'TRON' the TV series by whozit

OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

'TRON' the TV series

POSTED BY: WHOZIT
UPDATED: Thursday, December 30, 2010 01:15
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5899
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, December 27, 2010 6:27 AM

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2010/12/tron-tv-series-to-prem
iere-summer-2012-bruce-boxleitner-elijah-wood-and-more-signed-on.html

I hope this doesn't end up like the forever on hold live action "STAR WARS" TV series

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 27, 2010 6:59 AM

CHRISISALL

Summer 2012?
Not only aren't those chickens hatched, they haven't evolved yet.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 27, 2010 12:00 PM

STEGASAURUS

Did anyone ever post a thread about TRON: Legacy?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 27, 2010 2:14 PM

HAKEN

Likes to mess with stuffs.

I saw TRON: Legacy over the weekend. It was okay. A lot of it was just wrong in my opinion, especially when they break their own logic. The VFX, score by Daft Punk is top notch, and I really liked Olivia Wilde as Quorra--she can have her own movie imho.

As for the TV series, I don't see how they can expand on the TRON universe without it treading into "Ghost in the Shell" territory. Come to think of it, Olivia Wilde is probably perfect for the live action.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 27, 2010 2:19 PM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by Stegasaurus:
Did anyone ever post a thread about TRON: Legacy?

I remember seeing one the day after it came out. Somewhere around here.

I can't imagine how they would do a show. They kind of stretched the story just for Legacy, IMO.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 27, 2010 4:25 PM

GWEK

There's quite a bit of story between TRON and TRON: LEGACY. A lot of what is hinted at in LEGACY is spelled out in the comic book "bridge," TRON: BETRAYAL, which shows a lot of the relationship between Sam and Flynn, Flynn burning the candle at both ends in multiple words, and the evolution of Clu from loyal sidekick to heartless villain.

The video game TRON: EVOLUTION apparently further develops the story, showcasing Quorra and highlighting the beginning of Clu's real crusade against the Isos.

Although the four stories together seem to cover much of the broad tale, I guess there's always room for more.

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 28, 2010 5:45 AM

STEGASAURUS

I just picked up the game yesterday, and I have to say (aside from being a difficult game to play - I suck at console games) it is doing a good job of explaining how the Grid got the way it was leading up to the movie.

Oh, and for the record: I loved TRON: Legacy. Very, very much!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 28, 2010 6:40 AM

GWEK

What little I've seen of the video game looked pretty cool--and with an excellent cast.

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 28, 2010 10:35 AM

LWAVES

I saw Tron: Legacy yesterday and was largely underwhelmed by it all. We watched the 3D version (which is what persuaded me to see it at the cinema) and for the most part I found it very poor. The scenes where you'd expect it to stand out and look great seemed to be a slightly enhanced 2D picture. Then you'd get a couple of seconds where a character hangs off a ledge and the 3D seemed completely forced.

As for the movie itself:-

Select to view spoiler:

Pros:
The visuals are truly stunning (if you like neon) but I'd recommend the 2D version.
Clu/younger Jeff Bridges looked very convincing for the most part with only a few minor facial distortions when he sort of smiled.
I liked the fact the Clu wasn't really the baddie, it was Flynn, even if it wasn't his intention.

Cons:
The plot was spread out too much, like the original.
It was a pretty steady retread of the original plot in the same order. Zapped in, disc game, light cycles, hiding out, beam carrier thingy, portal back home.
The soundtrack might be okay if you like Daft Punk. If you don't (like me) then it's kind of a non-event and doesn't stand out as anything special.

Just my thoughts. It's not a bad film but it copies the original too much and doesn't really take it anywhere new.
The original is still way better.

"The greatest invention ever is not the wheel. It's the second wheel." - Rich Hall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 28, 2010 12:01 PM

STEGASAURUS

Valid points all I suppose, but I have to respectfully disagree with you on most of those points, simply because I didn't see the movie the same way you did.

I didn't find the 3D at all problematic. Especially when they put the disclaimer at the beginning of the movie stating that the 3D effects were essentially an after-thought. The entire movie was filmed as 2D.

Select to view spoiler:

I agree (to a degree) that the story is similar as you stated. Especially where the train was involved. I caught on very early that Clu was in essence just the MCP all over again in humanform. But I felt there was enough difference that I was watching a different story, so I was not detracted by it at all.

