Main > Everything Else

NEW TRON LEGACY TRAILER!!!

<< < (2/5) > >>

Howard_Casto:

--- Quote from: dre-w on March 09, 2010, 12:26:09 am ---Yeh I'm probably hyping it up more than it really is but what can I say.. I own the Tron action figures, comic books, soundtrack..  I'm just really happy that they decided to make a sequel instead of a reboot..  I'm so sick of reboots nowadays.

As for the Tron machine in this movie..  who knows.  In the trailer the kid is told his dad disappeared 20 years ago..  maybe it's leaving it up to the viewer to imagine his dad built that tron cab.. haha idk.. I'm just giving it the benefit of the doubt

And Shia isn't what really ruined the India Jones movie for me.. what did it in was the unnecessary use of cg..  they had cg monkeys, cg trees, cg grass.. everything was freakin cg that didn't need to be!!  But yes, I can't agree more, enough labeouf.

--- End quote ---

I agree, sequels are better than reboots.  I think the new star trek movie, for example, would have been WAAAY better if they had just did a proper prequel instead of following some stupidly contrived plot just so that the film could still be considered "cannon".  Everybody knows all you need to time travel in the Star Trek universe is A warp vessel, the earth's Sun, and somebody really smart to do the calculations.  You know somebody like the only person ever to successfully do it TWICE, none other than Spock Prime himself!  So the plot of that film was dead in the water from scene one, but I'm rambling.


I'm sure the Tron machine will be explained in the plot, but the thing that worries me, is working it into the plot is just bad writing added in to serve the fanboys.  That's a sign of a bad film, unfortuantely.

Shia didn't ruin the film for me either, it was several factors, but putting an inexperienced, unremarkable, actor opposite of teh great Harrison Ford and setting him up as the "Co Star" jsut because he's currently very popular makes the whole thing seem like a cheap cash-in.  He's not very talented to be involved in such a great franchise.  It's just distracting as well.  As for the cgi... it don't think it was an over-use, but rather poorly implemented cgi that make the film seem sub-par.  When cg is done properly you can't tell it's cg unless you REALLY know what you are looking at.  In the case of crystal skull, the cg was so bad it border-lined on the cartoonish. 

Level42:
I love it.


But what I'd really like to know is: whatever became of this: http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/06/10/atari-movie/ ?

Vanguard:
Possible Spoiler (Doesn't give away anything really just explains some history between first and second movie):
.
.
.
.

Select text to see.

The story takes place approximately 27 years after the original. The movie starts in 1989. Kevin Flynn has created some of the world's top selling games based on his Game Grid challenges in the first film, and has marketed the hell out of what he saw there (action figures, Recognizer night lights, etc). As a result, ENCOM has become the world's largest video game company. Flynn gets married and has a son, named Sam, but he is widowed in 1985 and later that year, retires from ENCOM to create "a digital frontier that will reshape the human condition". In 1989, Flynn disappears and he leaves behind Sam when he disappears. Flynn was in charge of ENCOM when he disappeared, so ENCOM is taken over be his friend Alan Bradley.

Bobulus:
Found some director commentary on this trailer: http://www.mtv.com/photos/images-from-the-new-tron-legacy-trailer/1633471/4476515/photo.jhtml

It gives some basic plot spoilers. Some interesting ideas. I'm hoping this doesn't make Flynn the antagonist of the movie.


--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on March 09, 2010, 02:31:01 am ---I'm sure the Tron machine will be explained in the plot, but the thing that worries me, is working it into the plot is just bad writing added in to serve the fanboys.  That's a sign of a bad film, unfortuantely.
--- End quote ---

Incidentally, the commentary explains the Tron arcade machine in a very rational way: Flynn made a new game after coming back to the real world, and it went on to be a big seller. Wouldn't be the first arcade game to steal concepts from earlier games.  ;)

SavannahLion:
I'm OK with the TRON cab showing up in the trailer. Vanguard's pseudo-spoiler is what I expected the logic to be.

What bothers me a little bit is the physics logic apparent in the trailer. It was evident in the previous trailer (TR2N? WTF were they thinking?) as well. To me, the original TRON physics made sense. It's a digital world attempting to emulate the real world of the programmers. It was imperfect (limits on processing power) and there were still fun things that contradicted RW physics.

In the trailer, I saw a lot of motorcycle, car, etc scenes that closely emulated their RW counterparts, right down to smoking tires. Yet I saw almost nothing that showed off the unrestricted physics of a digital world (with exception of the Recognizers). You would think, after XX number of years, the world of TRON would be filled with things that emulate their RW counterparts and things that flaunt those physics and go the extra mile for the imaginative. I think the writer of Ender's Game probably said it best (referring to Zero G). Why restrict yourself to a traditional up/down orientation when you have any effective orientation you choose?

The other thing is, the computer/network topology that inspired TRON in the first place really doesn't exist any more. In the days of TRON, giant mainframes with dummy terminals were the norm. So the idea of a, "One Mainframe to rule them all, One Mainframe to find them, One Mainframe to bring them all and in the darkness bind them," kind of made sense. Mainframes still exist, but they've long been eclipsed by fully independent clients. Hell, I wouldn't doubt a good percentage of the clients out there are equally, or even more powerful, than the servers they're connecting to. Geez, how many of us have full blown networks at home that exceed the raw processing power of any company server? Point being, a central mainframe that was the central focus of the original just isn't applicable. I'm curious how the producers intend to reflect the changes in modern computing/networking and whether they'll do it accurately.

edit: fixed incorrect name

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version