Watched both the Tron movies back to back, still love them a lot.

[FPAlpha]

Who says he stole it? Even if he wasn't actually the CEO of Encom after the first movie (and I honestly can't remember), he still would have been rich from all of the profits from "Space Paranoids." He could have bought the laser or made his own. (Good thing that he & Encom didn't end up financially ruined from the video game crash of 1983.)



To me, Clu's plan never made any sense. I figure that the laws of mass/energy conversion still apply. It takes impossible amounts of energy just to create something the size of a person. So you can probably only get out of the Grid an amount of matter equal to what you put in. Since Kevin Flynn entered the Grid in 1989, I figure that, using his disc, Clu himself could manifest in the real world, basically materializing his mind into young Kevin Flynn's physical pattern. However, Clu bringing his army into our world doesn't seem even remotely possible. The power required just isn't there. And even if they did materialize in our world, how would his ships work? They don't seem to have any actual propulsion and don't need any in the Grid because the laws of physics don't have to work there the way that they do here.

On the subject of Qora, I assume that she used the energy from Kevin Flynn's mass in order to materialize in our world. But since she's not based on a real world physical pattern, it makes me wonder how she works. Does she have any of the usual biological functions that a real woman would have? Does she even have skin underneath that outfit? As a computer program, there's no particular reason why she should. And I don't recall seeing Sam eat or drink anything or go to the bathroom when he was in the Grid, so I really don't know what conclusions I'm supposed to draw.



In a calculator, maybe, like, each number is its own person. Watch out for 5, man, he's a real asshole. Especially if he's just been divided.



I would just like to mention that I love Michael Sheen's performance in this movie. It's completely bonkers and feels like it belongs in a totally different movie but I enjoy it a lot!

I don't much care for the original Tron. Not only did they not have the technology to pull off what they were trying to achieve but they didn't have the visual panache either. Tron Legacy was lightyears ahead on both counts. And while I appreciate that the movie is a sequel instead of a reboot, it also seemed to me that it's a sequel very specifically designed to be accessible to people who hadn't seen the first movie (which I hadn't when I first saw Legacy). I only wish that there wasn't such a drop-off between the theatrical experience vs. the home theater experience. I'd love to see it again on the big screen in 3-D.

Man you are talking about a movie that has a laser in it that can turn actual people into a being inside a computer system, where programs take on human personalities that have their own agendas, desires and act independently from the system out of their own free will.

You are overthinking this just a little bit

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

But it's fun to overthink movies like this.

BTW they did eat and drink in Flynn's place in the grid. When Sam first met his father there they had dinner. Also in the first movie programs drank water from what looked like a river of energy which was kind of like water. Also unlike a program Sam bled when injured inside the grid.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[fireproof78]

But it's fun to overthink movies like this.

BTW they did eat and drink in Flynn's place in the grid. When Sam first met his father there they had dinner. Also in the first movie programs drank water from what looked like a river of energy which was kind of like water. Also unlike a program Sam bled when injured inside the grid.

The CLU's plan has to work if there is the interaction of the physical and the digital. Likely CLU would draw power from the real world to build his physical avatars, possibly deconstructing physical material in the Earth to build up silicon or such bodies.

 

[XCV330]

I like both Tron movies but probably just because I loved the first one as a child. I don't know if I would have liked either of them, otherwise.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

I don't much care for the original Tron. Not only did they not have the technology to pull off what they were trying to achieve but they didn't have the visual panache either. Tron Legacy was lightyears ahead on both counts. .

Although TRON is very visually dated by today's (even 2010s) standards, when it came out in the 80s it was forefront and amazing. No other movie to that point had so much of its content done with computer animation. The story was less developed because it was aimed at kids. TRON: Legacy was aimed at those same kids 30 years later, so of course it was more intricate and "adult". I was one of those kids, and I enjoyed both.

Those of us who grew up in the 80s like to see our heroes of yore "humanized" and going through the same challenges we are. Super genius Kevin Flynn, stuck in a computer and learning that, despite all his abilities, the hardest task at hand is the challenges of parenthood. Same theme as "Superman and Lois", by the way, as I am reminded of another thread in this forum. It's also why it was fun to see Riker and Troi return in Picard.

Curious: do you also prefer modern day Trek shows to TOS, because one could say of the latter "Not only did they not have the technology to pull off what they were trying to achieve but they didn't have the visual panache either".

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

First of all, keep in mind that I didn't see the original Tron until after the sequel came out, so I'm looking at it from a purely modern standpoint as far as the aesthetics go. I'm not talking about the story at all. Just the visuals and I think that the original is a rough draft of the kind of look that the sequel would perfect. It's not just a matter of computer animation. You also need digital color grading in order to achieve the look. You need to desaturate and really cool down the color palette in order to make all of those neon highlights properly pop. In the original, all of the blue highlights have a glow around them that spills over and overwhelms the rest of the frame.