I would say that for those who would be overly critical of movies (and I'm not saying YOU are, lwaves) this would not be a recommended movie. For those who just want to get lost in the "magic-in-a-box" entertainment of computers, this was a fun ride.

I realize others have different opinions, so let me try to characterize myself with a story:

I had a boss. He and his wife listened to the same music I did. One day a new song came out - Butterfly Kisses. Knowing they listened to the same music as me, and as we were all new parents at the time, I asked them separately what they thought about the song.

The bosses wife loved it. It made her cry.

The boss hated it. He saw it as an obvious attempt to illicit emotion from the listener, and he didn't subscribe to that.

As a father to a new baby girl, that song made me cry as well. I didn't care that they were blatantly trying to make me cry, I just listened to the song and related to it.

That is how I watch movies. It occurs to me that many that fancy themselves movie critics tend to lean towards my boss's way of thinking.

Which are you? (not directed soley at lwaves, but anyone who cared to read and feels like answering).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 28, 2010 2:12 PM

CHRISISALL

Haken, if you say it's "okay", then I feel like it's worth a viewing.
Nothing could surpass the original IMO anyway.

The electronic Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 28, 2010 3:20 PM

HAKEN

Likes to mess with stuffs.

Chrisisall,

I think if you don't think too much about the technical aspects of the story and enjoy TRON for what it is--a video game--then it's okay. Otherwise, you'll have more questions than answers after watching it.

I had a lot of WTF moments every time the scriptwriter introduced something new without giving it much thought as to what it is exactly that he introduced and the implications it holds. I know TRON isn't supposed to be cerebral, but still, the writer(s) could have done a better job at leaving certain things unexplained rather than explaining them to the point that they violate the laws of the universe they created for TRON.

I don't want to spoil it for those who have not seen it, so my reply is somewhat vague.

So, just watch it in 2D instead of 3D and enjoy the ride (and Olivia Wilde as Quorra).

Haken

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 28, 2010 3:44 PM

CHRISISALL

'Nuff said Haken! I'll see it, just for Jeff & the hottie.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:52 AM

LWAVES

Quote:
Originally posted by Stegasaurus:
I didn't find the 3D at all problematic. Especially when they put the disclaimer at the beginning of the movie stating that the 3D effects were essentially an after-thought. The entire movie was filmed as 2D.

I knew going in (before the disclaimer) that not all scenes were 3D and thought that it probably meant the 'real world' stuff would be in 2D and The Grid would be in 3D. It was, but I found the 3D scenes rather lacklustre and it didn't enhance the movie in any way. I'll admit the only other movie I've seen in 3D is Avatar and I know that shots were forced to acheive the desired effect but it brought you into the world more. I'm not saying that 3D should make a movie better, but from a purely visual POV it should enhance it.
Your last point brings out the main problem with a lot of so-called '3D' movies these days. They weren't shot in 3D. It's not what they were created for so they shouldn't be converted. Just leave the thing in 2D. People will still watch it. It may be strict thinking but that's the way I feel and It certainly didn't hurt the latest Harry Potter movie not to be in 3D, despite that being the original intention.

Quote:

I would say that for those who would be overly critical of movies (and I'm not saying YOU are, lwaves) this would not be a recommended movie. For those who just want to get lost in the "magic-in-a-box" entertainment of computers, this was a fun ride.

I don't consider myself overly critical but I can be critical and do like to critique movies (and TV) for good or bad. For me it's part of the whole experience and it's nice to read other people's take on things, even if they are wrong (joking

). I too like to get lost in movies but I feel that if you pay for the experience it's only right that you can be honest about your feelings towards it. If you just watch the movie and take it at it's base level, a piece of entertainment, then you aren't really getting value for your money.
I'm not saying this applies to you but it seems more and more people do exactly this these days. It's why Michael Bay still has a career, or why we get so many dumb comedies that run on one joke or why the Twilight Saga is so successful. People just seem to be accepting what is shown to them on screen even if there is no substance to it. They don't think about what they've just seen and, in the appropiate cases, they don't question whether it really was good. Some movies are of course made to be pure entertainment and that's fine, they have their place and can be entertaining. I feel that the original Tron had more to it than that and Legacy just copied what was there and changed the cast and plot a little bit.

Now, having said all that, I did state that I don't think Tron: Legacy is a bad film. It's not, it's a fine film but it isn't great. It's far better than most blockbusters but for me it stuck a little too close to the original, it didn't explore the world or any of the possibilities within it. It could have been a great film had they bothered with a proper plot.

