Started By
Message
locked post

Tron

Posted on 12/17/10 at 2:48 am
Posted by Doosh606
The DC
Member since Apr 2008
3232 posts
Posted on 12/17/10 at 2:48 am
Anybody see it tonight? I thought the graphics were incredible, but it was way too Disney. I thought going in that it would be the opposite.
Posted by trevorthetiger
Member since Jun 2009
1099 posts
Posted on 12/17/10 at 3:31 am to
ill agree with this. dialogue and story was meh
Posted by Afreaux
Conway Bayou
Member since Aug 2007
47019 posts
Posted on 12/17/10 at 3:47 am to
Probably check it out this weekend.
Posted by Atari
Texas
Member since Dec 2009
3716 posts
Posted on 12/17/10 at 4:51 am to
Saw it, loved it. Will see it again. But like all of my feelings on Tron, it's perfect for me, but hard to recommend to anyone else.
Posted by Geauxldineye
New Orleans, La
Member since Sep 2005
1345 posts
Posted on 12/17/10 at 3:20 pm to
So I saw it today. While I preface this with the fact that I enjoyed the movie, and the CGI is top notch as well as Daft Punk's score. It seems like there is an even greater story buried in Legacy trying to get out. Here are a few of my observations and some will contain SPOILERS so if you haven't seen it yet don't read below.

















Ok, so Flynn has created an amazing digital realm that has become more "advanced" in the 20 years that he has been in the system. The original Flynn even joked that he "invented" wifi in 1985. Why no connected networks or internet connectivity in the grid world. You would have thought the creator of this great digital realm that will supposedly "change everything" would have found a way into other networked systems or through the internet.

There is very little connection to computers at all other than characters being called "users" or "programs" or "ISO's" . That's what was great about the first Tron. Those bonds were apparent to the viewer and they could use that as a stronger base to identify with the digital avatars.

How can a man who created this entire "perfect" system create a real physical form for a digital avatar in the real world (which I don't get), not be able to hack or create a way to network with other systems or create an internet portal.

Also where is this "Grid" world stored? On Encom's server farm? On Flynn's set up in the arcade?
This post was edited on 12/18/10 at 3:26 pm
Posted by drewhowie
Michigan
Member since Sep 2010
1065 posts
Posted on 12/17/10 at 3:22 pm to
the first 40 min had me thinking that this could really be a great stand alone sci fi film. by the end i wasn't as happy with it, but it's still worth seeing.
btw, i didn't see it in 3D
Posted by Geauxldineye
New Orleans, La
Member since Sep 2005
1345 posts
Posted on 12/17/10 at 3:31 pm to
that's another thing. I saw it in 3D, but not in IMAX 3D. Maybe it was the type of glasses they give you, but I found the picture clarity to be cloudy with the glasses. I would like to go back and see it again without 3D and see the difference. I wasn't really impressed with the way this was presented in 3D. Nothing really came across as interactive between the screen and the viewing experience. You could sense depth kinda well, but that came and went. There didn't seem to be enough consistency to it. It kinda felt layered and not truly 3 dimensional.
Posted by TigerMyth36
River Ridge
Member since Nov 2005
39727 posts
Posted on 12/17/10 at 3:35 pm to
It was not shot in 3-D. Retrofitted 3-D blow chunks. It is nothing but a marketing ploy to bilk more money from you.

Posted by Geauxldineye
New Orleans, La
Member since Sep 2005
1345 posts
Posted on 12/17/10 at 3:43 pm to
quote:

It was not shot in 3-D. Retrofitted 3-D blow chunks


I thought it was filmed using the slightly newer version of the same 3D cameras Cameron used on Avatar. The 3D came across more as layering images on top of one another to create depth than actual depth and perception. Parts almost felt like watching one of the animated comics that they did for Watchmen and Inception.
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83517 posts
Posted on 12/17/10 at 3:45 pm to
quote:

It was not shot in 3-D. Retrofitted 3-D blow chunks.


I thought it was supposed to be shot in 3-D..?

