Tron 2

[Bdoomed]

Sucked.


Looked nice, but sucked.  Jeff Bridges was Neo, Tron was Darth Vader, whatshisface main character was a powerless Luke Skywalker, barely anything was actually resolved, Tron had almost nothing to do with the movie.  Lame.

I saw it a week ago, by the way.  Forgot about it till now

Other thoughts on the movie?

[Heradel]

Sucked.


Looked nice, but sucked.  Jeff Bridges was Neo, Tron was Darth Vader, whatshisface main character was a powerless Luke Skywalker, barely anything was actually resolved, Tron had almost nothing to do with the movie.  Lame.

I saw it a week ago, by the way.  Forgot about it till now

Other thoughts on the movie?

So, another monomyth then?

[Bdoomed]

yeah pretty much, funny I was thinking that through the whole movie.  Incredibly formulaic, and the dude doesn't really do much in the end... he's pretty much just a catalyst for a resolution... ish.

Netflix it maybe, download it maybe, but don't spend money on it.

[eytanz]

So, I saw it last night and had a somewhat more positive reaction, though I was hardly blown away.

Now, for fairness sake, we did see it in the Sydney IMAX theater which is the largest IMAX screen in the world, and that contributed quite a lot to the experience. My overall impression was: cool visual spectacle and entertaining, but braindead, action flick. And, to quote my girlfriend: at least it was better than Avatar (admittedly, that's setting the bar pretty low).

The thing is, the original TRON, which I saw recently, was also pretty badly plotted and had paper-thin characters. What made TRON special was not the storyline, but the effects which were amazing for early 80s tech. TRON: legacy has all the same issues, but the effects, while cool, in no way exceed our expectations.

(Though, there are cringe-worthy moments in this one, esp. the most predictable betrayal ever, plus the most obvious fate for the traitor ever, that are actually terrible plotting, not just two-dimensional plotting. But luckily they are over with relatively quickly).

My advice is the opposite of Bdoomed - see this in a big screen theater with 3D, so you can enjoy the visuals. Forget about renting it, as on a small screen it will lose most of its entertainment value.

[kibitzer]

My advice is the opposite of Bdoomed - see this in a big screen theater with 3D, so you can enjoy the visuals. Forget about renting it, as on a small screen it will lose most of its entertainment value.

Well now I'm curious -- did the 3D actually add to it? I recently saw Avatar for the first time and thought the 3D was nice but hardly indispensable.

[Bdoomed]

i saw avatar both with and without 3d, once in theaters and then on my computer.  i liked it both times, however the 3d definitely adds to it.

Tron i think uses the 3d cleverly... well clever isnt the right word.  it was simple and the obvious choice, but still cool.  The movie is only in 3d when they are on the grid, otherwise, the real world is shot normally.  Cool, but not spectacular.

[Devoted135]

My dad and husband went and saw Tron 2 in IMAX 3D while we were visiting for Christmas and they both really liked it. However, I think my husband is one of oh, say, ten people who actually liked the first one

[eytanz]

I agree with Bdoomed about the 3D in Tron - it's not absolutely essential, but it is used well and it helps give the computerised world a character that's distinct from the real world. Also, I think that the fact that it was a huge screen - back at York we don't have anything that approaches it - rather than a normal sized screen + 3D, really helped, as the fact that the 3D extended above and below me, and to my sides, in addition to having things stick directly towards me, did help make it more immersive than I've ever seen 3D before.

[wakela]

I didn't really notice the 3D in Tron.  I thought it was very effective in Avatar, and a detriment to Toy Story 3.  3D dims the movie.  Tron is mostly dark, so it's not that big a deal, but Toy Story is supposed to be full of bright colors, so the 3D waters it down.

I was really enjoying the beginning of Tron 2.  The look, the music, the action were all cool and intense and I was able to suspend disbelief on the nonsense.  But they just kept ratcheting up the nonsense and cliches until I couldn't take it anymore.   The phenomenal uninterestingness of the whole scene with albino British club owner (Caster?) made me angry.

What really bothers me about the movie is that it has nothing to do with computers, and it was written by and for people who do know about computers.  Because everyone nowadays knows about saving, copying, viruses, crashes, hacking etc.  I don't need Jeff Bridges getting all proxy-server-this and MAC-ID-that.  But maybe encrypting and backing up his disk?  Explaining why programs like gladiator-style combat?  Was there anything of significance in the computer world that couldn't be done in the real world?  I was wondering if we need a classification besides Science Fiction (reality based) and Science Fantasy (stuff that can't happen, but is mysterious) for a story where the writers deliberately get wrong things that everyone knows.  

Pet peeve: Almost every SF action movie has a shot where a guy lands from a high jump or drop.  He lands in a crouch with one hand on the ground and the other stretched out to the side.  He's looking down.  Then, without standing, he dramatically raises his gaze, usually at the camera.  Batman, Nite Owl, Neo all do this.  In Tron it happened like 5 times.