Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tron: Legacy

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the you-saw-it-right dept.

Movies 412

In preparation for this weekend's release of Legacy, I re-watched the original Tron. Yes, I own the DVD. I thought I would watch it ironically and sarcastically, but it turns out I just can't. I really like the original. As for the sequel, I'm not going to write a full review, but I'll say that the visuals were pretty amazing. The CG Jeff Bridges was pretty darn close, but just not quite there. And the light cycles were awesome. What are your thoughts?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Thoughts? (5, Funny)

gazbo (517111) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616604)

My thoughts are: just because what you wrote exceeds Twitter's 140 char limit doesn't mean you should post it to Slashdot's front page intead.

Re:Thoughts? (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616640)

Yeah, since when did Slashdot become CmdTaco's blog?

Is he going to start SlashPooping [] now?

Re:Thoughts? (5, Informative)

PseudonymousBraveguy (1857734) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617396)

Yeah, since when did Slashdot become CmdTaco's blog?

In the unlikely case you are not joking, I'll answer with a citation from Wikipedia: []

Slashdot was founded in 1997 as a blog, Chips & Dips, by Hope College computer science student Rob Malda, also known as "Commander Taco".

Re:Thoughts? (1)

Kaziganthi (824129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617566)

MMMmmmmMMM... How does that humble-taco taste?

Re:Thoughts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616680)

My thoughts are: just because what you wrote exceeds Twitter's 140 char limit doesn't mean you should post it to Slashdot's front page intead.


purposely done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616616)

i think the CG Jeff Bridges was sorta done poorly to give the impression of c. 80's technology. ya know? just like the real Jeff Bridges' dialog...

Re:purposely done (1)

brainboyz (114458) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617044)

No, just a victim of the uncanny valley. The dialog was really annoying, however. Not an epic, but enjoyable.

Daft Punk (3, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616632)

Daft Punk is amazing. The soundtrack fits into a movie of this type so well, I just had to buy it right after watching the movie on IMAX. The Daft Punk music suits a movie like Tron so much more than the original's symphonic score, I think.

Also, watching Michael Sheen do this unholy cross between Ziggy Stardust and Frank-N-Furter is hilarious.

Re:Daft Punk (2)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616662)

Is it me or does Garrett Hedlund look like a young Peter Weller? They should get him for that Robocop reboot that has been in development hell for ages.

Re:Daft Punk (1)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617086)

Agreed with all of the above. I will add that I liked the hand drawn glowing effect of the original better, but the script and acting in this one are much better. I also missed the bits and the tanks (only in background not doing anything.). The 3d was completely un-needed and I wish the theater I saw it at had a non-3d version.

Re:Daft Punk (1)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617288)

I saw an interview with some of the cast members and apparently their suits actually did glow. It wasn't CGI or hand drawn.

Re:Daft Punk (1)

Tsunayoshi (789351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617740)

Yes, they wore suits complete with power supplies to provide all of the lighting. Apparently as expensive as they were to design and make work, it was cheaper than trying to go back in w/ special effects to deal with all of the issues of fake lighting...since the actors really were glowing, the lighting effects were accurate (reflections, shadows, etc).

Re:Daft Punk (3, Informative)

Jay Maynard (54798) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617692)

The movie flattens well. Do yourself a favor, though, and make sure you're going to a theater with a top-drawer sound system. Seeing it in IMAX 3d the first time, with a killer sound system, spoiled me.

Re:Daft Punk (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617792)

Exactly a THX certified digital theater at a place that is ran by a company that cares. the local theater here is falling apart and half assed badly. Last time I went to my local the subwoofers all crackled because they needed to be replaced.

Re:Daft Punk (1)

Bitcloud21 (1492275) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617504)

I agree that the music was amazing and the movie as a whole was pretty good.

I found a lot of the attempted twists to be very predictable, but I still enjoyed the movie.

Also the CG effects were good, but I felt the CG Jeff Bridges was kind of creepy looking when he first showed up.

Re:Daft Punk (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617756)

I thought he was like Julian Assange - Pale blonde guy who's interested in information and lives a secret life.

Re:Daft Punk (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617772)

The music certainly MADE the movie. It was a epic choice, Bravo for Disney using music from a non-sellout bubblegum artist. Maybe this is a sign of the corporation leadership changing from their conquer, destroy, and vanilla-iz to maybe producing something with merit...

I dont share taco's love of the lightcycles. the Lightcycles they had in the movie in January for the technology preview were better. the "modified to match the toys" version in the final movie were nothing more than Could have been great, but I saw what they wanted before the marketing Executive got his grubby fingers in the pie, and they ruined them from what they were going to be.

wot! (0)

MousePotato (124958) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616634)

Taco posts and no replies??


Bit Jokes? (1)

AaronLS (1804210) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616656)

Does the new one have more of the corny computer science jokes the first one had? I remember lots of corny references to bits and bytes and things like that, which for someone with a CS background it was pretty funny.

Re:Bit Jokes? (1)

GreatBigGiantBrain (1692454) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617236)

I thought it had less. My biggest disappointments with the new movie were mediocre 3D effects, not enough nerd-computer references, and no one was on the outside helping him or communicating with him.

Re:Bit Jokes? (1)

siride (974284) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617318)

Of course nobody was outside helping him. That was the point. He got lured there and went in alone. So he had to make it alone. It added pressure to the plot.

