#210 The paleolife artwork of professional dinosaur artist Greg Paul can be seen on the inside wall of the mobile trailer in TLW. (From: 'Mallon') Prev - Next
"Tron: Legacy" On 11/30/2010 at 6:53:50 AM, PaulSF started the thread: Electrify the boys and girls, if you'd be so kind...
That's right, bitches. It's (almost) TRON time. Actually it's also kind of an explosion at the geek factory on Dec 17th because not only does Tron: legacy open at midnight, but both the teaser trailers for Thor and Transformers: Dark Of The Moon are scheduled to appear. Especially looking forward to the former. It's just too bad Captain America: The First Avenger can't join the party yet.
Anyway anyone interested in Daft Punk's score should seek it out. It's amazing, and absolutely far from a collection of dance mixes. It's a bona fide film score and it's in my top three so far this year just under Hans Zimmer's work on Inception.
A few tracks of many:
Msg #1: On 11/30/2010 at 7:23:12 AM, Dac replied, saying: Words cannot describe how fucking pumped I am for this film. It's been one of my most hotly anticipated all year, bar none. Gonna watch the original, then head on over to this one, and it will be AWESOME
Oh, and we get it on the 16th, which after timezones, evens out to roughly two days before the rest of you. Suck it.
Msg #2: On 11/30/2010 at 9:27:19 AM, Adam replied, saying: Another one we get first? Oh, yes.
Msg #3: On 11/30/2010 at 12:21:44 PM, The Crow replied, saying: This is going to be so ridiculously badass. I have a feeling it's gonna be just as good, if not better, than the original.
I am SO PSYCHED.
Msg #6: On 11/30/2010 at 11:49:54 PM, Monkipzzle replied, saying: Olivia Wilde is quite attractive, but her oh-so liberal tendencies, coupled with her disdain of the GOP, make her only barely tolerable for me...
That said, I really dug the trailers. I'll be there opening week.
Shame about the 3D. Anyone know if there are gonna be 2D screenings? Replies: 9
Msg #9: On 12/1/2010 at 7:43:06 AM, Dac replied to Msg #8, saying: I'm steering away from previewed discussion. Cutting myself off from reviews, feedback, the works. Want to see this one on my own view.
Just watched the original again. FUCK, it's an awesome movie. I really do love it. I could pause it on any single frame and just stare at it.
Msg #10: On 12/1/2010 at 8:23:25 AM, Adam replied, saying: This is actually one film I have no qualms seeing in 3D, seems like it's one that could benefit from it. Unless of course it's post-converted bullshit. If so, I'll be seeing a 2D session. My local cinema always does both for 3D films. Replies: 11
Plus...you won't even see THIS movie in 3D? This the perfect movie for it, even more so than Avatar. It's gonna look amazing, I guarantee it.
Msg #15: On 12/1/2010 at 7:37:05 PM, Varan101 replied, saying: Its certainly impressive visually, but the story seems rather thin or nonexistent. Replies: 16
Msg #16: On 12/1/2010 at 8:40:53 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #15, saying: o.o How so? Flynn creates CLU 2, an upgraded version of his original hacking problem, and gives it the function of watching over his shit. CLU 2 gets corrupted, starts running the show with an iron fist and killing things that don't fit his plan, and Flynn is somehow trapped inside the computer world for 27 years. His son goes to look for him, and in the process, he has to save the computer world.
It's standard hero fare and I think it's gonna be awesome. Replies: 17
Msg #17: On 12/1/2010 at 9:37:54 PM, PaulSF replied to Msg #16, saying: ^^^ Bang on. This is exactly why I love movies like this and why I thoroughly enjoyed Avatar. I enjoy pure, adventure film entertainments the earlier days of the genre were all about over some kind of deep, complex plot. That's not to say they don't have storytelling, they do have them with likable characters and plenty of atmosphere, which is what I want. Mark my words this will carry the same exact response Avatar did, which is "Pretty but empty story" while the rest of us simply get lost in it like intended. Evidently it's already begun.
Msg #18: On 12/1/2010 at 10:40:35 PM, Varan101 replied, saying: I haven't gotten any vibe about likable characters or anything else you mentioned from this story just yet. However, I never let my prejudgments effect my opinion of watching the actual movie, so we'll see.
