Wikipedia

Talk:Tron: Legacy

Latest comment: 2 months ago by Axad12 in topic Proposed addition to Themes section
Learn more about this page
Good articleTron: Legacy has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 4, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
May 6, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
June 7, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
January 28, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

References to use

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

Besides the usual lists of critics from Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes there is also some good early round-up of the critical commentary from the Los Angeles Times. -- Horkana (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply


GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tron: Legacy/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs) 17:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

  On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed.

Minor points

edit

I'm not going to do a very in-depth analysis of the article yet. However, a single look at the article throws up a few points.

  • Lead requires expansion.
  • Too many one or two-line sentences classified as separate sub-sections. I suggest merging them with other paragraphs.  Done
  • Even in other sub-sections, there is awkward paragraph splitting. I suggest the main contributors to either collect more information and expand small paragraphs, or do some re-arranging and tweaks and collapse certain section to a smaller number of bigger paragraphs.
  • References should be checked for internal consistency. Additionally, it would be preferable if all reference titles use sentence case.
  • Try to get rid of the red links. It disrupts reading flow. Either create the necessary articles or simply remove the [[]] part.  Done

More to come. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Comment I quick-failed the previous nom, back in January... and the article's been practically the same since then (the only improvement was shortening the plot and a short section on Interface design, which doesn't compensate the lack of a Visual effects section). Between Ankit's complaints, my complaints, and dead links, things don't look promising. igordebraga ≠ 20:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I renominated to see another party's view and give a longer chance to clean the page up, rather than it being failed and it being re-submitted for another nom, which would be time consuming. RAP (talk) 23:16 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I just saw the first GA review of Tron: Legacy, and I was completely taken aback to see that there had not been an ounce of effort towards rectifying some of the problems mentioned. And believe me, they were major problems. i skimmed through the article once more and found some more problems (some of which will overlap with Igordebraga;

  • Visual effects section is absent. What? Are we actually talking about Tron: Legacy?  Done
  • Critical reception states that the film received mixed reviews, though at first sight I can't see even an average review listed, let alone a negative one. I will be a bit hard on this part since I myself disliked the film. That's akin to POV, so I suggest changes. You can remove less-notable reviews as well.  Done

Whenever I review anything, my first priority is to see that the article looks good; the article should be pleasant to read, informative, big and well-written (grammatically, prose-wise etc.) Tron: Legacy fails even that basic criteria. In fact, I don't think Tron: Legacy even passes the B-class criteria, let alone GA (which has more stringent standards). I am willing to put this on hold, and I'll be a bit lenient: within the stipulated one-week gap, I hope to see at least 60% of the concerns to be cleared up. The visual effects section is a must. I may sound a bit harsh, but I see a lot of laziness mainly because there has been no attempt to improve the article after the first GAR. I hope the second time won't be so poor. Cheers. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article will need a major overhaul. I am currently working on expanding it, but I'm not sure if it will pass this time around.—DAP388 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
You still have six days' time to complete the 60% mark; I hope that is adequate, as I'm technically not supposed to do this :P. Let's just hope that Tron: Legacy won't need a third GAN; its long and pointless, and adds up to the backlog. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Note: I have changed the status of this review to "on hold" as that seems to be the intention. Glimmer721 talk 02:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Alright, one week's time is up. I can see some good progress in the article, but a number of issues still remain.

  • Lead is still not big enough. It should adequately summarize the entire article, which the lead does not.
  • Why is that big white space present in the Themes section? Please get rid of it.  Done
  • Talking about the Themes section, it should be a sub-section of Production, NOT a separate section in itself.  Done
-Themes are an entirely different thing to production, so it does need it's own section.
  • Tiny sub-sections still exist - Interface design, Sound effects, Graphic novel, Electronics and toys. Either expand or merge with other sections.  Done
  • References need internal consistency in formatting.
  • Dead references need to be replaced. To avoid future problems, start archiving references.  Done
  • It should be just "Sequel" sub-section, not "Movie sequel".  Done
  • Critical reception section is big but disordered. Apply this rule : Positive reviews in one paragraph (two if large in number), mixed reviews in another paragraph, and negative reviews in last paragraph (or two). Immediately after the RT/Metacritic bits we get a D+ review, which is weird to say the least.
  • In the box office section, avoid using words like "impressive" - "In China, it had an impressive opening of $10,624,412 but it quickly faded out for a final gross of $18,889,822." does not sound encyclopedic. Instead, write this - "In China, the film debuted to $10,624,412, which was described as "impressive". However, the film failed to sustain momentum, and ended its theatrical run with $18,889,822."
  • In fact, there are quite a lot of problems with the box office section. Try to be less emotional. "It failed to top the box office on its overseas opening, since it earned only $20.3 million", "It topped the box office with $17,509,781 on its first day and $44,026,211 throughout the weekend, far ahead of the other two new releases". Such sentences sound bad - "only", "far ahead", they give a very amateur feel to the prose. Rectify it, in a similar way as stated above.
  • Film names in all places should be italicized. "Bridges called the experience surreal and said it was "Just like the first Tron, but for real!" - Tron is not italicized. Similarly for all other places, for any other film.  Done

