Originally Posted By oc_dean A newspaper here in Australia gave it 3 out of 5 stars - uh-oh! :O) It's been running in theaters here ahead of US theaters ... would be curious to know how it's doing.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Read the comments, a few people think that estimate is low for Tron.>> The general consensus is around $40m for the weekend. It still isn't tracking as strongly as it needs to and the advance ticket sales haven't been strong. I guess we will know on Sunday. It is going day and date in most major markets so it will be interesting to see what the non-US numbers look like - particularly in markets like the UK where there isn't as much competition this weekend.
Originally Posted By cheesybaby Currently 47% on Rotten Tomatoes (34% for top critics). Still tracking at only $40m? Hmmm.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Okay .. just saw it. Good film. I give it 4 out of 5 stars. Disney is obviously hinging on this being the next "Avatar". Comes near it .. but not quite.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Still tracking at only $40m? Hmmm.>> It sure is. Did $18m on Friday - unless kids drag their parents to see it over the weekend it is right on course for a disappointing $40m. Thankfully Yogi opened soft at $4.6m - let's hope that it continues to lag way behind over the weekend. Overall it looks like the whole weekend is going to be pretty soft.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I loved it, but I think the weather could hinder performance in the UK. I just got back from the 11:30 am showing. It took 2.5 hours to get home (30 mile journey) thanks to the blizzard, but it was still worth it. There were about 30 people in the theatre, which surprised me, but it was prime Christmas shopping time. My fujitsu friend, Mikey (7.5 years old, a year younger than I was when I saw the original) and I LOVED it. It was so awesome. the Wizard of Oz pastiche, the design, the philosophy, the 80's and Star Wars references, I LOVED it all. I have not been this stoked about a Disney film since perhaps Tarzan. I loved it and cannot wait to see it again. It even made me shed a little tear. Two thumbs way up, but I am sure it will be a love it or hate it film with very little in between. And it was great to see how Disney can still do masculine, even if it is rare these days. Also loved the look of the Narnia trailer and Gullivers Travels. PotC looks ok. But the real wooooaaa for us was the Disney TRON castle in 3D, beautiful.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Think I may treck up the road to Stockton -- pay the extra to see it in IMAX. Haven't taken that kind of an effort to see a movie since...opening night of "The Empire Strikes Back" in 1980 at The Egyptian.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I look forward to hearing your thoughts Jim. I really did love it (with a couple of exceptions - there are a couple of cheesy bits). I really would love to go and see it in IMAX.
Originally Posted By leemac It opened to so-so numbers - looks like a weekend of $43m. The worrying thing is that the movie didn't attract families - the audience was 2/3rds male and in their teens/20s. If it is going to have a long life over Christmas it will need to drag in families. Yogi opened very soft - $16m. I'm still amazed that there were people out there that wanted to see that movie. Narnia 3 collapsed - nearly 50% down on last weekend already. It has taken just $42m so far in ten days. However flop of the month does to Sony's latest James L Brooks' vehicle. $50m on talent, an extra $70m on production costs and $50m marketing/distribution costs to produce a paltry $7m opening weekend. Between How Do You Know and the studio's other failure The Tourist it doesn't look like a good month for Sony's bloated slate.
Originally Posted By cheesybaby Saw it this morning (IMAX 3D in Century City). Like Lee said, mostly groups of young single guys. Very few kids. Interestingly, from overhearing conversations it was clear that some of the guys had already seen it Friday or Saturday. So the so-so $43.6m opening weekend already INCLUDES repeat viewings from some of the fanboys...
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo My son of 7 loved it, my daughter has no desire to see it. My wife would have liked to have seen it, but agreed to babysit so I could take my son. still though, I don't know the hang up about this "boy" issue. My son and I had little desire to see enchanted, Princess and the Frog or Tangled (and although we did enjoy the first two of those, not in a hurry for repeat viewing). Disney brought us Swiss Family Robinson, Kidnapped, Treasure Island, 20k under the Sea, Johnny Tremain, Zorro, Davy Crockett and many more masculine offerings. I was glad to see something with a little testostrone coming from WDP.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>The worrying thing is that the movie didn't attract families - the audience was 2/3rds male and in their teens/20s. If it is going to have a long life over Christmas it will need to drag in families. << I wonder about that "family" dynamic issue ... because Tron is a very sci-fi "techie" film. Not exactly a "family" film .. but more a male driven film. Now ... I'm beginning to realize why Quorra was put on posters, along side Sam. To make people see Tron is not an ALL-MALE film. Will it work? lol
Originally Posted By cheesybaby <<Now ... I'm beginning to realize why Quorra was put on posters, along side Sam. To make people see Tron is not an ALL-MALE film.>> Plus she's also hot.
Originally Posted By brotherdave Took my 12 year old son to see it today. I liked it (not loved it as I was hoping to), but my son hated it. "Too boring" was his reaction. He did like the action scenes, but he thought there was too much "talking", not enough "action". Plus the plot was confusing to him at times. Me, I thought it seemed literally too "dark", not enough light and color as the original seemed to have. So much so, it almost seemed "mono-chromatic". A little more color in its palate wouldn't have hurt. Still, the movie had a lot of style and I loved the references from the original film. Too bad that I don't have a strong desire to see it again until its home video release.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "Me, I thought it seemed literally too "dark", not enough light and color as the original seemed to have. So much so, it almost seemed "mono-chromatic"." << How long has it been since you saw the original film? The first movie was very mono-chromatic. In fact, it was shot in black and white with color strategically hand painted by Disney's ink and paint department. -Jeff
Originally Posted By brotherdave Yes, I realize that the original's live action scenes in the cyber-world were filmed in B&W, but the background scenery, not to mention their suits, were much more colorful than the current movie. I figured with the advance of computer technology (both real and "imagined"), the whole TRON world would be much more colorful and have more depth. The sequel seems much more dark in color and lighting than the original ever was, even though it was filmed in black & white and then colorized. Another minor complaint, the digitation scenes of entering and leaving the TRON world were much too brief. I realize computers are "faster" today, but the transition should have had just a little more "wow-factor" than what they showed.
Originally Posted By dizkid I think the main reason their was almost no effort put into the digitization scene is because it really wasn't anything besides a cool special. Alot of what Mr. Lisberger was trying to do with the first movie was show off what computers could do. I think that is why there was a 15 second shot if bridges being digitized, because that was all about getting an "wow" from the audience. One of the main things that sets the new movie apart from the original, is that it not using flashy tech just to get a "wow" from the audience but to tell the story. On the note of colors, I just saw the first film again bout 2 weeks ago and the basic color palate was black blue orange and white the new movie keeps with the same palate. What this film did add was a little more in the lighting department. The first film combined an unrealistic world with unrealistic lighting, the actors are almost always being Lit from the same position. The new film works with the idea of lighting an unatrual world with natural lighting, lights and shadows go where the viewer expects them to be in those situations. So what may have been viewed as a change in color was most likely a change in light
Originally Posted By Manfried "Hoo-boy! Wasn't TRON a stinker? - Al Lutz" I'm glad Mr. Lutz is no longer the sole arbiter of all things Disney. I thought the film was excellent.
