Tron: Legacy Megathread [** SPOILERS FROM POST 153 ONWARDS **]

Richard Dower

Just back from it,head is pounding off me!....i don't even remember what they story was about as all my brainpower was focused on tryna "get" the 3D and focus on the visuals. I didn't see any depth perception in the 3D like Avatar, moreso "pop out" bits...and i mean bits.

The 3D was pretty weak imo, acting was weak all round, Jeff Bridges...ah, was this The Big Lebowski or Tron??...i thought "the dude" was back the last third of the movie.

Visually, beautiful....but it was just TOO polished, the thing about the original Tron was the suits, the lighting effects...they were blurred and washed out and kinda "neon" look, even down to the mild flickering.

Legacy was just too perfect, no bloody tanks!...wtf?, but tbf they reused everything but the tanks, i mean....you see a few tank shots but they never got involved. Why was Cillian Murphy in this?...he seems to turn up as bit parts in all these movies, Batman; Inception etc.

Overall, visually great, story and acting....meh, it's a one off "experience", if you can handle the 3D after effects.

Saaron

Richard Dower wrote: »

Jeff Bridges...ah, was this The Big Lebowski or Tron??...i thought "the dude" was back the last third of the movie.
.

Haha i started thinking that during the movie myself :rolleyes:

CabbageThing

I went to see Tron:legacy in cineworld and I was underwhelmed by the 3D. I noticed that the far right hand side of the cinema screen was blurred or in double focus just like if you were watching a 3D movie without the glasses. So I thought maybe my 3D glasses (which i kept from Avatar) were damaged ? or Cineworld were not projecting it properly??
I will just have to go see it again in a different cinema with new glasses.

Did anybody else noticed this ?

CabbageThing

constitutionus wrote: »

got to see this on sunday.

the 3D seemed to be a waste of time IMO as i cant recall any scenes that stood out as impressive. ill be going again with the brother as he cant see 3D films and there is a 2D version out there (which i didnt think was the case) so ill post if there really is a big diffrence and i just didnt cop it.


.

Why cant your brother see films in 3D? Does he only have one eye?

norrie rugger

CabbageThing wrote: »

I went to see Tron:legacy in cineworld and I was underwhelmed by the 3D. I noticed that the far right hand side of the cinema screen was blurred or in double focus just like if you were watching a 3D movie without the glasses. So I thought maybe my 3D glasses (which i kept from Avatar) were damaged ? or Cineworld were not projecting it properly??
I will just have to go see it again in a different cinema with new glasses.

Did anybody else noticed this ?

Nope, I got that too in Swan Cinema

constitutionus

CabbageThing wrote: »

Why cant your brother see films in 3D? Does he only have one eye?

ironically , considering the film were on about,t'was a bike crash.

like myself he wears glasses and when he crashed they shatterd and ripped his left eye to shreads.

in fairness to the docs, they managed to patch most of it up and he can see through it . but his pupil is permanently blown so 3D films look blurred to him even with the glasses. screws up his night vision too.

from what ive heard though people like him arent alone in stuff like this.

apparently if youve got a lazy eye or other optical conditions you cant see 3D flims either. i remember clair byrne complaining about not being able to see em when she was on newstalk.

thankfully i dont have any problems like that myself but i'll admit fitting the 3D glasses over my own can be a pain at times too. an awfull lot of fiddling goes on with em to get it just right.

he's a big sci/fi nut like myself so tron was something he was looking forward to which thankfully now he can go see.

Richard Dower

constitutionus wrote: »

ironically , considering the film were on about,t'was a bike crash.

like myself he wears glasses and when he crashed they shatterd and ripped his left eye to shreads.

in fairness to the docs, they managed to patch most of it up and he can see through it . but his pupil is permanently blown so 3D films look blurred to him even with the glasses. screws up his night vision too.

from what ive heard though people like him arent alone in stuff like this.

apparently if youve got a lazy eye or other optical conditions you cant see 3D flims either. i remember clair byrne complaining about not being able to see em when she was on newstalk.

thankfully i dont have any problems like that myself but i'll admit fitting the 3D glasses over my own can be a pain at times too. an awfull lot of fiddling goes on with em to get it just right.

he's a big sci/fi nut like myself so tron was something he was looking forward to which thankfully now he can go see.

That's my issue, i only "look" through one eye, so i keep straining to look through both and my concentration is focused on looking through both eyes to get the 3D effect......:(

Fecking eyes are banjaxed :mad:

Overature

This film was awesome, the 3D seens had lots of depth in them, none of this jumping out at you crap. beautiful sets. it was a good idea to shoot some of the seens in 3d and some in 2D. Daft punk completed it with their soundtrack.

YouTookMyName

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bQAK5nnDrI

YouTookMyName

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bQAK5nnDrI

Richard Dower

^ LOL!...better then Tron!

nyarlothothep

Enjoyable film, I liked everything about it, the bar scene was cool, I particularly liked the idea of Tron world invading reality and the isomorphic programs. Visually beautiful too and the 3D worked for me on the whole to the point where I involuntarily blinked in reaction to the grappling device they fired. Basically olivia wilde+daft punk=win.

ButtersSuki

Sorry for the delayed posting on this but I've been busy etc.

Ok, was at the preview a million days ago in the Savoy. Best thing I can say? The sound is Savoy 1 was incredible, they really had it cranked up for this. The film was meh unfortunately. Could have benefitted with a couple more light cycle sequences and more of the neon lighting, but the story was pants (i knew this would happen when I saw the Disney name but hoped they'd hold back on the schmaltz). Was impressed with the effects, there just wasn't enough of them.

I've really enjoyed Michael Sheen as an actor up to this point, but here he was hamming it up in a style previously monopolised by Pacino. It was silly at best.

Bridges was fine but didn't really have much to work with. Won't comment on the rest as they did so little.

The chicks were hot though

At the end where Hedlund says to Wilde "Come on, I want to show you something" I had to fight every urge in my body not to shout out

My cock

in the Savoy 1 as I don't think it would have gone down too well. Said it to the missus instead, she burst out laughing, cue some weird looks from those around us.....ah well, you do what you have to do to amuse yourself.

sprinkles

CabbageThing wrote: »

Why cant your brother see films in 3D? Does he only have one eye?

It just doesn't work with some people, as high as 10% of the gen pop if you believe some experts.

link

I thought Tron was great. Plot was poor, full of holes but the music was excellent and the visuals were amazing at times. The 3D was pretty shallow, not worth it imo. This is the last 3D movie I will be going to.

Phony Scott

I haven't enjoyed a film this boring since 'Star Trek: The (Slow) Motion Picture'. 5/10

Gingervitis

Saw it in 4D here in Korea, (moving seats, kinetic feedback to the punches, even some perfume blown in your face at the very end as they drove through the forest) which made the actions sequences far more exciting. Plot was a load of predictable twaddle but the experience more than made up for it.
5/10 in "regular 3D"
8/10 in 4D

patch

Very average movie.
I was expecting some good 3d at least but I can't think of one standout moment.
Clu was pretty bad, I think the animation in some PS3 titles was better.
Having looked forward to this movie for ages, seriously disappointing.

Josey Wales

I saw this last night and thought it was okay. Like most people in the thread I really enjoyed the look of the film and the soundtrack was excellent. There were a couple of scenes were it all came together like when

Kevin Flynn turned up at the End of Line Club during the fight scene.

Overall I felt it was a little a dull. There could have been a few more action set pieces. And the 3D was terrible. I can't remember any moment in the film that was enhanced by having 3D.

Handsome Bob

I liked it, good acting and some great sequences. The story was as basic as you can get but that didn't really bother me.

One thing I noticed though was that it was quite a

finite ending, I was under the impression that they were planning a trilogy, or at least that's something I heard a while back?

nyarlothothep

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I liked it, good acting and some great sequences. The story was as basic as you can get but that didn't really bother me.

One thing I noticed though was that it was quite a

finite ending, I was under the impression that they were planning a trilogy, or at least that's something I heard a while back?

I think they were hedging their bets on that one in that the ending resolves itself,

however chorra is now in the human world and shes an isomorph, Bridges stated that she and others like her could fundamentally change the world with their powers,

so it leaves a lot of possibilities for a second movie. I really hope a trilogy comes of this and that they don't abandon the austere and abstract qualities of Tron which I like it for, but I think thats doubtful as its so far made about 10 million of a loss.

Eirebear

I finally got to see it last night.

Once again 3D fails to convince me, to be honest i found it more of a distraction than anything else.
Dodgy dialogue, dodgy as hell.....It, like, messed up my zen man.
Ludicrous plot.

However, it looked great, sounded great, and left me with a smile on my face - particularly during the scenes involving Zeus in the club.

I dont really get why there is this great outpouring of hate towards it, for me it was handsdown better than the likes of Transformers 2, and on a par with the first in terms of fun.

never a classic, but top notch popcorn stuff.

d'Oracle

The plot is a metaphor for unix/open source/net neutrality.
(Or maybe a simile being that the real world section ....y'know...the bit with all the outrageous product placement.)

Like Blitzkrieg said earlier in the thread.

This of course only slightly offsets the nonsense.

don ramo

just back from it, i was thankfull when i got to the cinema to find they were only showng it in good old fashioned 2D, my eyes were fearfull of another onslought of lousey 3D graphics,

TBH i saw tron when i was about 13, and forgot everything about, and had zero interest of a rewatch, so i more or less went in blind, and TBH i havent had a 2 hour film fly by so fast in a good while, its not gonna win oscars (well outside or SFX) but i thought it was great, simple enough plot,

i was surprised to see cillian murphy at the start, and i was half expecting him to appear in the grid at some stage, thought it weird he took such a small role,

the graphics i thought were excellent, a soft almost real feeling to them, not cold and electrical like i expected, it never really seemed to go over the top with ridiculus SFX and maintained a nice level throughout,

i thought clue looked very good, your never gonna get a perfect human replica, and it seemed more real the fact he had that slight digital look to him,

i thought the main cast wilde bridges and hedlund played there parts well, only ever really seen wilde in house, she seemed a bit more loose here, and looked smoking in that outfit,

it would be interesting if they made another one, but id doubth they will any time soon,

Gunmonkey

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I think they were hedging their bets on that one in that the ending resolves itself,

however chorra is now in the human world and shes an isomorph, Bridges stated that she and others like her could fundamentally change the world with their powers,

so it leaves a lot of possibilities for a second movie. I really hope a trilogy comes of this and that they don't abandon the austere and abstract qualities of Tron which I like it for, but I think thats doubtful as its so far made about 10 million of a loss.

I think

whatever Sam downloaded onto the memory card on the chain will play a part in the sequels, i thinks its the whole game-grid and everything in it. He might experiment on it on an Encom server and perhaps Cillian Murphy's character gets wind of it and so hijinks ensue.

Was a good film, not amazing and the 3D was ok, but a fun action film with some great visuals......like Olivia Wilde

Lemegeton

a massive let down this movie was.
looks great and sounds great and has a seriously hot chic. but even for a sci-fi movie the plot is just ridiculous, nonsensical and stupid. and its predictable to boot. i loved the original and while it had its problems you could follow the story.

i mean for **** sake computer programs coming into the real world and existing there is too stupid even for sci-fi. and the programs in the original at least acted like 1 dimensional entities but in this they behave like people and eat dinner and go to bars.

