When it comes to CLU's face: what we saw was the best that we can currently do with the technology available.

A lot of people think that, with visual effects the way they are now, that a life-like human face that can talk and express emotions through facial movements should be easy. It's not. It's close, but the human eye can notice the difference. And when you base it on a real person, the difference is magnified.

A friend of mine complained about it and said that Gollum was done better and that was years ago. True; however, Gollum didn't have a human face. It was an exaggerated humanoid face. That allowed our mind a little leeway in accepting the FX work, since we already knew the face wasn't real.

CLU had to look like a mid-80's era Jeff Bridges or else the effect would have failed on every level. Since it was based on an actor's face that is instantly recognizable, any slight distortion in his facial mannerisms is immediately noticable.

Was it perfect? No. But what we saw was the absolute best job that could be done and this performance will pave the way for future films.

I liked the movie. The 3D was good and the fight and racing scenes were pretty cool. The story wasn't great, but I didn't expect it to be great. I'll probably buy the Blu-Ray when it comes out.

quote:

---

A friend of mine complained about it and said that Gollum was done better and that was years ago.

---

I was thinking about that movie Final Fantasy, The spirits within. Didn't seem that much more advanced than the human faces in that movie.

I thought clu looked fine about 70% of the time. The other 30% woah nelly, needed some more work.

I think they shouldn't have gone for photorealism. He's a program, just make him MORE cartoonish and throw in some technobabble to explain why.

A minor nitpick though, didn't really affect my enjoyment.

I want to give them more credit for clu's face because the face was from the past. What I mean by that is that it is not like they were making a copy of Jeff bridges right now. Not only do they have to make a digital image of his face, but they have to make age reduction changes as well. It is one thing to make an image of the human face in the present, with all of the cameras and technology we have now. It is different if I told you to make a copy of what you looked like 20 years years ago.

I thought CLU's eyes looked weird. But Disney can always say it was intentional.

from what i remember the arnold cgi in salvation looked pretty good. was the difference the speaking?

quote:

---

I was thinking about that movie Final Fantasy, The spirits within. Didn't seem that much more advanced than the human faces in that movie.

---

It took Square 3 years to make that movie and it nearly bankrupted the company.

Dude, Disney has bottomless pockets. And it has been like 9 years since that Final Fantasy movie came out.

quote:

---

And it has been like 9 years since that Final Fantasy movie came out.

---

Notice that Square became Square-Enix a year after that movie came out.

Saw it last night and really liked it. Great story, great characters, and cool special effects (other than what I note below).

As for the CLU face, that was awful - someone above said it was fine 70% of the time and really bad 30% - no way. 100% bad. I cringed each time they showed him.

Made me wonder why they didn't just use make-up to have Jeff Bridges act as CLU. Some short hair, dyed brown....some make-up to smooth the wrinkles.. All of that paired with him looking 100 years old in the other scenes where he is Flynn, and we would have easily bought it.

My other criticism - what was with Flynn acting like a hippy from the 1960's? All of the "whoa, man" and "you're messin' with my karma, bro" and the peace beads, etc.
He was an early 80's videogame badass, not a Vietnam war protestor.

As I recall from the original, that was how Flynn talked with the "whoa mans" .

Yep. People are complaining about that a lot but he was exactly that way in the original.

He sounded to much like the "the Dude" from the Big Lebowski.

if daft punk doesn't get an oscar nom for that score, i will kill 42 squirrels.

quote:

---

if daft punk doesn't get an oscar nom for that score, i will kill 42 squirrels.

---

I will kill 45.

Nomination sure. But Inception better win for score, and movie, and screenplay.

Took my 12 year old to see it today, he's been dying to see it and it's the kind of movie he loves.

After it was over, we walked out and he turned around & said "Sorry Dad, that was pretty bad."

I absolutely hated it. Couldn't wait for it to be over, kept looking at my watch. I'm sure I'll get slammed for this, but to me it was an utter waste of $20 - the 3D (at least where I saw it) was nothing special and the effects, while impressive, couldn't make up for a pretty weak script & some bad acting. Even Jeff Bridges disappointed me, it was like he was channeling The Big Lewbowski for most of the movie.

Definitely not something I'd ever watch again, even when it's free on TV. Apologies in advance to all the fan boys.

[This message has been edited by rbtexan (edited 12/23/2010 7:22p).]

quote:

---

couldn't make up for a pretty weak script

---

Sadly, I have to completely agree with you. I felt the same way and am surprised at how it seems everyone likes it despite nothing making any sense to me.

****************SPOILER ALERT******************












I didn't get the whole IO's part, them being self-created and then purged by Clu for not being perfect. How, again, were they supposed to change our world if they are a digital creation???? And how is Quora supposed to do this now that she's in the real world?

Other than that, loved the movie. Glad they had some tie-ins to the original Tron. Glad to see they used the same actor for Tron/Alan Bradley and I thought it was great that they kept Tron's reprogramed identity a secret until close to the end when Flynn sees him fighting.


"Aggies don't lie, cheat, or steal, nor do they tolerate those who do!" - Aggie Code of Honor

Spoiler**********************

quote:

---

I thought it was great that they kept Tron's reprogramed identity a secret until close to the end when Flynn sees him fighting

---

If you watched closely you could see the T on his chest. Also they didn't show clu killing him and flynn's comment was pretty vague about what happened to him so you could tell something was up.

I FIGHT FOR THE USERS

so anyone know the answer to my previous question about the IO's or whatever they're called?


"Aggies don't lie, cheat, or steal, nor do they tolerate those who do!" - Aggie Code of Honor

I think the idea behind the IO's or whatever was the idea that they were organic data sequences that reflect natural laws. (Or at least thats what I think they were trying to say).

I think they kinda went overboard saying Quorra was the last one. More or less Flynn created the new grid with different parameters from the first, then the IO "programs" came into being naturally, if that is true there should be a stream of IOs being created especially if you consider them to be like amino acids in primordial ooze.

Ok, but how were they supposed to change our world?


"Aggies don't lie, cheat, or steal, nor do they tolerate those who do!" - Aggie Code of Honor

How is Quorra suppose to change the world? Beats me.


Math and natural order is what sociology should be minus the "social justice" espoused in classrooms.

I thought the first Tron was superb. It was creative, forward thinking, visually cool, and unique.

I saw the new one yesterday. Not much new, they just took the old and reworked a mediocre story.
Weak characters, weak plot, weak dialogue. Special effects are cool, but no substitute for story and dialogue.

The Tron character should have been more developed. The CGIishness of Clu didn't really bother me.

A remake of the original, set in the 80's would probably been a better film.

It was worth seeing, but just barely.

Enjoyed the movie, but felt like the 3D was a waste of money. Other than Avatar, I've been pretty underwhelmed by the recent 3D movies I've seen.

Just saw it a second time.

We watched the first one, then immediately went and saw the new one. Those of you saying it has a weak plot must not have seen the first one or dont remember much from it. Also, go to wikipedia and read up on the happenings between the two movies. It's actually a fairly complex plot.

Regardless, the movie was awesome. Everyone criticizing the 3-D are just wrong. It adds incredible depth that I'm sad I will probably never see again when I watch this movie due to not having a 3-D tv.

I can see why some of you thought it was bad and wanted to leave. There were a couple parts that did carry on and on and on and really didn't seem necessary to the casual eye. The only reason I enjoyed them was because of all the backstory and beautiful graphics. If your son has never seen the first one, then he was probably completely lost, it made no sense to him, and it probably ruined his whole experience.

All in all, if you are not a science fiction fan, and you have never seen the original, please dont like your negative opinion means anything. It's kinda like how this movie got 49% on RT. None of the reviewers are the types of people to even let themselves like this movie in the first place. It was not made for EVERYONE. It was made for fans of Tron and people not too stuck up to enjoy some absolutely badass effects.

Needed more cycle/flying disc/grid board competition scenes.

quote:

---

Needed more cycle/flying disc/grid board competition scenes

---

I would definitely agree. More Rinzler fighting too!


"Aggies don't lie, cheat, or steal, nor do they tolerate those who do!" - Aggie Code of Honor

quote:

---

He was an early 80's videogame badass, not a Vietnam war protestor.

---

Assuming he's in his early 30's in the early 80's, and the age of his son makes that probable, that would make him 20 in the late 60's, early 70's, draft age for Vietnam and the perfect age for Woodstock.

*****Spoiler*****

That being said, that was not a good movie. Plot devices used in the original lose something on a population that is magnitudes more computer savy than when the original came out. There is a difference between suspended disbelief and just plain confusion. There were a number of times I was sitting there and just thought "Huh?"

As for characters, no one stood out. I think this is more due to the script than anything else as there is some talent there. The only character that shows any interest is Castor/Zeus. Very Bowie-esque.

quote:

---

Everyone criticizing the 3-D are just wrong.

---

How is that even possible? Isn't there some personal opinion in their criticism?

I wasn't wowed by the 3D, just like I haven't really been wowed in the other 3d movies I've seen. I just don't care for it.

I'd rather see them use traditional photography techniques to tell the story.

quote:

---

The only character that shows any interest is Castor/Zeus.

---

Rinzler was badass.

I was interested in Gem.