Re:Bit Jokes? (1)

Tsunayoshi (789351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617788)

Not to mention that for all the time he spent subjectively in the computer world, hardly any time passed in the real world. He was never noticed missing.

Saw it Sunday (5, Interesting)

kindups (1483627) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616670)

Visually it was...perfect. It captured the feelings I got from books like Snow Crash and (especially) Neuromancer of a virtual world. The towers of darkness and light. The story was okay, not great but not awful. It more or less met my expectations story-wise but blew me away in the visual department. I actually got giddy the first time they showed the city from far away. Music was both good and not so good. Some of it was absolutely great and other bits a bit generic. And CGI Jeff Bridges was definitely skiing the Uncanny Valley. And while I was kind "eh" on Olivia Wilde beforehand I now have a huge crush on her. Sheesh.

Re:Saw it Sunday (3, Interesting)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616948)

Olivia was channeling Real genius Michelle Meyrink and Galaxy Quest Missi Pyle with a couple eye shots and black wig of Meg Ryan in "something wild".

Basically the short black hair, non-threatening pliable child adult, vaguely mischievous thing is very sexy and not nearly as threatening and 'real' as the bisexual "13" of House.

Real women like real men are actually very difficult to deal with. Most people would want a faithful companion that matched them over an interesting companion who might show them up, leave them, or screw around on them.

Re:Saw it Sunday (1)

DrakeMcSmooth (1281862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617702)

You poor thing.

It was okay (1)

loftwyr (36717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616672)

The film was Tron merged with a Vin Diesel movie. And while some of it was good, and keeping Flynn having 80's exclamations as he's been isolated so long was a nice touch. Unfortunately the plot and writing hadn't evolved past the 80's like the graphics had.

Overall, I enjoyed it and the sneaked in references to 80's movies but I think they could have done better.

Re:It was okay (1)

McKing (1017) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617722)

Yeah, it felt like a bit of the Dude crept into his character. "This is messing with my Zen, man". Priceless.

Geek.Porn. (1) (745855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616676)

But I liked it.

And I got a kick out of the David Bowie-esque character. Hillarious.

Great, but... (3, Interesting)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616682)

It was a good romp in keeping with the spirit of the original film, but I have to say that the 3D effects were, with one exception, uremarkable and few and far between. I was disappointed to note that the 3D glasses darkened the film in general and when I took them off for comparison during 2D scenes, the colours were much move vivid. Worth seeing for the effects and not so much for the storyline which strings them together. A good effort, but I wonder if seeing the film in 2D (ie: without the glasses) would be more visually stunning.

End of Line.

Re:Great, but... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616844)

I was disappointed to note that the 3D glasses darkened the film in general and when I took them off for comparison during 2D scenes, the colours were much move vivid.

Well, from what I recall the few times I've seen a 3D movie ... the lenses are tinted. So, this seems hardly surprising.

A good effort, but I wonder if seeing the film in 2D (ie: without the glasses) would be more visually stunning.

At the very least, less visually straining. I find 3D gives me a headache and sore eyes for several hours after. I'm not willing to pay an extra three bucks or so for that.

However, it seems like everybody is falling over themselves to make 3D, so I can't see it going away any time soon.

Re:Great, but... (1)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617020)

They're polarized, not tinted. They worked very hard to find polarization film that was as transparent as possible.

Re:Great, but... (2)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617442)

We ARE on slashdot, I suspect most of us know the difference between polarised and tinted. The lenses do darken down the image considerably. The best 3D cinemas I have been to use the system where each lens is synched with the projector. The lenses are clear, but blacked out when the other lens is being used.

Re:Great, but... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617446)

They're polarized, not tinted.

I'd buy that ... though, they also seemed to be somewhat tinted. Or at least, that's what I thought at the time.

Re:Great, but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34617536)

perfect polarisation would be 50% tinted. By its very nature. You can't fix that. You're blocking out half of the light - the light that's polarised such that you don't want it in that eye. The only way to fix it is to make the screens twice as bright without the glasses.

Re:Great, but... (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617750)

I didn't know it was as much as 50%. I got the about 5% of tint and just started thinking 3D is shite. I don't want to wear sunglasses to watch film!!!!!!

I've also been to cinemas were the glasses are synced with the projector, it is a much better system.

Re:Great, but... (1)

bemenaker (852000) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617796)

Depends if you saw it real3d or imax. Imax uses tinting.

Re:Great, but... (2)

hubie (108345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617150)

I was disappointed to note that the 3D glasses darkened the film in general and when I took them off for comparison during 2D scenes, the colours were much move vivid.

When dealing with polarizers in general, you only get about 50% transmission through them.

Re:Great, but... (2)

Jay Maynard (54798) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617724)

At most. Polarizing filters you put on camera lenses cost 2-1/2 F-stops of light, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 18% transmission. 3D glasses aren't nearly that bad.

I loved the original, but.. (2, Interesting)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616700)

For me, the sequel was a total bore. I mean, don't get me wrong, the CG was very good, and the soundtrack was amazing.. but I mean, the first one was mostly about exploring this new world and concepts and CG that had never been seen before. But the reality now is, CG is second nature; it's used everywhere. And the world? Well I already knew about it from #1. There was nothing new. They gave what the people who loved the original wanted to see, but new new ships or anything.

More importantly, you can't just spend 90% of a movie on dramatic entrances and poor dialogue and expect it to hold up. If you don't believe me, re-watch legacy and count just how many dramatic entrances took place. The fact is, they had all the ingredients for making a truly amazing movie, and they completely failed to deliver. I wish it wasn't so.