It's hard to compare the different Star Trek shows of different eras because I would argue that they're all trying to accomplish different things. I would say that, if you compare TOS to the early seasons of TNG, TOS looks a lot better because nearly everything from the 1960s has aged better than things from the 1980s.

And comparing Tron to Star Trek doesn't work because Star Trek is primarily based in story ideas, regardless of how meaty the budget is to convey those ideas. On the other hand, I would argue that Tron's primary staying power is as a visual idea. Nothing else looks like it and it just looks cool. But that look didn't really come into fruition until Tron Legacy.​

 

[Owain Taggart]

Although TRON is very visually dated by today's (even 2010s) standards, when it came out in the 80s it was forefront and amazing. No other movie to that point had so much of its content done with computer animation.

Yeah, one has to watch it in the context in which it was made. Nothing like it had ever been done before, in an era where computer visuals were mostly wireframe. There was resistance to the idea, because many thought it couldn't be done, and the fact that they managed to get as much cgi as they did (and it was expensive) was considered a monumental achievement back in the day, which paved the way for an eventual computer animation industry. It was absolutely groundbreaking for its time. It's easy to say Legacy was ahead when it was created in a time where CGI was commonplace vs a time when it absolutely was not.

It's not just a matter of computer animation. You also need digital color grading in order to achieve the look. You need to desaturate and really cool down the color palette in order to make all of those neon highlights properly pop. In the original, all of the blue highlights have a glow around them that spills over and overwhelms the rest of the frame.

Keep in mind that much of what they created was via trial and error. They were figuring things out as they went along. Sure, we know these things now, but back then, they didn't. Nobody did. They did the best they could with what they had and worked with it and they literally had to create new techniques to even make it possible.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

First of all, keep in mind that I didn't see the original Tron until after the sequel came out, so I'm looking at it from a purely modern standpoint as far as the aesthetics go. I'm not talking about the story at all. Just the visuals and I think that the original is a rough draft of the kind of look that the sequel would perfect. It's not just a matter of computer animation. You also need digital color grading in order to achieve the look. You need to desaturate and really cool down the color palette in order to make all of those neon highlights properly pop. In the original, all of the blue highlights have a glow around them that spills over and overwhelms the rest of the frame.
​

This is kinda silly. You're applying contemporary digital FX standards to a movie whose "live" optics (i.e. those that weren't fully CGI) were on film, and made 40 years ago. There's no way TRON could ever look like Legacy given the technology of the time.

​

 

[fireproof78]

If a person wasn't present or aware of the context of the film's production than it is easy to see it in a poor light. Like the person who wrote a review of Lord of the Rings and how much Tolkien had ripped of J.K. Rowling. Clearly inaccurate.

Same with Gone with the Wind's "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" line. That line was challenging film standards and would be regarded as ground breaking...at the time. Lucas not having the credits before the film started as a fight against the Hollywood Guilds, to the point that Lucas resigned his Guild membership. Now, credits before the film are largely gone.

Context is key, but if you didn't learn the context then it will be missed.

 

[Owain Taggart]

This is kinda silly. You're applying contemporary digital FX standards to a movie whose "live" optics (i.e. those that weren't fully CGI) were on film, and made 40 years ago. There's no way TRON could ever look like Legacy given the technology of the time.

Yeah, it's particularly hilarious when you consider that because nobody had done anything of the sort before Tron came along, there was no playbook. I don't even think Chromakey techniques were a thing, much less computer manipulation. We owe a lot of current CGI to what the original Tron achieved, as without it, we wouldn't have Legacy and many special effects extravaganzas. The original Tron needs to be given some slack given that it was right there at the beginning creating techniques that would eventually become standard.

 

[arch101]

If you’re familiar with how the original film was made, it really is a work of art, and that’s the fun of watching it. As a movie, well, it’s lacking. Legacy is one of the most visually stunning films of the last 50 years. I could watch it repeatedly with just the music on and with the dialogue turned off.
I fear the momentum of this franchise has petered out again because of how much time its taking to make another one. Just makes it harder to sell when it does come back.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

As someone who didn't grow up with the original film (although I'm about the right age that I could have), I don't feel any obligation to view the film in its historical context. Lots of films are important for some revolutionary development to the medium but that doesn't necessarily mean that they have current entertainment value. Some of them do (Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs, Jurassic Park, Toy Story) and some of them don't (Birth of a Nation). And viewed through a contemporary lens, not only are the visuals of the original Tron lacking but the story isn't strong enough to overcome that.