Msg #19: On 12/1/2010 at 10:55:24 PM, PaulSF replied, saying: I was speaking in a broader sense of these kinds of movies and what they go for primarily, not of this film specifically. We'll see next week. Replies: 20
Msg #20: On 12/2/2010 at 2:33:14 PM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #19, saying: Interesting...
Msg #21: On 12/2/2010 at 5:55:09 PM, Colin replied, saying: I consider that a pretty good rating considering CHUD doesn't like anything.
IGN loved it and Harry did from AICN (I know that doesn't mean a lot for some people, but it's there).
Heard nothing but good things on this end. Apparently it's just going to be one giant assault on the senses (a good one), with the amazing visuals and fantastic score. Listening to it right now. Wow.
And I know my local cinema is good for it too. When the latest trailer played in front of a film last week, dazzling us on the huge screen - holy shit - the entire cinema and the chairs vibrated and hummed and it felt like the whole place was shuddering in ecstasy. It made my friends and I feel giddy. An amazing sound system that is going to get a perfect workout with this.
Can't wait. I know next to nothing about the plot, and in this one rare case, I honestly couldn't care less about it. I'm concentrating on the positives.
Msg #32: On 12/9/2010 at 11:37:39 AM, raptor2000 replied, saying: I watched the first movie the other day again in anticipation for the second, and I was again struck by how bland the score is in this movie.
I realize, too, that the first movie came out in an era where CGI was still in its infancy so at the time the special effects were revolutionary, but comparing the original film to even just the trailers for the second now....damn. It just looks bad. Even the N64 had better graphics. Not only that, but the first movie is really kind of boring. Not boring enough to make me turn it off, but that hour and a half really seemed to drag. Even worse, after most of the movie seemed to go so slow, the ending seemed really abrupt. I wanted more stuff set in the real world and less in the world of Tron. One can only take so many crappy CGI chases.
It is every bit as beautiful as I'd hoped. The world is so richly detailed. The visuals, stunning. The sounds, hypnotic. But it's not just a light show. The story, while not the best or even the most original on the books, still works well. There's the usual conflict and resolution, it does what it needs to, but we are not bored by it. The characters have archetypal elements to them, but they are engaging. There are moments between Sam and his father that are poignant and stirring. Clu is more than your average omnicidal maniac. Quorra is funny and charming (and Olivia Wilde is absolutely gorgeous). And Castor is a hoot.
In a year boasting Inception and 44 Inch Chest, it would be hard to say I have a new favourite. But it makes the Top Three, easily.
I wish to take a break and contemplate what I have just seen. This could take a while. Excuse me, I'll be knocking on the sky.
Msg #34: On 12/16/2010 at 7:50:16 AM, Adam replied, saying: Saw it twice today, with 2 separate groups of friends.
Let me start by saying I enjoyed the original for what it was, but that was some years ago. I remember it was cheesy in parts, not the best in terms of pacing, but had a few very cool moments, and an inherently cool concept all around.
This one is much the same, just much, much prettier, and with some amazing sound design and a kick-ass soundtrack.
Like expected, it is visually stunning - like Dac just said - and the world is crafted masterfully. Daft Punk rock the soundtrack. I simply can't get enough of that. I'll be listening to it again every soon. I almost kinda hope - like said one review somewhere - that there would be an option on DVD to watch the film with just the picture, music and sound effects, because it is most certainly the script and writing where this things fails.
The lead actor is suitable, but seems to not be able to stretch his emotional range far enough to make me believe he and his father had been apart for 20 years. I just didn't feel it. It looked forced, and I cringed. That, coupled with his dialogue which seemed to just be an endless stream of lame cheesy one liners 'this can't be good'... 'have a nice swim!'... 'this isn't happening'... 'it is happening!'... and I really couldn't help but laugh it up often. Along with most of the cinema.
Despite that, Bridges does what he can and is noteably cool as old Flynn - people are going to bitch and moan that he's just playing The Dude in cyberspace, without realising the character of Flynn existed in the 80s and I seem to remember him being much the same as he is here, so that's fine.
Wilde is sexy, and likeable, but that's just because she's a good actress. She just isn't given too much to work with here. I liked her though. The girl in white was fucking hot too. I'm going to be having naughty dreams about those two. Atleast, I hope so.
