Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Well to be honest, 2 movies pays for one ticket to Europe, so I would rather forego the movies and travel, even if it is less frequent. I don't think I am alone. But yes, the weather, certainly in Europe would be a huge contributing factor.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 Not the same in America, nor in Thailand... I didn't realize movies were that expensive in Europe and traveling that cheap. Especially with fuel costs going up again. - Anatole
Originally Posted By dvcdad2point0 There is going to be a 10 part animated TV series next Summer that will tie the original TRON to TRON Legacy. Interesting. I have doubts that it will do well, as even the Start Wars TV animated series did "just ok." But here's hoping. Disney has done this before with mediocre movies. "The Emperor's New Groove" was followed by a TV series, "The Emperor's New School," 2 seasons and 30 episodes. There was also a second movie, "Kronk's New Groove'" that was somewhat of a sequal. Who knows? In today's struggle for original material maybe Disney can squeeze more out of the TRON franchise. I sure hope so. Dave I never realized how expensive it is to go to the movies in the UK. We went, took 2 adults and 6 kids. 3D glasses were included in our price. It was $72. That is $9 per person. This was Not IMAX. The IMAX around here is $12 per person if you go before 5PM. Now yes, I could buy the DVD for way less than this once it comes out, BUT for me there are a few movies that I want to see on the big screen, especially if offered in 3D. Pirates 4 will be the next movie I go see on the big screen. I have not gone to any of the Harry Potter movies after the first 2. I have waited on those. It's hard to get us to the movies. We usually wait. As for TRON, now that I have had a bit more time to digest and decompress from watching it, I will admit, it could have been better. But then you can say that about almost any movie. I thought that the Zeus character was a misfit... Willie Wonka goes to South Beach. I would have casted that very differently, maybe had him as some sort of King Pin type that had some sort of leverage on Clu. Also, the character "Gem" was the most stunning creature I've ever seen. I think that was the idea then wasn't it? I'm not sure she really fit in either, but ok, it's all good. I still don't understand the concept of the ISO's. I need to explore that concept further. Maybe they could have made that a little clearer. All in all, I still have to give the movie a 10 out of 10. I am connected to it nostalgically. The original came at a really fantastic time in my life (between 8th and 9th grade) and it's so much more than just a movie to me personally. I am completely biased. I admit it.
Originally Posted By dvcdad2point0 The marketing should have sought out older guys like me who went to and grew up in arcades like FLYNN's. It didn't. Heck I remember an arcade here that was bigger and more flashy than FLYNN's. On the weekends you couldn't hardly squeeze in there sideways. The entrance was themed like boarding a space craft, similar to the old queue in Space Mountain. I think the marketing just missed the mark. The movie "Cars" did a great job with marketing to older guys, dads and granddads who love auto racing and have not been to the movies in a while. With Cars, they got old fat farts to get off of the sofa and came back to the cinema, bringing kids and grandkids. I remember the marketing for the first Batman, the one with Kim Bassinger and Michael Keaton. That movie was ok, but it had no choice but to hit after all of the massive hype. Of course it helped that Jack Nickolson stole the show as the Joker. I sometimes wonder if marketing doesn't make a hit. Marketing sure as heck can destroy what would otherwise be a hit, why not wonder if it can force a hit? Any examples of marketing making a huge hit of a mediocre movie? Jurassic Park maybe?
Originally Posted By Anatole69 <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jurassic_park/" target="_blank">http://www.rottentomatoes.com/...ic_park/</a> That gives it a consensus rating in the 80% range, I hardly call that mediocre. 2012 got terrible reviews, but grossed $700 million worldwide, I would call that a triumph of marketing. lol. - Anatole
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Yep, my ticket to a normal 3D showing at 11:30 in the morning was £8.66 plus a £1.50 booking fee. Add the glasses at £2.99 and that makes it just over £13 or $19.50. I can buy a DVD for £9.99 or $15 when on new release deals - $22 at worst. Hence, even before kids, more often than not we just bought DVDs. TRON was a must see, but I wasn't prepared for a 90min ($32) train journey to London or 90 miles in the car to Birmingham to see it in IMAX. No movie is worth a special journey of that type. As for the ISOs, I recommend you read the graphic novel TRON Betrayal, it covers it nicely.