Re:I loved the original, but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616860)

Very true. The CGI and music was great. Everything else sucked. Alot.

Re:I loved the original, but.. (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617062)

I felt there was a lot of exposition that didn't explain very much at all. The entire Tron aspect of the movie was kind of lost out there.

Re:I loved the original, but.. (2)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617490)

Exactly. In fact, I felt that the whole film was pretty much exposition with no purpose.

Sam was nothing more than a MacGuffin. He manages to get sucked onto the Grid, participates in some games, and then serves only as a reason for other characters to explain things about the world. He's worse than Harry Potter in the early stories.

I also never got a sense that the threat in the film was significant. So what if Clu gets out into the real world? Practically, what is he going to do?

For that matter, how does Quorra (or any of the ISOs) getting out into the real world change anything?

To me, the film was just this short of having a coherent story.

Re:I loved the original, but.. (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617626)

I can't be the only one that thought ISOs was a stupid name to use, were they CD images?

Re:I loved the original, but.. (1)

jaymzter (452402) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617084)

I second that emotion. If I could use one word to sum this movie up, it would be [b]boring[/b]. There were 20 minutes of action in a 2 hour movie and a plot that made little if any sense. CG was good, but how long can you show people in neon suits and preserve the WOW factor?

And maybe my memory is failing, but was Kevin Flynn already channeling the Dude in the original Tron? I don't remember all that distracting Zen nonsense in the original.

Re:I loved the original, but.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34617662)

Flynn has been trapped on the grid for a long, long time. 20 years of our time is something like 1,000-20,000 years on the Grid (I tried to get an exact number but even "official" answers vary. Suffice to say, it's a long time)

In that time Flynn would obviously change a lot. Since Clu is the cold, calculating, purpose-driven part of him he has become the antithesis of that.

Re:I loved the original, but.. (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617742)

So even a computer simulated Flynn ages visibly, but Clu does not? And why does the computer simulated Flynn have to eat green beans, anyway? Does he get hungry? How many milliseconds does it take for him to get hungry in the real world? If he does get hungry, then do computer simulated green beans solve the computer simulated hunger problem? Wait, I thought the isomorphic algorithms were supposed to cure hunger, disease, and everything else? If Flynn doesn't even have it licked in the computer world, how was he supposed to fix it all in the real world? Oh well -- here's some more Daft Punk.

Ironically and sarcastically? (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616744)

I thought I would watch it ironically and sarcastically, but it turns out I just can't.

That's redundant! Sarcasm is irony.

Tron 1.0 (3, Interesting)

freeweed (309734) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616754)

I've re-watched the original Tron on occasion over the years, and just recently last week in preparation for the new movie (which I haven't seen yet, because every theatre in my city has it in headache-vision only, but that's another rant).

Maybe it's just me, but I find it holding up less and less as time goes on. The first part of the movie is cut very poorly and frequently jumps around for no real reason. Once Flynn is in the Tron world, the movie ever-so-slowly gets rather tiresome and boring. Now, part of this is me just being used to modern movies that have a much quicker pace overall, but it's more than that. There really just isn't all that much story here. And all of it is hurriedly explained in the first 15 minutes or so, so the rest of the movie is just a Lord of the Rings style quest without much actually happening.

Now, visually - I'm one of the few that still think the effects hold up. They just have a unique look to them that really exists in no other movie of its time or any time. It always surprises me upon re-watching to realize just how many computer graphics were used. Knowing how much effort when into them, I always think there must only be a few shots, but it never ceases to amaze me just how often you see them. Plus, the costume effect is just something we'll never see replicated again.

If it's on in the background on mute, Tron is a pretty cool movie still. But actually trying to watch it? I'm just as likely to fall asleep somewhere around the 45 minute mark as not.

Not sure how much this will be considered Flamebait on Slashdot :)

Re:Tron 1.0 (1)

ctachme (1625925) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616906)

I don't think it's just you, I had the exact same experience. It's not that it's a _bad_ movie, per se, but the beginning is very jumpy, and there are so many gratuitous shots that really slow the movie down. The graphics are very impressive for their time, but the pacing and plot left a lot to be desired. In fact, that's exactly how I felt about the new movie (minus the pacing concerns).

Re:Tron 1.0 (1)

chispito (1870390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616972)

I've re-watched the original Tron on occasion over the years, and just recently last week in preparation for the new movie (which I haven't seen yet, because every theatre in my city has it in headache-vision only, but that's another rant).

Maybe it's just me, but I find it holding up less and less as time goes on. The first part of the movie is cut very poorly and frequently jumps around for no real reason. Once Flynn is in the Tron world, the movie ever-so-slowly gets rather tiresome and boring.

I agree. Visually, Tron holds up very well, but the acting, dialog, and plot are poor. Disney probably made a wise choice to pull the original before the sequel was released in theaters.

Re:Tron 1.0 (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616996)

It always surprises me upon re-watching to realize just how many computer graphics were used.

What surprised me on watching the movie with the DVD commentary were just how many of what, as a kid, I thought were CG effects were actually hand-drawn in Korean sweatshops.

Re:Tron 1.0 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34617366)

Taiwan. I watched the original yesterday and they list all the fill artists in Chinese. And there are a lot of them. I've seen other movies that do the same but they usually have pinyin next to the name so you could at least know who they are without learning the chinese alphabet.

And its not like Disney was the first. Most of your childhood cartoons were also done in taiwanese/korean/japanese animation studios.