Maybe I heard wrong?
Posted by LSUgusto
Member since May 2005
19222 posts
Posted on 12/17/10 at 10:46 pm to
I agree with a lot of what y'all have said so far. The story was a little cliche', the graphics were stellar. 3-D was so-so. I thought Jeff Bridges saved the film.
Posted by drewhowie
Michigan
Member since Sep 2010
1065 posts
Posted on 12/17/10 at 11:14 pm to
this makes me feel better about skipping the 3D. i can't trust the critics on these types of things
Posted by tigerking765
Camp Nou
Member since Sep 2005
3490 posts
Posted on 12/18/10 at 1:44 am to
It was, in fact, shot in 3-D. They actually used more advanced cameras than Avatar.
Posted by croxley
Who Dat Nation
Member since Jan 2009
399 posts
Posted on 12/18/10 at 2:06 am to
The CGI was awesome. The plot was OK, but not really there for that anyway.
Posted by Lee County Tiger
I Haz Sources
Member since Oct 2009
33354 posts
Posted on 12/18/10 at 4:50 am to
I'm a huge fan of the original, and here's what I thought:

I loved the subtle hints they dropped to reference the 1st movie. From "man, that's a big door" to dillinger's son, I loved how they tied it together. I also liked how they explained why everything was so much more high tech than the original as well.

Jeff Bridges played Flynn as a computer fascinated version of "The Dude", which I thought worked well when you caught on to the subtle things such as his embracing Zen since he was all alone.

*Spoiler* I enjoyed TRON coming to his senses and defending Flynn towards the end. And for some reason, I feel like they left an opportunity for another sequel with just Sam as the main focus and how he uses Clara and what she does as the only Isotope left, especially since she's in the real world. *End Spoiler*

I loved the score as well. It almost felt like it's own character.

That said, a few gripes:

They tried to make this a stand alone movie, one that if you never saw the original you wouldn't be lost. And while I enjoyed a bunch of the parallels between the original and this one, at times I felt like they kept trying to rewrite the original movie.

CLU looked too fake to me. Granted, if the whole movie had been done like Jim Carrey's Christmal Carol, it woulda been fine, but it just felt weird looking at the fake Bridges like that.

All in all, I loved the movie, minus my minor gripes. I liked Flynn's grasp on "perfection can't be reached" since there's a real world truth to that, and I didn't have a problem with the other universes/grids not connecting since The Grid was essentially a Video Game Grid and that's all, since that's what it was based off of.
Posted by TexasSinger
Front Row
Member since Feb 2006
4480 posts
Posted on 12/18/10 at 11:01 am to
Thought it was middle of the road. CGI was great....it was like a spectacular laser show at times. Story was below average. Is this what we have come to with having spectacular CGI these days? Just quickly paste a screenplay together and lay down some fabulous special effects.

Like a poster above states, this movie had much more potential with the subject matter expanding even further based on technology of today(wifi). What have the screenwriters been doing for the last 30 years? Plenty of time to write something much better.

I didn't care for the back and forth from 2D to 3D. You are marketing 3D. I'm paying extra $$ for 3D.
Posted by PBeard
DC
Member since Oct 2007
5900 posts
Posted on 12/18/10 at 12:08 pm to


I was rolling when they were DJing at the party. I think I may have been the only one in the theater that recognized them. That's sad.
Posted by heehaw
Member since May 2009
4584 posts
Posted on 12/18/10 at 2:11 pm to
I took some shrooms and went and saw it...I cant say what happened in the movie.
Posted by GeauxBayouBengals
Member since Nov 2003
6145 posts
Posted on 12/18/10 at 2:37 pm to
I enjoyed the film. I didn't go expecting an oscar winning screen play. It was a good popcorn movie and should be taken as such. The only thing I didn't enjoy was the performance of the actor playing Zuse. I thought he was way over the top and annoying. As for the 3D, I hate 3D and wish it would go away, but that doesn't seem likely.
Posted by Alan Garner
thigh-land
Member since Oct 2009
3433 posts
Posted on 12/18/10 at 3:17 pm to
i actually thought that clu/young flynn looked amazing especially when it was low light. the only thing that was off was his cheeks when he made certain facial expressions.

took my glasses off for all the non 3-d scenes (real world.)

thought the movie was pretty good, i enjoyed the original as well.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram