Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
03-09-2010, 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintHazard View Post
I heart onion
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
03-09-2010, 10:05 AM
Well I like the old Tron movie, but even I think it's dated for what it was. At least the new movie will give it a better look.

But I am still hoping a MMO is born from this film. Make the gameplay open ended, and give it a huge sandbox, might be a winner. Never know until you try.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
03-09-2010, 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SusieBot View Post
Boy...I don't know. I get an extraordinarily bad feeling from that trailer. The "test footage" trailer was awesome, but that one just puts me off. Visually, it's lost a lot of what made the original TRON interesting -- now it's just another CG-fest. And the "motorcycle-riding bad boy" son of Kevin Flynn does nothing for me -- that particular trope is beat to death. I would bet money that he ends up in some sort of Mad Max style motorcycle rally that is not particularly relevant to the plot. Guitar-playing guy is probably the sexually ambiguous announcer.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dekar_Corvus
it will get most of its fame from its cult classic original movie. But the old schoolers will be ****ed off at trivial things and rip the new one apart. the new fans will love it, and it will be a generally well recieved movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Cedric View Post
Well I like the old Tron movie, but even I think it's dated for what it was. At least the new movie will give it a better look.
I (and others I've googled up) disagree.

The look of the new movie is nothing different to separate it from all the other movies out there. Basically, it needs more of the old "atmosphere". At least, more neon. I get the "Dark Knight" look, but this world and it's look was a bit "fantasy" and different. The current trailers make it look like "Ekes vs. Sever" or any other action flick. I can predict the plot, but that doesn't mean it will be a bad story, so it better be heavy on action.

I am hoping they do post production addition of effects, but based on the PC Game trailers, it is not looking like they will. What people forget is that the old movie had a very simple story, too. There was nothing "deep" about it. It was all "looks" and marvelling at the "digital" fantasy world in a computer. These trailers show none of that magic. It looks just like "Dark Knight" or any other spy-flick.

You have to win with style or substance and while substance could be on the table (story) I am not seeing "style", which made the first one the cult-classic it ultimately became.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
03-09-2010, 10:22 AM
An image from the movie

A fan/artist re-doing the above image

While the background needs work, see the difference between the two? With the first image, there isn't much difference if this movie was a super-spy movie set in the real world and they met in a dark alley.

At leat the bottom image shows of an "other-worldliness" made famous by the first movie. One can marvel as they sit mesmerized by viewing the world, with the first picture, it is something many have seen before.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
03-09-2010, 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold-Rush View Post
An image from the movie

A fan/artist re-doing the above image

While the background needs work, see the difference between the two? With the first image, there isn't much difference if this movie was a super-spy movie set in the real world and they met in a dark alley.

At leat the bottom image shows of an "other-worldliness" made famous by the first movie. One can marvel as they sit mesmerized by viewing the world, with the first picture, it is something many have seen before.
I can tell you why that won't work as well in the motion picture context.

The second image is far too "busy." It's obvious that the cinematographer wants the audience to focus on the interaction between these two characters, specifically their faces, which is why their faces are dimly underlit and the surroundings are very subdued. It's also why the walls (and doorway) are shaped the way they are in this shot - it's referred to as "interior framing." The convergence of the walls and the doorframe actually "frame" the characters, drawing attention to them.

The second image both lightens the purposefully subdued surroundings and adds far too much detail to the costumes, making us want to look at the walls and, even more so, the suits. The audience loses the intended focus on the characters' faces and, subsequently, their interactions.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
03-09-2010, 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintHazard View Post
I can tell you why that won't work as well in the motion picture context.

The second image is far too "busy." It's obvious that the cinematographer wants the audience to focus on the interaction between these two characters, specifically their faces, which is why their faces are dimly underlit and the surroundings are very subdued. It's also why the walls (and doorway) are shaped the way they are in this shot - it's referred to as "interior framing." The convergence of the walls and the doorframe actually "frame" the characters, drawing attention to them.

The second image both lightens the purposefully subdued surroundings and adds far too much detail to the costumes, making us want to look at the walls and, even more so, the suits. The audience loses the intended focus on the characters' faces and, subsequently, their interactions.
That's a good catch there, but the WHOLE picture is like this. The light-cycle race. My eyes were darting every-which way to absorb the world. Even during the other action segments. With the motorcycle race we've seen in the trailers... there isn't much difference if it was Gotham City!

Anyway, the pic is an example of what it should be. In the old movie, the "energy" of "programs" would adjust/dim/brighten and they could very well just dim things for that ONE shot, but they shouldn't for other shots/scenes.

Again, there is nothing that makes this film look "other-worldly" and "ooo" or "ah" over particular still photos. I am not calling for the "white-suited" Tron suits to make a come-back, but it needs more neon.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17 Been to long
03-09-2010, 10:47 AM
It was like the Speed Racer Movies were it was true to the cartoon. Most of it was lost because on people today. It has just been to long. Plus I would hate to think the fees Diseny would get. I would name the Mach 5as one of top ten most famous Fictional cars even today.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
03-09-2010, 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeves
It was like the Speed Racer Movies were it was true to the cartoon. Most of it was lost because on people today. It has just been to long. Plus I would hate to think the fees Diseny would get. I would name the Mach 5as one of top ten most famous Fictional cars even today.
Thank you for "getting it" with Speed Racer.

It is true, if you are NOT a fan of the old cartoons or never seen them, the movie was LOST on you.

This also might be the case with the new Tron movie. I hear alot of "whoops" and "hollers" from old-school fans, but where is the magic/difference to hook new viewers into this movie. Remember, many people who saw the old film were moved to become computer programmers when they grew up.

WHERE is that same "feeling of wonderment" in this film?

I see an action flick. Something Batman can do as easily. No differences between Dark Knight and this film or even "Fast and the Furious".
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
03-09-2010, 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold-Rush View Post
That's a good catch there, but the WHOLE picture is like this. The light-cycle race. My eyes were darting every-which way to absorb the world. Even during the other action segments. With the motorcycle race we've seen in the trailers... there isn't much difference if it was Gotham City!

Anyway, the pic is an example of what it should be. In the old movie, the "energy" of "programs" would adjust/dim/brighten and they could very well just dim things for that ONE shot, but they shouldn't for other shots/scenes.

Again, there is nothing that makes this film look "other-worldly" and "ooo" or "ah" over particular still photos. I am not calling for the "white-suited" Tron suits to make a come-back, but it needs more neon.
Even if the whole flick is like that, I can't say I particularly disagree. TRON was, and still is, quite honestly (and I don my flame-retardant suit before I say this) an eyesore. Looking at all those lights for two hours was, frankly, painful. The video game (TRON 2.0), while enjoyable, was the same way - visually stressful. I want to see the full movie before I judge it, but I personally think that, while it may not be "TRON" (the way the new Star Trek is arguably less "Star Trek"), I think I will enjoy it more, rather than less.

Remember, significant change does not always mean significant decrease in quality.

Who's to say they didn't do a better job than the original filmmakers at depicting the Tron universe?

Edit: I would like to add, as an example, Battlestar Galactica. The original series was, frankly, terrible. New and exciting, sure... but well-written? Hell no. Cheesy and contrived is more like it. The people who did the reimagined series took Battlestar, an excellent but poorly excecuted concept, and executed it properly.

And fans of the original series were furious. How dare they say Cylons were created by humans, and not by mysterious lizard-people? How dare they allow Cylons to evolve past mindless killing machines? How dare they make Starbuck female, and in doing so open up new character conflicts that were never before possible?

I prefer the reimagined series to the original, and so do many others.

Significant change does not mean significant decrease in quality.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
03-09-2010, 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintHazard View Post
Even if the whole flick is like that, I can't say I particularly disagree. TRON was, and still is, quite honestly (and I don my flame-retardant suit before I say this) an eyesore. Looking at all those lights for two hours was, frankly, painful. The video game (TRON 2.0), while enjoyable, was the same way - visually stressful. I want to see the full movie before I judge it, but I personally think that, while it may not be "TRON" (the way the new Star Trek is arguably less "Star Trek"), I think I will enjoy it more, rather than less.

Remember, significant change does not always mean significant decrease in quality.

Who's to say they didn't do a better job than the original filmmakers at depicting the Tron universe?
Sure, I will go in, but I am not seeing cursors and pixels flitting about in the film. I always am willing to drop preconceptions at the door. I liked Star Trek : 2009 and had reservations.

But technology has increased to make things look less "blinding". Heck, the move to dark suits are one way to prevent eye-strain. The thing is, even with my photo comparison, things are still too dark. You can barely see their faces as is. Again, it may be a Cinematographer's decision, but I propose, the REVERSE is possibly true. The lack of at least a well-lit face(s) will make people not focus on the characters, either. Their eyes will be dating around as much as mine were with the well-lit scene; in other words, there is no place for your eyes to focus on in a conventional sense (two faces speaking). So, you may have the same problem, especially if your adernaline is pumping after the last action scene and you want this lovey-dovey convo ended so the next bit of action can begin.

And don't forget, while signifigant changes/updating CAN work, it also HAS failed, too. A good many examples on both sides can be brought up.

But, ultimately, we shall see in December of this year if this movie can draw in new folks and capture the old audience.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:55 PM.