I just wanna know what the hell is taking them so long? Legacy was great and did good at the box office..... I Believe :confused
TRON 3 ?!
- Thread starter DaddyfromNaboo
- Start date
YenChih Lin
Master Member
Ladies and Gentlemen… fire up your Laser Digitizer and your Identity Discs, we going back to the grid!
niennumb1
Master Member
Aside from the noticeable CG of young Flynn and then some of the Clu stuff (which come on, it was very well done and close overall) I thought it was a pretty perfect film. The look and feel of everything was right and I loved even the stuff before the grid happened. The revisit to the arcade, the music, the tone... It was all so well done.
Kosinski must direct this one as well. Legacy was SOOOO awesome.
Kosinski must direct this one as well. Legacy was SOOOO awesome.
airair
Sr Member
I agree. On top of that, it still looks visually stunning considering we are 5 years later.
Axlotl
Master Member
I liked Legacy, but it didn't feel like Tron to me.
The first one was like nothing we had ever seen before. It was so strangely beautiful...
Legacy just looked like any other post-matrix sci-fi movie.
The vid TrooperTrent posted is closer to what I wanted from a new Tron film.
I'd like to be excited for more Tron, but I'm not...
The first one was like nothing we had ever seen before. It was so strangely beautiful...
Legacy just looked like any other post-matrix sci-fi movie.
The vid TrooperTrent posted is closer to what I wanted from a new Tron film.
I'd like to be excited for more Tron, but I'm not...
The music for Tron Legacy was flat out perfect. If they're not coming back for the next one, well, whoever does the music has huge freaking shoes to fill.
Thinking back on Tron Legacy, I do feel like the film could have done more with it's digital setting. Making everything look practical just didn't feel like TRON. Some argued that this was because computers got so advanced that they got more realistic. No! That's not how it should work! Things should be more AWESOME! The way all those parts of the Recognizers never being attached is a staple in the look of TRON and they're not here. Ugh. What a drag that was.
Thinking back on Tron Legacy, I do feel like the film could have done more with it's digital setting. Making everything look practical just didn't feel like TRON. Some argued that this was because computers got so advanced that they got more realistic. No! That's not how it should work! Things should be more AWESOME! The way all those parts of the Recognizers never being attached is a staple in the look of TRON and they're not here. Ugh. What a drag that was.
lewhitewizard
New Member
absolutely love tron, hope there is going to be a third one.
JLeezy23
Sr Member
I still dont get why most people hated a digital Jeff Bridges. CLU Is just that, a digital copy of Flynn! He was supposed to look like that, so it made sense that he looked a bit "fake"
Tron: Ascension
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=43864
Tron: Ascension
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=43864
madmikeee
Sr Member
Just an example of too high expectations. Everyone thinks that with 3d rendering it is so easy to create lifelike creatures. When it comes to humans it is not even remotely easy in the least. Creatures, critters, aliens etc ARE because you can fake what they would look like in the real world, humans, on the other hand, are well known. There are THOUSANDS of muscles in the face alone that we use, not to mention reflection/refraction of light on our skin. To render a perfect 3d model of a STATIC image of skin would take HUNDREDS of hours, now animate that and try to make it look natural. It is far too cost prohibitive.
I thought they did an excellent job with what they had.
Riceball
Master Member
Agreed. The other thing to consider is that we're all intimately familiar with the human face so that any small thing that's off will be noticed, even if we can't quite place our fingers on it.
madmikeee
Sr Member
Your logic is flawed. Everyone in the grid is a program and yet they ALL looked normal except for CLU. Not trying to start an internet argument here, just explaining the reality of modern CGI. If they deleted (pun intended) young Flynn for the reasons you presented then they should have kept CLU's visage out as well.
JLeezy23
Sr Member
They could've went black and white with fuzz for the opening Young Flynn scene, like how they did when he remembers spending time with Sam during the last scenes. It was a memory/flashback so they could've made it visually different than the rest of the scenes, or went straight audio.
Another way to explain CLU looking more program-y than everyone else is because Flynn made him "perfect" and he's better than the rest of the population, which could be why CLU wants to repurpose everyone to make them even better. Guy doesn't dig imperfection lol
Another way to explain CLU looking more program-y than everyone else is because Flynn made him "perfect" and he's better than the rest of the population, which could be why CLU wants to repurpose everyone to make them even better. Guy doesn't dig imperfection lol
CB2001
Master Member
madmikeee
Sr Member
I kind of understand peoples dislikes, it's not the texture it was the motion of the facial muscles, as I stated above, people fail to realize that it takes hundreds of muscle strands to animate our faces in the most basic way and everyone's facial muscles move differently. To accomplish that using CGI would be an ENORMOUS job and hugely cost prohibitive with our current level of technology. But for what it was it was incredible for me to see how far we have come since movies like Final Fantasy : The spirits within and other like movies where they really tried to emulate photo-realism using CGI.
Similar threads