But yeah, people were laughing it up at the endless parallels to Star Wars, and to be honest there really is an endless amount of them. (I got sick of the snickers and 'I am your Father' jokes, by the end of the second viewing). I actually had to do a double take when Sam had the hood on as he looks like Anakin's twin. There's even what sounds like a Wookie cry when a guard falls to his death, heh.
To be honest I can't totally remember the original, I'd have to watch it again to see if the cheese-factor aligns with this one. For all I know it could've been intentional, but that doesn't change the fact it was just a very badly paced film. Action, action, action, then shove an unholy amount of exposition down our throats, then action, action, end.
Not to mention character's motives just weren't clear enough all too often. The biggest gripe I have is right at the end when Tron shows up (in one of his very few and random appearances) and makes a decision seemingly out of nowhere and is just there to include a line for nostalgia's sake.
Ah well, it's worth seeing. It's an experience. The 3D isn't used as a gimmick, there's nothing jumping out at you (save a couple of jump moments) and it's used wonderfully to enhance the world of the Grid and give it depth, layers, and further beauty. The real world scenes aren't even in 3D at all, and they had to include a disclaimer at the beginning, probably so people didn't begin watching and then go and complain it was in 2D. I kinda dug that, though. Made a nice contrast.
Gets a 2.5/5 from me. A great experience for the eyes and ears, just not when someone is talking.
Replies: 35
Msg #35: On 12/16/2010 at 11:01:55 AM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #34, saying: I've been confused about all the bitching people have been doing about the way Jeff Bridges plays Flynn in this movie, too. I haven't seen Tron: Legacy yet but I rewatched the original film the other day and yeah...the way people describe his character in Legacy is pretty much the exact same way he was in the first film. I think people just need to rewatch the first one before they complain about discrepencies with his character in this one.
Msg #36: On 12/16/2010 at 11:15:26 AM, Aragorn replied, saying: Yeah, I'm a fan of the first, but in no way is it a good movie, so I really don't understand all the complaints I read about this one, as each and every single one of those can also be said about the first, yet those very same people act like the first is the Holy Grail of movies or something.
Msg #37: On 12/16/2010 at 11:49:37 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: I agree with Adam about Sam for the most part. Too many quips. ("That can't be good" should never be said. Who fucking says that shit? It wasn't good here and it wasn't good in Crystal Skull either) A lot more should have been said in his face and not from his mouth.
Having said that, he was still a likable, easy character to latch on to. The Villain was good. There were quite some cool personalities running through the whole film. Jeff Bridges does a wonderful job, as usual. Clu's CGI is a mixed bag, but once you look past the fact that you know its fake, you start to really believe the performance.
I liked the movie. It wasn't great. But it was entertaining. I'd definitely see it again. It was pretty much what I expected. I wasn't going in to be blown away. I was going in to have fun.
I really loved this flick. As Colin summarized coherently on my wall: not a perfect film, but incredible action, insanely great score, strong characters and some really great, heartfelt moments. All of these bad reviews can shove it. I don't know what people were expecting. The story is more than serviceable, the action sequences are more intense and beautiful to look at and follow than anything this year, and Jeff Bridges, Olivia Wilde, and Garrett Hedlund were all like buckets of win in their characters. You cared about them and the ending was satisfying.
Msg #39: On 12/17/2010 at 6:30:15 AM, Narrator replied, saying: I enjoyed it. The CGI on bridges was pretty aweful. Clu is a in a digital world, so even though everyone else looks real, him looking like someone from the polar express was ok, but young bridges in the real world was... just creepy looking.
Olivia Wilde was good. Hot, of course. Flynn was great. "You're messin with my zen thing, man"
Some of the dialogue choices were just awful though. "Didn't anyone ever tell you stealing is wrong?" Really? Thats really the line you're going with. Ok.
EMBED-Tron Jeremy - Watch more free videos
Msg #41: On 12/17/2010 at 2:24:37 PM, Pteranadon2003 replied, saying: It was pretty badass. Some of the dialogue was cheesy and ya I kinda wish the only time we saw young Jeff Bridges was when we saw Clu(cause in a digital world it kinda works). I dug the main cast, especially Bridges who had some great lines and some nice moments. And of course the action was awesome and the music was superb.
Msg #42: On 12/17/2010 at 3:29:42 PM, raptor2000 replied, saying: Just got back. I thought it was awesome. So much better than the original film which I felt to be kind of bland and too focused on the now-obsolete special effects with not enough time spent on story or character developement.
Some of the main complaints people seem to be having about this film are the dialogue, lack of a good story, and the CGI on Jeff Bridges. The dialogue didn't really bother me, and I thought the CGI on young Flynn/CLU was amazing. Sure it didn't look totally realistic but that's because it wasn't real. They were recreating the look of an actor who has aged almost 30 years since the original film came out, and I think they did a damn good job. I was never really bothered by his look...it worked fine for me. As for the story...it was a bit weak but oh well, it's still better than the first one. That being said, it always pisses me off when a movie is based around trying to retrieve a person who is lost (Spoilers, Highlight to read) and after going through all this effort to return that person home, they are left behind. Makes you wonder what the point of the film was when it was centered on Sam trying to save his dad and then he ends up getting left behind. (End Spoilers)
I do have two major complaints about this film though. Firstly - and this was also a major problem I had with the first one - not enough time is spent in the real world. We are supposed to care about the situation with Encom and all the characters in the real world and yet we never really get to see much of what goes on at that company, nor do we ever get to spend much time with any of the real world characters, such as Alan in both films and Lora in the first one (who, for some reason, isn't even mentioned in this film, nor is her "grid counterpart" Yori despite both being important characters in the first).
Secondly, this movie is called Tron: Legacy, and yet Tron is barely even in the film and when you seldom do see him he always has his face covered by a helmet and he doesn't ever talk, save for that one flashback scene. Tron was a huge part of the first film, and it makes no sense why him and his human counterpart Alan are barely even in this film. I get that this movie is really about Kevin and Sam Flynn, but again, this movie is called "Tron", so how about having him in it?
In addition to these 2 things, I also had issues with the ending. (Highlight to read)What the hell happened to CLU and Flynn? He just sucked him in apparently and then the whole Grid exploded. This part made no sense. Also, what was up with Tron? I'm assuming he was "corrupted" by CLU but why wasn't this explained? And what happened to him at the end? He turned good again and obviously survived but after falling in the water we never see him again. I'm sure these things were not explained so that they can make another sequel but it is just irritating to me.
Anyway, those complaints aside, Tron: Legacy is a great and entertaining film that surpasses its mediocre predecessor. I only hope that if they do make another sequel they make more use of the series' namesake character. Some kind of conclusion with Flynn would be nice, too.
Msg #43: On 12/17/2010 at 5:15:15 PM, Colin replied, saying: "As for the story...it was a bit weak but oh well, it's still better than the first one. That being said, it always pisses me off when a movie is based around trying to retrieve a person who is lost (Spoilers, Highlight to read) and after going through all this effort to return that person home, they are left behind. Makes you wonder what the point of the film was when it was centered on Sam trying to save his dad and then he ends up getting left behind. (End Spoilers)"
HUGE SPOILERS:
I think that was pretty clearly explained. Sam initially goes in by accident and then wants to get his dad out of there. His dad explains about the isoes (sp) and all of their potential could change the world and that it's important to get them to the outside. At the start of the movie, the goal is to get Flynn out, but by the end, Flynn sacrifices himself for a greater purpose. Replies: 44
Msg #44: On 12/17/2010 at 5:58:41 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #43, saying: But why did he need to sacrifice himself? and for that matter, how did he sacrifice himself? If he had this magical power to destroy Clu simply by fist-bumping the ground and "absorbing" Clu then why didn't he do it 20 years ago? And why did destroying Clu destroy the Grid while destroying the MCP in the original film did not?
I just think it would have worked better if, instead of Flynn destroying Clu so Sam and Quorra could escape, Tron appeared and took Clu out allowing Flynn, Sam, and Quorra to escape. Not only would it have allowed both objectives to be resolve (Quorra and Flynn both saved) but it would have actually created a point for even bother to put Tron in the movie at all, considering he didn't do anything noteworthy until the end when he rammed Clu's ship with his own.
Also, I made my original post in black font so it wouldn't spoil it for people who haven't seen it yet and then you posted it in white, so thanks for that.
Msg #45: On 12/17/2010 at 6:34:23 PM, Dac replied, saying: Now that it's been released I think it's safe to assume this thread is riddled with spoilers, so if anyone comes in and is pissed about that, it's their own fault, really.
Anyway, to clear this up:
"and for that matter, how did he sacrifice himself?"
Explained by Quorra in Flynn's hideaway. As Clu's creator, Flynn has the power to delete him, but Clu is so powerful and Flynn so old, he wouldn't survive the process. As for why, I don't think sacrifice was high on his agenda, but it was definitely higher than allowing Clu to make it out, so if that's what it took, then do it. As for why he didn't do it earlier...he didn't have any reason to. Destroying Clu wouldn't open the portal or accomplish anything, really, I guess. He and Quorra would still be stuck there, if he survived it in his younger days. He may not have been able to survive it even then.
"why did destroying Clu destroy the Grid while destroying the MCP in the original film did not?"
The MCP didn't build the original Grid, he simply took it over and modified it. Flynn and Clu, on the other hand, built the new Grid from the ground up. Hence the differences in appearance (80s graphics vs modern graphics aside), hence the differences in functionality (curved light cycle trails, the ramps). The output generated by their destruction would have to be equal to, if not more than, the output of their creating the Grid to begin with.
And while I too was disappointed they didn't show Tron's face or have him do much...I have a sneaking suspicion that it may have been something to do with Bruce Boxleitner. As we see in the real world with Alan Bradley, bloke's gotten on a bit in years as much as Bridges. Maybe he wasn't as prepared for the de-aging. Maybe it didn't work with him. I don't know. But I maintain Tron isn't dead. He predates the new Grid, so he can survive without it. We last see him turning to blue underwater; there's more left of him than we know.
Msg #46: On 12/17/2010 at 10:22:07 PM, Adam replied, saying: In the flashback scene, that IS Bruce Boxleitner playing young Tron, with the same de-aging CGI applied to him, so he did agree to let them do it to him too. Don't know why they never had him take the helmet off in present day scenes.
Replies: 47, 48
Msg #47: On 12/17/2010 at 11:10:59 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #46, saying: Yeah, exactly. You do see Tron without the helmet in the flashback so they obviously did the de-aging to him too. If they already had the CGI created, they might as well have used it.
They had the actor and they had the CGI....it just doesn't make sense why they didn't use him hardly at all. Even Kingdom Hearts II made more use of the character Tron and the voice of Boxleitner more than this movie did.
Dac, thanks for clearing some of those questions about Flynn's sacrifice up for me. Right around the time Sam and Flynn were having that conversation I realized I wasn't going to be able to hold in my piss any longer and had to run to the bathroom and my brother was somewhat useless in explaining to me what I missed haha.
Msg #48: On 12/18/2010 at 1:43:08 AM, Dac replied to Msg #46, saying: "In the flashback scene, that IS Bruce Boxleitner playing young Tron, with the same de-aging CGI applied to him, so he did agree to let them do it to him too. Don't know why they never had him take the helmet off in present day scenes. "
...point. Hadn't thought of that.
"Dac, thanks for clearing some of those questions about Flynn's sacrifice up for me. Right around the time Sam and Flynn were having that conversation I realized I wasn't going to be able to hold in my piss any longer and had to run to the bathroom and my brother was somewhat useless in explaining to me what I missed haha."
Don't mention it.
Msg #49: On 12/18/2010 at 3:11:59 PM, Adam replied, saying: I can't believe how harsh alot of the reviews are being on this thing. I mean, sure, it has some writing/pacing /performance problems, but it is by no means as bad as alot of reviews are making it out to be.
I mean, Christ, one guy called an example of the worst filmmaking of all-time. Replies: 50
Msg #50: On 12/18/2010 at 3:19:08 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #49, saying: I think it is funny how on Rotten Tomatoes it has a 49% from critics and an 81% from audiences. Further proof that professional film reviews, while sometimes entertaining to read, are not representative of the way movies are received by moviegoers. Replies: 51
Msg #51: On 12/18/2010 at 8:30:12 PM, Aragorn replied to Msg #50, saying: That's why I never bother to read them. I take into account the opinions of average movie-goers far more then I do critics, and by this point I know pretty well which people on this site and other sites I go to, that I tend to agree with more often then not, so I take their opinions into account far more then I do even the average movie-goer. But critics are pretty much at the bottom of my list of people I listen to about movie opinions. Right above Narrator. :)
Msg #52: On 12/18/2010 at 9:06:07 PM, Seth Rex replied, saying: I've said this to others, but I plan on watching Tron 1 first before watching Tron: Legacy. Replies: 53
Msg #53: On 12/18/2010 at 9:08:57 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #52, saying: That's what I did, and it helped me understand alot of the technobabble and stuff in the 2nd film but I took my brother to see it and he had never senn the first one and still enjoyed it so while informative, it isn't totally necessary. And, as I said in an earlier post, the first film isn't really that great of a movie. Replies: 54
Msg #54: On 12/28/2010 at 5:20:09 PM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #53, saying: Looks like this junk died on its ass.
In the perfect world, Disney would be looking at a winner with their ‘Tron’ sequel, instead they’ve got a clunker on their hands destined to do little better than the (modest success) of the original thirty-odd years ago.
You can practically see the gears and pistons of the studio-exec-thought-processes spinning and whirring as ‘Tron: Legacy’ tries to splutter to life. Trendy, young TV-ad director – check. Glossy 3D fantasy world – check. Culty franchise with pre-existing fanbase – check. It’s all in place for the tills to ring and the cash to flow in but, alas, warning bells rung from the opening scenes. Never trust a film that so transparently sets up its villain for the next instalment!
In his attempts to appease the Disney merchandising department, Kosinski excites with all manner of shiny vehicles and action-figure warriors but veers off from whatever tattered remnants of a script once graced the (greenscreen) sets. It always throws up a red flag when so many writers receive credit (an old weakness of the Disney live-actioners), but Kosinski seems to have abandoned whatever was issued almost entirely, far more interested in neon lights and skin-tight bodysuits than anything resembling a story. Jeff Bridges, often airbrushed by terrible special effects (how the hell has this technology regressed in the last couple of years!) stumbles along trying to inject some life and humour into the material. Ultimately it’s dead on arrival. Too bad.
Amazed to hear they're going to sequel on this. Literally amazed. I don't really see how there's any money in it after Legacy underperformed. Is there a demand out there after so many years? I get the impression the film has kinda been forgotten. Is this in any way a sensible business decision? Kosinski strikes me as someone who needs an actual hit on his hands before using clout to muscle through a third Tron picture. Does he have naked photos of the studio head?
-EG Replies: 56
Msg #56: On 3/11/2015 at 3:58:15 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #55, saying: I'm excited about another one as I really enjoyed Tron: Legacy, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't suprised they were making another one considering both of the previous films underperformed at the box office. Hopefully they bring back Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner (and actually utilize the latter this time) along with maybe a couple other returning cast members from the first film, and get Daft Punk back to do the soundtrack. Replies: 57
Msg #57: On 3/11/2015 at 9:35:22 PM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #56, saying: Another Daft Punk score is essential.
Msg #58: On 3/12/2015 at 1:58:37 AM, PaulSF replied, saying: This has been on a steady string of progress for a long time. Not surprised at all. Why are we talking like this is some John Carter/Lone Ranger bomb? Legacy made $400,062,763 Worldwide on a $170 mil budget. It didn't set the world on fire, but I'm sure Disney expected that with only nerds/cinephiles knowing about that first movie. That a sequel nearly thirty years later made as much as it did, succeeding just enough in amassing a new audience, is all they needed to explore the name further, and with seeds firmly planted for something potentially bigger. Replies: 59
Msg #59: On 3/12/2015 at 9:07:15 AM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #58, saying: It's no Lone Ranger, but the film definitely underperformed against Disney's expectations. Even more importantly, it never built up the pop-cultural capital that leads to an underperformer being forced to sequel. I guess I'd categorise it in the same box as Pacific Rim, though at least that picture hit such crazy numbers in far-east markets that another movie just about makes sense if they get the budget down and set half the thing in China.
I think the key element is to get better writers on the project. Kosinski's film was visually sharp but that script was five thousand drafts away from anything shootable. Hopefully they correct some of those problems on their second attempt.
Msg #60: On 3/13/2015 at 5:49:14 PM, RezForPrez replied, saying: This is one of those movies that I love more and more upon every rewatch. Very excited to see more from this team in this world.
Msg #61: On 3/14/2015 at 6:07:53 PM, Varan101 replied, saying: I actually have a soft spot for this film. I ended up watching the original Tron after this film and the original movie actually is pretty bad. Replies: 62
Msg #62: On 5/30/2015 at 8:00:20 AM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #61, saying: Cancelled.
