Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Andrew_nenakhov | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

Andrew_nenakhov

Too bad they never made a sequel to Tron: Legacy

View on HN

They made an excellent prequel though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron:_Uprising

The series was fantastic and much better than the movie IMHO. It's a pity it was cancelled after one season.

Well theres a lot of [0] rumors fueled by Leto that there‘s going to be sequel at "some" point.

[0] https://screenrant.com/tron-3-movie-update-jared-leto-commen...

Fans should.

Story is king though — it's where the first two failed. If a fan writes a knock-out script it could be awesome.

(Yeah, enough of the Star Wars fan films, kids. There's a lot of other worlds out there that could use some love.)

it was bad enough not to justify one. Even the CG was horrible.

Funny. I think it is a really good movie. I like watching it again sometimes. But tastes are different I guess.

I also put on the soundtrack on a regular basis.

Completely agree. I really enjoyed it -- graphics, overall concept, and love the soundtrack. Of course it has its quirks and plot holes, but I enjoy it nonetheless. :)

Tron: Legacy didn't have a plot. The soundtrack was excellent, the CGI was alright. It was a very tame for-the-money sequel with no point of view about anything at all.

> it was bad enough not to justify one.

Hollywood doesn't greenlight sequels based on how good or bad a film actually is. It's all about the numbers.

The budget for Tron Legacy was $170 million, and it made $400 million at the box office.

That sounds quite good - it doubled its money! - except film budgets don't include marketing costs, which for a blockbuster can be as much as the budget itself. I doubt that Tron Legacy broke even. If a blockbuster isn't making at least three times its budget it's going to be seen as something of a disappointment at the studio.

> That sounds quite good - it doubled its money! - except film budgets don't include marketing costs, which for a blockbuster can be as much as the budget itself.

I thought it was the opposite? Hollywood accounting, I thought, meant that if the movie even breaks even then it is financially good because they include all costs even the movie theater costs as expenses. What am I missing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

This source [0], which is from a company selling analysis services of movies financials (so probably accurate) say total costs $200m, which likely includes marketing.

Note also that the movie had a sizeable merchandising output, so the $400m box-office doesn't tell the full story; total revenue was probably several millions higher.

[0] https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Tron-Legacy#tab=summary

Double its money seemed to be enough to greenlight a sequel. Disney started work on a sequel almost immediately, it just got stuck in Development Hell. That's the other reason sequels do or do not get made: they still need to be developed as projects with all the pieces of writer/director/script/plan and Hollywood is just as notorious for how much of a hellscape that can be sometimes as they are for their weird, harsh accounting.

> Even the CG was horrible.

There wasn't any. From TFA:

> first attempt to visualise the digital realm itself

Few people realise that in 1982 there was no CGI. Tron is mainly rotoscoped [1] but also a composite of creative effects and techniques.

Tron is a remarkable movie for a different reason most people miss today. It was seminal in defining the aesthetic of computer graphics to come by "faking it till you make it".

Without the actual technology for model wirefame and rendering at the time, the visual directors (Steven Lisberger and Donald Kushner) used a combination of drawn animation (Jean Giraud), special lighting and costume, and actual CGI overlays from the "Super Foonly F-1" PDP-10 [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tron&section=5

I think grand parent wished there was a third movie and parent was complaining about the cgi in the sequel.

> There wasn't any. From TFA:

You probably missed the fact I was talking about the second movie, full of CGI.

Sorry. I can well imagine that the sequel was shite. Also in comparison to the first movie real CGI failed to live up to the "fake" standard set by the first.

There was a full 15 minutes of true CGI in the first film, an incredible accomplishment back in 1982. It was in fact too much CGI for any one company to produce, they had to hire 4 different companies to handle the workload (MAGI, Triple-I, Robert Abel and Associates, and Digital Effects). They broke up the VFX scenes between them, trying to play to the individual strengths of each company's rendering system. If you pay close attention to the film you can tell which scenes were done by which company.

The backgrounds shown during the live action scenes (with actors) were mostly hand drawn.

Much more info here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm4i6D3XXBQ

Thanks for that link. I went back and watched a few clips. My goodness how that's different from my memories of 1982! Weird thing is I can't remember that I saw that 15 minutes of embryonic CGI as being "computer graphics", long before I'd played Wolfenstein and having only seen vector graphics in arcade consoles at the pier. How our perceptions have changed.

The first hour of Tron: Legacy is pretty good. After that, it's almost unwatchable.

Basically this for me with a more positive slant. The first scenes of Sam and into discovering what’s inside the Grid for the first time are absolutely magical.

Then it does really peter out.

There's better tech-related Disney movies like Ralph Breaks The Internet and Ready Player One (full with memes).

RPO is a disappointment full of fanservice. Overall, a much must forgettable movie than Tron: Legacy.

Also, RPO was Spielberg who hasn't worked at all with Disney since the weird conflux of things that was Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and so RPO is nothing like a Disney movie in any sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com