Re:Tron 1.0 (5, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617016)

FWIW, I hate modern cutting. I frequently can't tell what's happening or form an emotional response before it cuts again to something else. The epitome of this is a Michael Bay fight scene. Some body part hits someone. It doesn't look cool and exciting. It looks like 30 to 60 seconds of incomprehensible mess and then they show you the outcome.
I suppose they just don't want to pay money for decent fight choreography and think the cutting is good enough.

Then you get a movie like inception and the fight scene in the hotel corridor with longer cuts and it blows you away emotionally. I think they are getting away from the hyper cutting.

Agree on most of the rest. It was mostly "B" actors (who went on to be TV stars or secondary actors). And the plot/writing was average.

Re:Tron 1.0 (2)

firephreek (752523) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617142)

Maybe it was the fact that I was cuddled up with a cute girl at the time, but I actually did fall asleep at about the 45 minute mark. It was her first time watching it however (my umpteenth) and she did in fact really enjoy the movie. Maybe we just know too much about the movie and medium at this point.

Why Tron 1 was so slow. (1)

Viewsonic (584922) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617244)

It was exactly the reason I didn't care fro Tron 2. The first movie presented you with a world that it gave you a lot of time to take it all in. From the scenes of sitting around drinking the water, to wandering around through the crowds after crashing the Recognizer. The scene where they ride over the grid made it totally obvious, grid bugs etc.. In Tron 2, they jump scene to scene, and I didn't want that. I want to take my time and see everything. I wanted to know more of the world they created. Instead all I can remember is: Flynns Place, Arena, Hole in a mountain, disco tower, lake + pillars, and the beam to leave the world. Compare that to the first movie and it feels like they almost hold your hand through the entire world at times. It was awesome.

Re:Tron 1.0 (1)

NekoXP (67564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617294)

There are only 15 minutes of actual computer generated effects in the whole thing: all in all, not a great deal at all. Grid bugs, light cycles, tanks, the mountains in the background when on the solar sailer, but otherwise, the vast majority of the original Tron was hand-animated, pretty much in every scene where there's a person in it as well as some scenery. It's all cleverly disguised matte painting, cel shading. The light cycle scene where they escape the game grid is mostly CG but every time it cuts to the view of the cockpit.. that's traditional animation. The setup of the bikes is traditional. The glowy lines on everything.

But that's besides the point anyway, I found it on watching it again last week (after watching it every 4 or 5 years or so out of sheer curiosity to see how well it matches my nostalgia of it from watching it on VHS when I was a kid, and in preparation for the new movie just so I could be even more giddy at the new shiny CG)

What I think was much better is how Jeff Bridges has decided that Flynn, after 20 years living in exile on the Grid and a decent amount of sitting on a pillow, has turned into The Dude. I dunno it just made the character so much more fucking interesting than the 80's jerk Flynn was in the original movie. At the same time though, not enough Alan Bradley/Tron even in flashbacks. Did they really spend that much money on Jeff's face but didn't bother with any other actor? His role ends up fairly pivotal and is a setup for a sequel but they didn't even bother making it much more than a cameo. The damn movie is *CALLED* Tron.

Re:Tron 1.0 (1)

devotedlhasa (1298843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617562)

I think it is amusing there was a terminal in the direct path of the particle beam experiment. Obviously, some poor contractor normally sat there.... talk about a bad working environment!

Re:Tron 1.0 (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617620)

Not sure how much this will be considered Flamebait on Slashdot :)

If the general public likes the movie, then what you say will be Insightful. If people generally hate it, then your post will be modded as flamebait so everybody here can show off how sophisticated their taste in movies is.

I loved this sequel (1)

Skatox (1109939) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616796)

I'm a huge fan of tron, the first one was amazing but this was better, is one of the few exceptions where a sequel is better than the first one.

Real Unix! (5, Interesting)

GreggBz (777373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616852)

There were several real, appropriate examples of UNIX in the movie. Things like "ps -ef | grep badprocess" and "kill -9 badprocessid". I caught that as it went by very quickly and was surprised at the accuracy.

One of the displays showed a very Solairs looking version of top and login. I doubt this circa 1983 teminal had Solaris on it however.

I also thought it was cool that the son looked to see what the father was up to by starting a bash shell and running something like /usr/bin/history to see what his last commands were. That whole sequence was pretty accurate. Overall though, I left the movie feeling a bit uninspired. Not that it was bad movie... it was just felt rushed with no real sense of drama.

Re:Real Unix! (3, Informative)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616902)

During one of the brief looks at the console, it noted that it was "SolarOS", which I think is a nice reference to SunOS, which would've been around at the time Kevin Flynn disappeared (1989).

Re:Real Unix! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34617280)

During one of the brief looks at the console, it noted that it was "SolarOS", which I think is a nice reference to SunOS, which would've been around at the time Kevin Flynn disappeared (1989).

Yeah. Think of the uptime.

Re:Real Unix! (1)

Brian Feldman (350) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617612)

The uptime top(1) showed in the movie was like six days.

Re:Real Unix! (2)

Marillion (33728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617246)

I also liked the references to other movies. Flynn's lair was an homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey. His line, "The only way to win is not to play" is from Wargames. "You're messing with my Zen" is from The Big Lebowski. And of course, the references back to the original movie.

Re:Real Unix! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34617382)

And his attire was reminiscent of Jedi robes, which fit his character.

