![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
robotech_masterWell, okay, actually more like beginning of line, but as a single-statement sentiment it works pretty well.
This is one of those movies that you can't really trust the critics on. Even those critics as esteemed as Roger Ebert, who writes that the effects and sound are spectacular, but:
James Berardinelli isn't quite as kind; he seems to be unhappy that it wasn't as amazing and revolutionary as its predecessor. That's the problem with trying to follow up a movie generally accorded as revolutionary: everyone is disappointed if you aren't even revolutionarier.
And honestly, it's hard to do that 28 years later. Tron was revolutionary largely because it laid the groundwork for everything that followed. So now you can't revisit the same ground without seeming trite and clichéd, even though you're just continuing in the exact same vein as you began. You can't both follow up to something old but groundbreaking and break entirely new and different ground. Just about every decades-later franchise sequel or prequel has run into that problem (think "Star Wars") unless it basically threw out everything that came before in favor of a total reimagining (think "Battlestar Galactica"). Even immediate sequels ran into that problem (think "Matrix").
But just because Tron was groundbreaking doesn't mean its sequel loses out if it doesn't try to be. If you liked the original Tron at all, and want to find out what happened "next", you probably won't be too disappointed. (Certainly the Internet's "Tron Guy" wasn't.) I'm already hoping for a "Tron 3" in a couple of years. They did leave some room for it.
Other things associated with the movie: There were the traditional three commercials prior to the trailers, but they were good enough I was willing to forgive them. The first one was, of all things, for Google Chrome. There I was wearing my tech support day job's distinctive uniform, tie and lapel pin and everything, fresh from a day in which I recommended Chrome to several people as being more secure than IE—and there in front of me, in 3D, was Google Chrome being speed-tested against a potato. (Yes, a potato.) Heck yes I cheered.
The other two commercials were for Coke (Santa shakes snowglobe with city in it, causes earthquakes and bench cuddling) and Coke Zero (TRON-themed, involving light cycles racing through a Coke logo). Extremely silly, but forgiveable.
And then there were nearly twenty minutes of trailers. Okay, guys, a lot of 3D movies are coming out in the next year, but did we have to see trailers to all of them? (By about minute 18, I was saying aloud, "You know, I was positive we were going to be seeing a movie." Lots of people chuckled.)
But there were some good trailers. The one for Transformers 3, for instance, was terrific to see in 3D. Heh, I didn't realize until I saw it how effectively it's crafted to set up one set of expectations and then pull the rug out. (When it started, someone down the row from me said to the person she was there with, "You don't even know what this is, do you?") Cars 2. A silly-looking Disney CGI thing called Mars Needs Moms. A romantic comedy about a chained-together odd-couple of macaus called Rio. Well, they passed the time, and the 3D effects on some of them were fairly impressive.
My movie theater has stopped giving out and taking up reusable 3D glasses, and has gone to plastic-wrapped sterile Real3D disposables. We're permitted to keep them if we want. However, when I spoke to the theater manager up front, asking if I could forego the "glasses fee" if I brought my own, he admitted that the "glasses fee" isn't really to cover the cost of the glasses, but rather to cover the extra amount that studios charge them for 3D movies.
(And they have the affrontery to include recycle bins where we can drop used glasses after the movie! I'm darned well keeping mine; I paid for 'em after all. And I'll keep them from every 3D movie I see from now on. Anyone know of anything Real3D glasses can be used for?)
The thing is, I don't see why studios should get to charge extra for this gimmick. It's not as if it costs them extra to make the movies, at least once the tech has been developed—especially if they're shooting it digitally. But the camel has shoved its nose into the tent, and I suppose there's no pushing it back out again: people are used to paying extra for 3D, and pay extra they will continue to do. And I suppose the manager probably didn't want to admit that part of it is also to cover how much it cost the theater to upgrade its own equipment.
Oh well, at least now we don't have to worry about who last wore our specs, which I suppose is an improvement.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on TRON: Legacy.
Go and see it.
End of line.
This is one of those movies that you can't really trust the critics on. Even those critics as esteemed as Roger Ebert, who writes that the effects and sound are spectacular, but:
The plot is another matter. It's a catastrophe, short-changing the characters and befuddling the audience. No doubt an online guru will produce a synopsis of everything that happens, but this isn't like an opera, where you can peek at the program notes.He gives the movie his traditional snarky, verging on hostile, treatment based on that lack. And yet, he still gives the movie three out of four stars and gets listed as a thumb up on Rotten Tomatoes.