Originally Posted By cheesybaby << I would have loved to have seen his face, but then he would have looked exactly like Alan, and that would have confused a lot of people. It was hard enough making Jeff Bridges look 30 years younger. (He is what 61'ish?) Not sure they could have done that with Bruce Boxleitner,>> They did. In the scene where Kevin Flynn explains the origin of the grid and of Clu (concluding when Clu "defeats" Tron), there are shots of young Kevin Flynn, Clu, and Tron. In those shots they used the "young" Bruce Boxleitner for Tron. I too thought it was odd that they showed the "young" Boxleitner there but never again.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I sometimes wonder if marketing doesn't make a hit. Marketing sure as heck can destroy what would otherwise be a hit, why not wonder if it can force a hit?<< With "Tron" and "Tangled" you have examples of good marketing vs. poor marketing. Tangled's campaign sought to make audiences think it was a hip & edgy Shrek-like fairy tale, ignoring largely the heart of the movie and of course the music. Tron, on the otherhand, had marketing designed to appeal to Tron fans as well as kids who liked Transformers. The trailers and billboards and such looked dark, ominous, important, everything a sci-fi/comic geek could want. And certainly, Disney could never be accused of going cheap on either film -- they've spent the GDP of some small nations on these two movies. And yet, both films have underperformed at the box office. No wonder so many people in the film industry are driven to drink. It's often more art than science, more luck than skill, in what movies wind up being huge successes.
Originally Posted By lesmisfan I just saw Tron in 3D this evening and I loved it! could have been more action but i thought it was visaully amazing! I just wished it did better because I would love to see the parks do something tron inspired for Tomorrowland, especailly in california.
Originally Posted By lesmisfan would have loved to see more of zeus though. I thought he was a great character that I wish we got to know more.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Different strokes. I thought Zuse was very poorly acted and slimy. Not cool at all and could have been cut altogether IMHO.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 ^^Gotta say, that's where I'm at. My son was asking what the heck that was all about. All I could tell him was that all the stuff that probably made it make sense must be on the editing room floor. Creepy. Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka creepy.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo See, now I liked JD as Willie. But nope, Sheen was lousy. I think living in the UK, maybe the play on the accent etc. got on my nerves.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 Hope the tangent is allowed, but how did both of you feel about the original Willie Wonka? I wonder if it has to do with what you grew up with or something. Because I love JD normally. But Depp's Willie just freaked me out. I need to see Alice as I'm sure he was a little odd in that as well. But it struck me as a little more Edward Schissor hands rather than Willie.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I was 9 when the original 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory' with Gene Wilder hit theaters. We loved it as kids, and went back many times. As for Johnny Depp in 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' -- I thought he was really weird, but thought the overall movie was much closer to the original book. The one with Gene Wilder is an odd combination of musical, documentary, foreign film (the location shots in Munich always felt odd to me), and sketch comedy satire. So, it's pretty weird too.
Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl I just saw Tron: Legacy myself today. It is good, but it is disappointing. My disappointments fall into three categories: First, the music. To be fair, the score by Daft Punk was far better than I'd expected, but then again, given what Wendy Carlos did with the original, I was expecting something akin to Salieri pinch-hitting for Mozart. To say that Daft Punk are not in the same league as Wendy Carlos would be putting it very mildly. Then again, the producers of the original made a similar, if not so blatant error: they cut Wendy's entire cue for the Light Cycles sequence (it ended up as the basis for a movement in her "Moonscapes" suite), as well as about the last half of her close music (for the sake of some wretched song by Journey!). Second was the absence of Dr. Lora Baines, and her software alter-ego, Yori. I would say that Cindy Morgan's absence from Tron: Legacy was as senseless and inexcusable as that of Barbara ("Agent 99") Feldon from "The Nude Bomb." It's understandable that Gibbs/Dumont was absent from T:L, for the same reason it's understandable that the Chief of Control was absent from Nude Bomb: Barnard Hughes died in 2006, and Ed Platt died in 1974. But the absence of Feldon and the Max/99 chemistry was the biggest nail in Nude Bomb's coffin, and Cindy Morgan's absence didn't exactly help T:L. Finally, the distinctive surreal visual texture of the "Electronic World" scenes in the original -- necessitated as it was by the limits of CGI at the time, and the use of backlit animation, and of sets so dark that depth-of-field was measured in fractions of an inch -- was sorely missing. Everything in this film's "Electronic World" scenes just looked too much like ordinary actors, sets, and props, with a bit of neon clothing. Simply put, the Electronic World NEEDS to look different from the world we live in.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo agreed, although I liked Gene Wilder's Willie Wonka, he was not very close to the book. JD's was much closer.
Originally Posted By brotherdave I liked both Gene Wilder's and Johnny Depp's versions of Willy Wonka. Both were quirky and odd, yet charming, in each of their own ways. (Needless to say, I liked both versions of the story, too!)