Though my theatre laughed at the line "im not leaving here without you" or similar, as the last time there had been a laugh like that was after the Wargames line, I wondered if I missed something.

Re:Real Unix! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34617654)

I laughed at a lot of the shitty dialogue in Tron. Just like watching Darth Vader yell, "Nooooooooooooooo!" I still can't tell if that was done on purpose or if Lucas is really that bad.

Real Unix (1)

freeze128 (544774) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617258)

I caught a glimpse of the version of the OS. It was Solaris 4.0, and some minor revision.

Not Solaris - SunOS (1)

mccalli (323026) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617306)

Was running SunOS 4 (Solaris was SunOS 5), which is roughly contemporary to the original Tron, but slightly later (exactly as would be needed to have set up the new Grid). He was also running iostat, and the blk_writes went up as the laser switched on.

Somebody, somewhere, cared about that scene.


Re:Not Solaris - SunOS (1)

Chelloveck (14643) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617494)

Somebody, somewhere, cared about that scene.

Yeah, I liked that. The only part that bothered me was the super-modern touchscreen keyboard connected to the old 1989 computer. They got all the tiny OS details right, but they flubbed the hardware big-time. Should have had an old Sun keyboard and a Mouse Systems mouse with the tracking grid... Ah, memories...

Re:Real Unix! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34617474)

I spotted "whoami" and "uname -a".

Re:Real Unix! (1)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617482)

I can go with them on the Solaris as the workstation is supposed to be circa 1989, not 1983.

Like watching glow-in-the-dark paint dry... (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616882)

Tron:Legacy was like watching glow-in-the-dark paint dry. This was like "Avatar: the Last Electronbender"

Re:Like watching glow-in-the-dark paint dry... (1)

gregthebunny (1502041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617774)

Ouch. I didn't think it was that bad. The Last Airbender was atrocious.

Saw it opening night (3, Interesting)

jockeys (753885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616916)

and all I'll say is that the new one made me feel the same way (as an adult) that the original made me feel as a child. Yes, the graphics are cool, but the coolest thing is the sense of infinite possibility you get from the scenery. CGI jeff bridges looked alright but didn't sound great as they had to use old jeff bridges voice with young jeff bridges face. Lots of nods to the original, definitely rewatch before seeing the new one. Overall very good. Some pacing issues, but that is similar to the original.

Ugh... (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616918)

After watching it, I was quite disappointed. It was all flash and no story (at least in my opinion). A few of things really bothered me....

  1. They build up Flynn's kid to be some computer hacker/x-treme athlete in the beginning of the movie, but really doesn't use any of those skills once inside "the grid". (Sure, he jumped out a window with those fairy wings, but seriously, that was it??)
  2. Jeff bridges "clue" character was so "wax" like, that it was a huge distraction. I'm sure this technology will get better with time, but it's not there yet.
  3. The entire "bar" scene reminded me of the bar scene in the Matrix.
  4. In the original, Flynn had special powers because he was a user. They really didn't explore or take advantage of that in this one. Not sure why.
  5. The Iso's (sp), still don't really get it.
  6. What happened with Tron when he finally "turned" was pretty lackluster and again, they really didn't explore that too much. I think they were trying to mimic the whole Darth Vader dark side thing, but it was executed pretty poorly.

Visually the movie was nice to look at, but it lacked a lot of what made the original movie so cool. And that was a good story. Unfortunatly, this seems to be par for course in Hollywood these days, so I'm not too surprised.

Re:Ugh... (1)

NetServices (1479949) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617064)

Its similar to the first then, descent visuals but poor dialog and story line.

Re:Ugh... (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617140)

Aye on the special powers. I thought the dismembering was to allow Flynn to regrow her arm showing his user powers.
Ditto on the bar scene. It felt out of place and matrix like (more than star wars) tho I liked "Zeus" character who sparkled.

The isos were basically Lulu from 5th Element. Translated into the real world, they do change philosophy and likely change a lot of medical technology and genetic science. However, given only one of them, the government would snap her up in a second as soon as they found out about her existence.

Aye, the tron storyline was better dropped and replaced with something more useful.

The young face wasn't a big distraction-- but it didn't look real either. So close tho. this side of the uncanny valley for me. It felt like the lighting didn't match on it.

I recently painted room and realized how much everything in the room modifies the lighting of everything in the room.
Add a green couch and all the walls are now a little green. Add a black jumpsuited guy and there is less light radiating from there. So a given area has nearly infinite light sources, reflection sources, and transmutation sources.

So it may be hard to get the lighting to look real. maybe they need to measure the light mask of the actor's face in a white room and then compare it to the actor's face in the scene (the real one who is acting) and then use that lighting mask difference to modify the lighting of the face laid over the real face.

The fake face looked too evenly lit.

I was all set to go see it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616926)

And my 20 year old college student son came back from seeing it and said it sucked.

So I think I'll put it in my netflix queue instead.

Re:I was all set to go see it (1)

daitengu (172781) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617060)

He probably hates the original because it's "slow, boring and confusing" too.

Kids have no appreciation for good cinema these days.

Re:I was all set to go see it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34617218)

pretty sure he's never seen the original.

Re:I was all set to go see it (1)

hubie (108345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617530)

Kids have no appreciation for good cinema these days.

And you probably want them off your lawn too. :P

Very mixed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34616954)

It had some great visual evolutions from the original, and some interesting bits of the past come back, but at the same time, some of the characters did not quite work. There was a lot of wasted potential.