And to everyone else, definitely see the 2D version and not the 3D version.

"The greatest invention ever is not the wheel. It's the second wheel." - Rich Hall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 29, 2010 3:39 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Just came back from having seen TRON Legacy.

I share the sentiments of Lwaves (that happens a lot actually 'L'). Anyways, it's not a bad flick and being a designer I spent most of my time marvelling at the look and atmosphere of the film; something that I did/do with the original.
It has it's moments of wonder and I think for the most part I was entertained, but it lacks the beguiling flow of the original (though it does share the muddled plot). This is probably in part due to the fact that computer vernacular is so common place now that a world riddled with errant programmes; running around, fighting each other doesn't seem quite as magical and fantastical as it once did.

Back in the 80's the universe of the computer was completely unknown and by sheer mention a wonderment in itself - the fact that some guys at Disney tried to visualize it... Well that was sheer Sorcery!!! An enigma to the eyes and ears, and Wendy Carlos' score was part responsible for that also.
As for Daft Punk, I haven't paid much attention to them in the past. However there is one piece of music in this film that is absolutely incredible and literaly had the hairs on the back of my neck up. That alone I would have paid for to be honest!

The retro 3D was innefective for the greater part of the film, but it didn't spoil anything. Just meant feeling a little goofy for wearing the glasses. However I chuckled to myself when my girlfriend flinched as something came beaming towards her - and actually she is a good benchmark for this film, as she has niether seen the original nor does she like sci-fi and yet she came away happy with Legacy and now wants to watch the 1981 TRON.

So that's a win... I would say.

Oh and Jeff Bridges is just... Well it was nice to see him. Like an old friend y'know.

Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:40 AM

STEGASAURUS

I wanted to be sure to anyone else reading this that my questions and comments weren't meant for lwaves. They brought up some good and valid points, and I wanted to be sure that as I commented I addressed them while trying not to alienate anyone else from the movie who hadn't seen it.

That said, to THESOMNAMBULIST, I completely agree with this:

Quote:
Back in the 80's the universe of the computer was completely unknown and by sheer mention a wonderment in itself - the fact that some guys at Disney tried to visualize it... Well that was sheer Sorcery!!! An enigma to the eyes and ears, and Wendy Carlos' score was part responsible for that also.
As for Daft Punk, I haven't paid much attention to them in the past. However there is one piece of music in this film that is absolutely incredible and literaly had the hairs on the back of my neck up. That alone I would have paid for to be honest!

As for seeing it in 3D, my thought is, if you want to spend the additional funds to see it, do. It's not going to hurt anything, really. But it's not as wonderful as Avatar, and you have been warned.

-Steg

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 30, 2010 1:15 AM

IMNOTHERE

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Back in the 80's the universe of the computer was completely unknown and by sheer mention a wonderment in itself

...and, of course, since then we've all become used to the idea of exploring virtual worlds inside computers (I'm currently wasting huge swathes of time on minecraft).

Saw the film yesterday: It was perfectly good eye-candy entertainment but, creatively, it was too much of a re-tread of the original "escape from the Grid and stop MCP taking over the world (bwahahahaha!)" plot.

Surely they could have done better? For instance

Select to view spoiler:

Why would Clu be interested in taking over the real world? Wouldn't he be salivating over breaking out onto the internet?

Perhaps the Grid could be under threat from the Internet? The Google Empire, desperate to break in and plunder the Grid's computing resources, sends in Sam to infiltrate the grid, but he falls in love with Quora as she shows him the wonders of the Grid, and ends up fighting against... oh, wait...

Seriously, though, the story was lame. The backstory was far more interesting than the film - since they went to all the trouble of re-creating a young Jeff Bridges they could have just followed on from the original and had more retro-80s fun. The graphics weren't sufficiently impressive to make the film stand alone as eye-candy post-Avatar (or even post-Matrix for that matter).

Its also confirmed my prejudices about 3D: the demos and trailers before the film (full of 3D stunts like butterflies flying around the cinema - I now understand what the real point of those floaty glowing seeds was in Avatar!) but it just doesn't add enough to the movie to make up for the stupidity of wearing sunglasses in the cinema (doubly uncomfortable and distracting if you need glasses anyway). Hopefully, the craze will die out soon - remember this is 60-year-old technology which resurfaces every decade or so, suggesting that people just don't want it. My father remembers seeing 3D movies demonstrated in the 50s - proper polarized light ones, too - not the cruddy red/green system.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE