anymore. I'm pretty sure most 2D work done today is farmed out to South Korea and even there, actual 2D is being supplanted by CG cell shading which is simply more efficient from a production standpoint.
Short version: it's just how the market has gone and it's partly due to the way trends have of becoming self re-enforcing in a risk averse industry.
The irony is that when they announced in April(?) that Tron 3 was moving forward my initial thought was 180 this thought, again, at the time.
That it signaled, Disney wasn't just going to rest on it's laurels of having Star Wars & Marvel. That they were now going to cultivate other franchises in their library like they have with PotC.
Did the Klingons really get that reference? I never was 100% sure...
Knowing the Klingons, they might have thought "Oh, he's comparing us to some great conqueror from their history? That's nice!"
I get where you're coming from. I'm a Gen-Xer, so I would have preferred Tron Legacy's production design to match the original more (including the dorky hockey helmets and kneepads and elbowpads). I also would like to see Disney continue producing 2D films like its early 90s heyday, but I am realistic enough not to expect this, because as the other poster said, the public simply isn't clamoring for it.
Witness the 2.5D approach being adopted for Peanuts. When they deliberately want something to look 2D, I guess they are just going to take CG and dumb it down to look like some sort of surreal popup book.
2D is still viable on TV, with things like Adventure Time, or imported anime. But the no-expenses-spared hand-drawn animation that Disney became known for in the old days and revived in the late 80s/early 90s is over. The last hurrah was the animated sequences in Enchanted.
Stop-motion still exists but it's definitely just a niche. It also benefits from being able to be released in 3D just like CG films.
They don't have a in movie explanation on how the programs were planning on getting out of the computer world but I believe that Clu would have used real humans as templates for his army as the programs left their universe. Basically they would have created some kind of conduit to the real world. Another solution is that Clu could have planned the army of his to be solid hologram constructs like the Doctor on ST: Voyager. There are lots of possibilities and I am sure if the 3rd movie came to fruition they would have hired a smart enough writer to come up with one. Since it never got to that point it doesn't really matter. I am sure it would have been explained in the 3rd film if it would have been made. Tron is science fiction/fantasy not real life.
I miss 2D animation. When done well there's such a beauty to it that 3D can never match. What was the last 2D movie ever made by any USA studio? Princess and the Frog? (I'm not gonna count Winnie the Pooh 
)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios_films
)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios_films
I just wish it had been more colorful. In the original, the Programs' suit/body lights were monochrome, either blue or orange depending on allegiance (and I think one character was yellow or something), but the world they inhabited was lushly colorful and dynamic and bright. But Legacy's entire world is drab and monochrome. In the original, the "wilderness" beyond the city (I forget what it was called) was this panoply of colorful, abstract constructs and environments, but in Legacy, it was just a gray desert.
Except that, again, 2D "cel" animation these days is just as computerized as the 3D kind. It's a difference in style, not expense or technology. I'm afraid that if this arbitrary lack of interest in the art form lasts too long, we'll run out of animators trained in it.
But these things go in cycles. There's always nostalgia and counterreactions to long-running trends. Look at all the films now that are pushing back against overuse of CGI special effects and embracing physical sets and practical effects again. Maybe eventually we'll see a pushback against the exclusivity of 3D animation.
There have been a few cel-animated films made in 3D (in the sense of stereoscopic projection, rather than the sense of using computer models with three digitally calculated dimensions). There were at least six stereoscopic/3D cartoon shorts made in the US in the '50s, including the Bugs Bunny cartoon Lumber Jack-Rabbit, the Woody Woodpecker cartoon Hypnotic Hick, the Popeye cartoon Ace of Space, the Casper cartoon Boo Moon, and two Disney shorts, the Donald Duck cartoon Working for Peanuts and Adventures in Music: Melody. There was also a 1952 British cartoon short called The Owl and the Pussycat preceding them all. Much later, the 1985 Starchaser: The Legend of Orin was the first feature-length stereoscopic cel-animated film. So it is definitely possible to make cel-animated films for 3D projection. It should be even easier with modern digital techniques.
Beside the point. It's got nothing to do with real life, because there are no teleporters or digitizer rays in real life. We're not talking about real science, we're talking about a continuity error between the two movies. The first movie made it quite clear that the digitizing laser could only reassemble objects from the particles stored during their disassembly. So Legacy ignored and contradicted that by asserting that it could turn an arbitrary number of programs into solid matter.
Didn't they come up with a whole new psuedoscience explanation for how it all works in Tron Legacy - something about how electromagnetic signals from our world are shaping the quantum foam of another dimension, or something? And that the laser makes portals. Or something?
Which is weird because the movie seems to treat it as if they're popping into a computer program anyways.
(Or am I just misremembering?)
Which is weird because the movie seems to treat it as if they're popping into a computer program anyways.
(Or am I just misremembering?)
Similar threads