CG Jeff B (1)

SethThresher (1958152) | more than 3 years ago | (#34616960)

I thought that the "de-aged" CG faces were pretty great, and a wonderful touch for the movie. I don't think I would have noticed the effects right away if I didn't know they were going to be there. That being said, I was thrown off by the mouth. it just felt the slightest bit off, like it wasn't wide enough, or large enough. It didn't quite match up perfectly. The lighting on the first time we see CG Bridges was kind of off, but it worked great for the darkness of The Grid. I got used to it as the movie went on, and noticed the differences less and less. I think it was ultimately a great decision to go forward with those effects, it could be said that having that juuuust slightly uncanny look that we get from CLU adds to his character as exactly what he's meant to be: a computer rendered clone of his creator. Oh, and spoilers, I totally didn't realize that Tron was *also* a CG face until perhaps the next day when I read about it. So that just goes to show. If you weren't looking for it, you didn't see it.

Rape isn't so bad after the 20th or 30th time. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34617092)

After what George Lucas did to my bloody rectum, this wasn't so bad.

Like super mario (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34617110)

Tron Legacy is like the Super Mario Bros movie, but with programs instead of dinosaurs

I will say this, though. . . (1)

ibmjones (52133) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617130)

Quorra is hot. End of line.

USSR, IP, and Southpark (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617166)

There's a theory that you only truly listen to a song or watch a movie once, and every time after that you are (perhaps subtly) analyzing it. When I watch Tron now, I am struck by three things in particular, depending on which lens you look at it through.

First, it's a really interesting interpretation/presentation of intellectual property laws. The whole movie is essentially personality rights projected onto the works created. A programmer has their own personality imbued within the program itself, defining how the program behaves, and from what I gather Tron: Legacy continues this trend. The programs, as works of art, act as extensions of their creators into the digital world. Flynn is essentially trying to win back his intellectual property from Dillinger (creative name, huh?), who is now profiting from Flynn's work through copyright infringement. It's no surprise that Disney portrays a hero as someone who fights to preserve his own intellectual property, a Lockean interpretation (Flynn/we did the work, only Flynn/we should have the rights to programs/Steamboat Willie).

Second, the movie is steeped in the geopolitical conflict between the USA and the USSR. Master Control Program is red, as are all of its input and output streams; once Flynn and Tron succeed all the red turns to blue. Hell, Dillinger is even okay when the sentient MCP hacks the Kremlin, but balks when it goes after the Pentagon. There are obvious ties to IP law on the national scale as well, but the movie is a strong symbol of the struggle between global powers in the 80s, albeit with cooler fight sequences.

And, finally, as a South Park fan, it's hilarious to see Moses as MCP.

My thoughts on Tron Legacy .... (5, Interesting)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617204)

I went to see it on Saturday night. I opted for the 3D version, and purchased tickets in advance, via "Fandango". Despite all the warnings I heard about the Friday opening being "packed full" -- it turns out I shouldn't have wasted the extra few bucks on service fees getting my tickets online, in advance. The theater for the 10:05PM show only had about 15-20 people in it!

Here's the stuff I found most notable:

1. As everyone else is saying, the visuals were top-notch. I really liked the "updated look" to the light cycles, and especially the ribbon trails they left behind them. The effect of people getting de-rezzed was amazingly good too. Even the re-imagination of the traditional Walt Disney castle logo at the beginning of the movie was very cool. The 3D was subtle, which I actually liked. If you were expecting to see Flynn chucking a disc so it looked like it was headed right out of the movie screen and into the theater? Nope... sorry. No gimmicks like that. Just a little added depth to the digital world. I think you won't lose any enjoyment if you skip the 3D version, but as long as you're paying today's ticket prices to see it on a big screen anyway? It's worth going with the 3D version, if it doesn't cost extra, or the extra fee is less than the price of a small soda!

2. The Daft Punk soundtrack fits the theme of the movie, and yes, it's not bad. But in certain spots, I thought it was mixed too loudly and becomes "overbearing", as if it's competing for your attention with what you're actually trying to watch on the screen.

3. I still have kind of mixed feelings on how "60's hippie" they tried to make the Tron world. I mean, Jeff Bridge's character's whole "zen" thing wasn't something I expected at all out of this sequel. Does it work? Yeah, because it helps explain a few questions you might be tempted to ask, like "If he's the creator of this whole universe and has the power to revise code, at will? Why has he been so restrained at doing proactive things to better the situation for the inhabitants?" But you couple all of that with the "Zeus" character who has that crazy David Bowie vibe going on, and arch-enemies who all do things in the vein of "big corporation" or "trying to take over the world" -- and you're looking pretty squarely at the hippie vs. establishment stereotypes.

4. There really wasn't much Tron in this Tron. He practically made a cameo appearance! Since he's many people's favorite character of the original, I thought he deserved a little more screen time.

Overall? I enjoyed/liked this movie, and I think they did a good job of trying to respect the original, instead of stomping all over it, like SO often happens when they sequel a movie that was made so much earlier. In the end though? Given the original's whole premise, I'm not sure how this could have been re-made to have a fully believable story-line or deep plot/message? Much of the "magic" of the original Tron came from the fact that back in the 80's, computers were still a brand new and fascinating thing for a lot of us. As kids, we saw Tron and said "Wow.... that's a pretty cool way to imagine what the inside of a computer would be like if you could really become a part of one!" Now, almost 30 years later? We've all progressed far past the extent of computer games being things as "basic" as a light-cycle or person vs. person battle with throwing discs, and computer have become as much of a commodity item as our washers or dryers. We've all seen plenty of movies covering more expansive concepts like the entire Internet (The Matrix, etc.), too. So in a sense, the magic has evaporated with time -- and the best they could do is try to give back a little with the visuals and some nostolgia.

I liked it... (1)

Mister Transistor (259842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617206)

The sequel was nicely done. I was a bit worried about exaggerated 3D effects, but they were well done, subtle and immersive. In fact I really didn't notice which scenes were done in 2D and which were 3D - that's how subtle the use was.

The new light cycles are most excellent, apparently they can switch on and off the deadly wall-trails at will. The new "recognizers" are much more believable as actual vehicles, and look really cool as well. The new virtual cityscapes look really creepy and neat - especially the Disney Castle at the intro! That was a shocker... The new "Carrier" at the end was a nice update on the old one.

The soundtrack also went very well with the action and fit perfectly to the type of future-scape being presented. The club scene with the hilarious David Bowie clone had a particularly good track or two going in it.

The dialog wasn't as bad as it could have been, to be sure. There weren't too many computer in-jokes, most of the dialog was believable. There weren't too many throwback references to the old film either - there were a few, of course - the old laser, the Mattel Football game, the name "Dumont" appeared on a freight container that was part of Sam's house, but overall they were few and also subtly done.

If you had not seen the original you really wouldn't be at a disadvantage seeing this movie - there were quite a few youngsters in the audience that had either not seen it or had only recently heard of it and had watched it maybe once.

Overall I liked it very much - saw it in IMAX 3D which is polarized with dual projectors so there is no shuttering action on the glasses - they were light and comfortable and don't give you headaches, and it's at full frame-rate for both eyes.

Re:I liked it... (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617592)

I was a bit worried about exaggerated 3D effects, but they were well done, subtle and immersive. In fact I really didn't notice which scenes were done in 2D and which were 3D - that's how subtle the use was.

YET AGAIN! People are always saying this about these modern 3D movies: "The 3D was so subtle it was hardly distracting at all!" Not distracting? I'm asking you -- begging you -- why the Hell do I have to wear glasses to watch movies these days if I can't even tell which scenes are 2D and which are 3D? What is more distracting than wearing glasses when you don't need glasses?

Enjoyed it and hoping for a TRON3 (1)

minterbartolo (1956690) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617256)

I think it was visually stunning movie that needs to be seen in IMAX in 3D. The 3D is subtle and adds a layer of depth like some of the themes of the movie that I think most critics missed when they call it an incomprehensible plot. Unlike Pocahontas in Space last year the plot didn't hit you over the head with the themes (Last year it was pretty easy to follow Greedy white man invades kill natives, Military bad, Ecoterrorism good) On the surface it is the typical Joesph Campbell Hero's Journey: reluctant Hero (Sam) gets a message(page to Alan Bradley) to set him off on his quest, meets wise old wizard (kevin) and mythical creature (Quorra) on the way to defeat the baddie (Clu) and save the kingdom along the way a lost warrior returns to the light to redeem himself. But deeper it is the primal story mix of Lucifer trying to overthrow God and rule the kingdom of heaven and Hitler trying to rule the world with his perfect solution. Clu is not some cookie cutter mustache twirling villain at his base core he is the illegitimate son trying to win the love and respect of his father and know he did right. He does what he does fanatically because he is limited by his program, he can't think outside the box and hates the Isos because they now have God's love (who also have free will like Man) Have we solved the uncanny valley with Clu (Bridge's deaging) not completely but at the same time we know he is a program limited by that programing code so the fact he looks a little off actually works for me. definitely go see it in the theater, the acting is not Shakespeare, but did anyone compare Mark Hamill in Star Wars to Laurence Olivier? Tron has always held a special place in my heart as that is about the time I started programing (BASIC on a TRS-80 after an elementary school summer camp) and it showed the wonders of the inside of computer. Tron Legacy is the next evolution has us question what is digital life, with all our social and virtual interactions of cyberspace these days does our cyberself represent us or something more. Now with the grid existing on Sam's neck server what new evolution will it take place? What is the future for Quorra? Did Kevin's final embrace/rectication with Clu jump start a new ISO life in the sea of simulation (sort of like the monolith causing Jupiter into a Sun to support life on Europa in 2010) Will Dillinger leave Encom to start his own company to rival Sam?

piss poor plot (1)

sneakyimp (1161443) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617304)

Some of the visuals were delightful and the audio was remarkable for its amazing rumbling low end, but as a story this movie really stank. A young CGI bridges is hardly a worthy villain. The plot was just hollow and boring. I hope I never see the lead actor again. Other redeeming factors: fine girls in tight, fetishy outfits and smokey eye makeup, daft punk, linux commands on Flynn's computer, and the English guy. Really irritating: Tron magically changes his mind and what little suspense they had managed to create immediately dissipates. I give it a "D".

A worthy successor (2)

Chelloveck (14643) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617340)

I enjoyed it a whole lot more than I expected to. The visuals were great and the soundtrack fit them perfectly. The story was merely passable, but at least it was no more insipid than your average action flick. If you're fond of the original you'll probably like this one (unless maybe if you're a lightcycle purist who thinks they should only go in straight lines, dammit!) Conversely, if you didn't enjoy the original there's nothing here for you. It's a worthy successor to the original Tron, no more, no less. Take that however you like.