James Berardinelli isn't quite as kind; he seems to be unhappy that it wasn't as amazing and revolutionary as its predecessor. That's the problem with trying to follow up a movie generally accorded as revolutionary: everyone is disappointed if you aren't even revolutionarier.
And honestly, it's hard to do that 28 years later. Tron was revolutionary largely because it laid the groundwork for everything that followed. So now you can't revisit the same ground without seeming trite and clichéd, even though you're just continuing in the exact same vein as you began. You can't both follow up to something old but groundbreaking and break entirely new and different ground. Just about every decades-later franchise sequel or prequel has run into that problem (think "Star Wars") unless it basically threw out everything that came before in favor of a total reimagining (think "Battlestar Galactica"). Even immediate sequels ran into that problem (think "Matrix").
But just because Tron was groundbreaking doesn't mean its sequel loses out if it doesn't try to be. If you liked the original Tron at all, and want to find out what happened "next", you probably won't be too disappointed. (Certainly the Internet's "Tron Guy" wasn't.) I'm already hoping for a "Tron 3" in a couple of years. They did leave some room for it.
Other things associated with the movie: There were the traditional three commercials prior to the trailers, but they were good enough I was willing to forgive them. The first one was, of all things, for Google Chrome. There I was wearing my tech support day job's distinctive uniform, tie and lapel pin and everything, fresh from a day in which I recommended Chrome to several people as being more secure than IE—and there in front of me, in 3D, was Google Chrome being speed-tested against a potato. (Yes, a potato.) Heck yes I cheered.
The other two commercials were for Coke (Santa shakes snowglobe with city in it, causes earthquakes and bench cuddling) and Coke Zero (TRON-themed, involving light cycles racing through a Coke logo). Extremely silly, but forgiveable.
And then there were nearly twenty minutes of trailers. Okay, guys, a lot of 3D movies are coming out in the next year, but did we have to see trailers to all of them? (By about minute 18, I was saying aloud, "You know, I was positive we were going to be seeing a movie." Lots of people chuckled.)
But there were some good trailers. The one for Transformers 3, for instance, was terrific to see in 3D. Heh, I didn't realize until I saw it how effectively it's crafted to set up one set of expectations and then pull the rug out. (When it started, someone down the row from me said to the person she was there with, "You don't even know what this is, do you?") Cars 2. A silly-looking Disney CGI thing called Mars Needs Moms. A romantic comedy about a chained-together odd-couple of macaus called Rio. Well, they passed the time, and the 3D effects on some of them were fairly impressive.
My movie theater has stopped giving out and taking up reusable 3D glasses, and has gone to plastic-wrapped sterile Real3D disposables. We're permitted to keep them if we want. However, when I spoke to the theater manager up front, asking if I could forego the "glasses fee" if I brought my own, he admitted that the "glasses fee" isn't really to cover the cost of the glasses, but rather to cover the extra amount that studios charge them for 3D movies.
(And they have the affrontery to include recycle bins where we can drop used glasses after the movie! I'm darned well keeping mine; I paid for 'em after all. And I'll keep them from every 3D movie I see from now on. Anyone know of anything Real3D glasses can be used for?)
The thing is, I don't see why studios should get to charge extra for this gimmick. It's not as if it costs them extra to make the movies, at least once the tech has been developed—especially if they're shooting it digitally. But the camel has shoved its nose into the tent, and I suppose there's no pushing it back out again: people are used to paying extra for 3D, and pay extra they will continue to do. And I suppose the manager probably didn't want to admit that part of it is also to cover how much it cost the theater to upgrade its own equipment.
Oh well, at least now we don't have to worry about who last wore our specs, which I suppose is an improvement.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on TRON: Legacy.
Go and see it.
End of line.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-17 02:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-17 07:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-18 07:39 am (UTC)On a related note, it often amuses me when older movies are rereleased and the actors in them are credited with roles they only played later. Jeff Bridges sounds nothing like he did in Tron: Legacy in The Last Unicorn (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Lionsgate/Disc_Announcements/The_Last_Unicorn_Blu-ray_Announced_/5922), but he sounds enough like he did in the original Tron that watching them close together is kind of a freaky experience.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-17 02:32 pm (UTC)But, as the technology improves, these costs will go down. The ticket prices will not.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-17 04:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-02-07 03:03 pm (UTC)