**** off disney and dont make another one and **** on one of my fave childhood movies again.

PunkFreud

Saw the film today and quite enjoyed it. As has already been said, it's not a masterpiece but I felt it was worth the viewing. Did't see it in 3D though, always felt that was a bit of a gimmick. Saved myself €2

I was lucky, since Tron wasn't one of my childhood movies; I saw the original about a month ago. I felt the films were on a par with each other in terms of plot and special effects (for the era in which they were made). Didn't understand why thy had to eat though; didn't seem necessary, especially for the lady character (whatshername). In terms of the "dodgy" Jeff Bridges/Kevin Flynn dialogue, he spoke the exact same as in the first movie,

which isn't very surprising since he's spent the last 20 (real world) years in the grid, god knows how long that would be in the grid time

That said, I would not go see a sequel without Bridges, he is the franchise in my opinion.

The ending did not take Bridges out of the picture. Earlier in the film it said that it was most likely he'd die from the re-integration, not definitely. However, in my opinion, I don't think Bridges would return for the new proposed trilogy, since they seem to be focusing on Kevin Flynn's son

But, then again, I am a Bridges fan.

Oh, and am not sure if you knew, Lemegeton, but Disney made the original Tron too.

don ramo

Lemegeton wrote: »

i mean for **** sake computer programs coming into the real world and existing there is too stupid even for sci-fi.

but your perfectly fine with the cencept humans can be digitised and put into a computer

i think the reason they ate and all that is to simulate there creators, or it was programmed into them to do so from the start, the only person who could alter there coding was flynn, thats why they wanted his disc, so they could do as they pleased, without it they willl just remain what he made them,

OutlawPete

I loved it.

For one reason really, I was a fan of Tron and got it out loads when I was a kid.

I think if I didn't have that connection to the film, I wouldn't have really got much from it.

It was a thousand times better than I had expected and I just felt like a kid again watching it.

Popcorn movie really but one I thoroughly enjoyed.

Mark Hamill

Lemegeton wrote: »

i mean for **** sake computer programs coming into the real world and existing there is too stupid even for sci-fi.

Why do people have an issue with this?

Like if it makes perfect sense for a human to download into the computer world, why doesn't the reverse make sense?

Lemegeton wrote: »

and the programs in the original at least acted like 1 dimensional entities but in this they behave like people and eat dinner and go to bars.

Seeing as this is set 20 odd years ahead of the original, with the programs having been influenced by Flynn the whole time he was in the computer world, it makes sense to me that they would have grown and evolved, sure wasn't that what Flynn was trying to do in spending so much time there in the first place?

Lemegeton

PunkFreud wrote: »

Saw the film today and quite enjoyed it. As has already been said, it's not a masterpiece but I felt it was worth the viewing. Did't see it in 3D though, always felt that was a bit of a gimmick. Saved myself €2

I was lucky, since Tron wasn't one of my childhood movies; I saw the original about a month ago. I felt the films were on a par with each other in terms of plot and special effects (for the era in which they were made). Didn't understand why thy had to eat though; didn't seem necessary, especially for the lady character (whatshername). In terms of the "dodgy" Jeff Bridges/Kevin Flynn dialogue, he spoke the exact same as in the first movie,

which isn't very surprising since he's spent the last 20 (real world) years in the grid, god knows how long that would be in the grid time

That said, I would not go see a sequel without Bridges, he is the franchise in my opinion.

The ending did not take Bridges out of the picture. Earlier in the film it said that it was most likely he'd die from the re-integration, not definitely. However, in my opinion, I don't think Bridges would return for the new proposed trilogy, since they seem to be focusing on Kevin Flynn's son

But, then again, I am a Bridges fan.

Oh, and am not sure if you knew, Lemegeton, but Disney made the original Tron too.

Disney may have released the original and provided the cash but the idea, concept, and story/screenplay all came from Steven Lisberger. Tron Legacy was Disneys idea and they hired the usual hollywood hack writers.

and to answer the other comments

yes if a human can be digitized into a computer world then the reverse is not that huge a leap but as a central plot point leading an army of computer programs into the real world to take it over is just stupid IMO.
and as for the eating and drinking i dont accept that its because they evolved or that they did it to emulate the creator. thats just guess work and implanting your own theories to rationalize what was probably yet again bull**** writing from hollywood.