But am I the only one who couldn't stop thinking of Rinzler as The Stig's evil digital cousin?

Already wrote about this in my journal (0)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617376)

At the end of November I posted in my journal about Tron Legacy and how it would be an overall failure. I explained to those who responded that from what I saw of the commercials, it would be explosions for the sake of explosions interspersed with blue and orange lights.

From what I've read about people's comments, I wasn't too far off in my assessment.

For any that are interested, fell free to read what I wrote [] .

Re:Already wrote about this in my journal (1)

Mister Transistor (259842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617656)

You must not be reading the posts too carefully then. Almost every one comments on how well-done and subtle the use of effects and 3D were. The only thing people are really agreeing on that was bad was the overall plot. Music, effects and action were definitely NOT what people disliked about it.

The original was incredibly frustrating (1)

whitroth (9367) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617420)

They've got uploading someone into a computer, and obviously teleportation... and all they could do with it was make a video game.

        mark "Hollywood, where the producers' IQ
                        is equal to their shoe size"

In praise of CGI Jeff Bridges (1)

mccalli (323026) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617470)

I liked the fact it wasn't quite realistic, and I do think the film makers knew it too. It made him look a little more deranged, a little more mad. The effect worked for me.

I liked the film. Very different in tone to the first - my kids love the first (eldest is 9) but I doubt they'd get on well with the second. That's fine though - the film is aimed at mid-to-late thirties like me, people who saw the original and wanted it taken one step further. Lots of doom-laden portentous imagery, but that's fine.

I would have liked more of Tron himself, and felt slightly cheated of a big Tron/Clu showdown. Still, it's a minor point - I really enjoyed the whole thing. I think one thing that helped me do this was staying away from all pre-film publicity and speculation other than the initial trailer. I had no preconception coming into the film, and I'm sure I enjoyed myself more as a result.


The writing was idiotic (Spoilers?) (2)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34617500)

I can hardly count the number of things about the script for Tron: Legacy that made no sense whatsoever. As the subject says, although I'll try to keep it tame, there be spoilers here:

  • The first thing that happens to Sam when he enters the computer world is they cut off his clothes and re-clothe him in "computer clothes." Huh? Are they used to guys just showing up wearing Earth clothes now? When Flynn entered the computer world in the original Tron, he looked like all the other computer programs.
  • Computer clothes look like clothes. Walls look like walls, floors look like floors, doors look like doors. You can actually slam the door, in a computer. If you drive a computer car on a computer racetrack, your tires leave computer rubber on the road (rubber?). There are clouds in the sky (why?), and ships use thrusters to fly around (is there even air?). Basically, this wasn't the world of Tron from the first movie -- it was Attack of the Clones with extra neon.
  • If you're the absolute lord and master of the world of the computer, and you want to blow up a building inside the world of the computer, you have your goons stick magnetic explosive discs to the inside walls of the buildings as you make your dramatic exit, then watch the upper floors of the building explode from the street below, like it's Die Hard.
  • There's a major villain type character that's hunting our heroes throughout the movie -- that is, until he decides he's actually a hero type character, for no apparent reason whatsoever.
  • Similarly, Sam is told to go see a character who is supposed to be able to help him out. Said character has been living a double life -- outwardly he's a flamboyant club promoter (do computer programs need entertainment?) but secretly he's a super something-or-other. But NO! He's not, because he reveals that he's actually been secretly leading a triple life, because he's actually a villain after all, despite the fact that this seems like a really bad idea for a guy who's been living a double life, as evidenced by the fact that the guy who he's supposed to be secretly serving just decides to kill him.
  • At the beginning of the film is a bunch of techno-gobbledigook and mumbo-jumbo about ENCOM OS 12 and how it used to be free but it's not free anymore, except oh wait, Sam, in a bold act of base jumping with a parachute, managed to post it on the Web, so it's on the Web now, so it's free, but wait, we'll issue a press release and say it was always supposed to be free, on the Web, and this was all part of the plan, and uh... wait, don't we make videogames?
  • At the beginning of the movie Sam is a rebellious character who like to play nasty pranks on ENCOM, such the aforementioned acts of twiddling servers with a Nokia phone and jumping off buildings. By the end, he decides to wise up and seize power as the majority shareholder of ENCOM. That's all well and good, but just what was it that happened in the computer world that convinced him to do that? How did CLU 2's plan for world domination have anything whatsoever to do with the struggle for control of ENCOM -- a struggle which wasn't even happening before Sam went into the computer?
  • CLU wants to lead the programs out of the computer to rule the real world, the same way that Sam got in. How does that work, exactly? Well, it must work, because Olivia Wilde's elf character manages it at the end... but no, seriously, how does that work, exactly?
  • Isomorphic algorithms. They'll cure disease, end hunger, and generally save the world. Because they're isomorphic, I guess.

I give up. The list goes on and on. This movie pretty much required you to check your brain at the door -- and frankly, I didn't find the visuals all that impressive. Avatar tried to create a realistic alien world with its 3-D computer rendered visuals; Tron: Legacy tries to create a sterile, inorganic environment dressed in neon and glass. It gets old to look at. In fact, the whole movie gets old, fast. I found myself looking at my watch often and I was glad when it was finally over.

Spoiler Alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34617512)

It was awesome. I'm convinced Daft Punk and Jeff Bridges could make Eat, Pray, Love watchable. Story isn't great, but is good enough. The mood and visuals are incredible. IMHO, certainly a worthy sequel, and in many respects better than the original.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?