I'm not so much talking about the sophistication of the FX but of the color palette used in designing the 2 movies. Tron Legacy paints some absolutely glorious looks and really does it using only 4 colors-- black, a sort of silvery white, neon blue, & neon orange. Each color is distinct, very strong, and perfectly applied just where it needs to be. The original muddies the image with a lot of reds, purples, and even some greens, plus too much white in the costumes.

I don't even think Chromakey techniques were a thing, much less computer manipulation.

Blue screen has been around since the 1930s and Chroma-key was invented in the 1950s. They weren't as common in 1982 as they are now but they'd already had a long history when Tron was first made.

I don't begrudge the original Tron for being a rough draft for what we eventually got with Tron Legacy. I just don't feel any need to watch it these days.

 

[fireproof78]

Most films don't need watching any way.

 

[Owain Taggart]

'm not so much talking about the sophistication of the FX but of the color palette used in designing the 2 movies. Tron Legacy paints some absolutely glorious looks and really does it using only 4 colors-- black, a sort of silvery white, neon blue, & neon orange. Each color is distinct, very strong, and perfectly applied just where it needs to be. The original muddies the image with a lot of reds, purples, and even some greens, plus too much white in the costumes.

Well, you're comparing an HD image to a movie that didn't have near as much fidelity. And if you're watching a remastered high-def version of the original, you'll of course see more imperfections you never weren't supposed to see. Legacy has the benefit of having more precise colours right off the bat because it's all digital and has more of a 1:1 representation, and newer screens/TVs are able to show more colors, where older SD screens were limited in what they could show. You just can't expect perfection from an era that was very much early in terms of computer imagery.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I never expected fidelity to computer science in a movie with anthropomorphic programs. In a world in which programs have feelings, there just ain't gonna be none. So, never bothered in the slightest that there was no such fidelity.

There are several interesting parts and aspects of the original. There is emotional power in the combat scenes, both on and off the gaming grid. Jurasik's death scene is pretty shocking. The Light Cycles are all kinds of cool. Bit is funny. As a kind of snapshot of the Atari era, there is cultural value. The final scenes of the helicopter flying over the city at night allude to the idea that reality is a simulation, which, although not touched on otherwise at all and irrelevant to the story, is an interesting fleeting visual motif nevertheless. "End of line" is oh-so-quotable. There're a few more things that are worthwhile, but not many.

The sequel blew chunks. It was less than a scramble of half-baked nonsense. The single interesting visual in the entire film is of Bridges kneeling and firing off his whatever wave. Unfortunately, by that point I both could and couldn't have cared less.

 

[FPAlpha]

Curious: do you also prefer modern day Trek shows to TOS, because one could say of the latter "Not only did they not have the technology to pull off what they were trying to achieve but they didn't have the visual panache either".

Yes i do. I never could get much into TOS apart from the movies which are legendary. It was a 60s show and it looked like it which is one of the reasons.

The acting is also mediocre for the most part but the scipts sometimes didn't give them much to work with. I find modern Trek shows, especially TNG and DS9, superior when it comes to memorable storylines and peak acting performances.

This changed somewhat when TOS became a movie series, the added production values did much to sell a show in space and it produced some of the most well known memorable moments in Sci Fi history.

 

[dupersuper]

Yes i do. I never could get much into TOS apart from the movies which are legendary. It was a 60s show and it looked like it which is one of the reasons.

The acting is also mediocre for the most part but the scipts sometimes didn't give them much to work with. I find modern Trek shows, especially TNG and DS9, superior when it comes to memorable storylines and peak acting performances.

This changed somewhat when TOS became a movie series, the added production values did much to sell a show in space and it produced some of the most well known memorable moments in Sci Fi history.

 

[fireproof78]

TOS isn't for everyone.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Bit is funny.

I love Bit. It's the one element from the original that feels sorely absent in the sequel. Why wasn't it included? Even now, computers are really just trillions of binary yes/no responses all smushed together. Bit is the purest expression of that.

I never could get much into TOS apart from the movies which are legendary. It was a 60s show and it looked like it which is one of the reasons.

The acting is also mediocre for the most part but the scripts sometimes didn't give them much to work with. I find modern Trek shows, especially TNG and DS9, superior when it comes to memorable storylines and peak acting performances.

1960s TV can be kind of an acquired taste but I find it fascinating. There's a lot of gray morality but the stories make a point of sifting all of the shades of gray into light & dark sides; which makes sense. People are complicated but there are some lines that good people can't cross without becoming bad people. It's what separates the criminals from everyone else.

As far as Star Trek acting performances, lets not talk about Dr. Bashir in "The Passenger" & "Melora," shall we?