There may be lots more, so I'll keep checking. Cheers. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am afraid that this has gone long enough. Some of the aspects have been ticked Done despite the fact that they are clearly not done. The article needs pruning of repetitions, ordering of the Reception section, work on referencing and much much more than the occasional revert. I am now further intensified in my insistence on a peer review before the article comes to GAN. In compliance with this, I am failing   this GAN until more work can be done on this. I encourage re-nomination only when a thorough peer review is carried out, which eliminates a lot of the problems plaguing this article. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry you didn't see the massive improvements made, but your impatience has wasted another GA nom. alot of your suggestions are small things. The Themes do need a seperate section as themes aren't part of the development or production. I will have a peer review conducted and when i re-nom, hopefully a different editor reviews it. RAP (talk) 14:08 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me? If you look up, I have already said that a lot of good work has been done. If this is impatience, then I am sorry but it is more likely you who are impatient; GAs are not the easiest things to happen on Wikipedia. And let me correct you in this regard: the points I wrote above were the superficial problems. I hadn't even started the bits about grammar, cohesion, reading flow, detailed referencing, placement of content etc. which is the actual part of the GA. Go ahead, ask another reviewer to review the article next time, I have absolutely no problem with that and I don't review the same article twice anyway. If you wish to assume bad faith and blame your inability to improve the article on me, well, I can't say anything. Good day. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Excuse me? My point was you failed it while the improvements were still being made. And since that happened, another GA nom will have to be comissioned, which shouldn't have been necessary. I've spent the past few days changing the references (a very minor and picky thing). RAP (talk) 12:40 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts 3D

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Where can we add on this article that the world of Tron: Legacy will be in the game Kingdom Hearts 3D: Dream Drop Distance? Lacon432 (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article is not about Kingdom Hearts. Consensus has agreed that Kingdom Hearts references will not be included in this or any other Tron article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Box Office

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Given that I wasn't finish with the section, I do understand that some concerns have been brought up regarding the point of view and wording. Any suggestions on how to address the concerns would be helpful. —DAP388 (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why don't I work out a compromise (likely tomorrow AM sometime) and post it here, and if you'd like to go ahead and do the same, either here or in the main article since it's been reverted back to your version anyway. Again, I liked your added analysis, I might just rework the wording. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Alright. That sounds good to me. :) —DAP388 (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ok, here's my proposed version. All your analysis is still there; I reworked some of the wording and removed some stuff I felt was OR. Let me know what you think.

===Box Office

During its theatrical run, Tron: Legacy grossed $400,062,763; $172,062,763 in the North America, and $228,000,000 in other countries.[1] and was Disney's fourth film in 2010 to reach $400 million worldwide. It stayed in theaters until April 14, 2011.[2]

In North America the film earning $44,026,211 during the course of the weekend. On its opening day it grossed $17.6 million, including $3.6 million during midnight showings from 2,000 theaters (29% of which were IMAX screenings).[3] and went on to claim the top spot during its opening week ahead of Yogi Bear and How Do You Know , with [4] with roughly $68 million. The film crossed $100 million on its 12th day in release, and closed domestically with a total of $172 million.

Leading up to the release, various commercial analysts predicted that Tron: Legacy would gross $40–$50 million during its opening weekend,[5] a figure that Los Angeles Times commentator Ben Fritz wrote would to be "solid but not spectacular".[6] Although the executives of Walt Disney Pictures hoped to attract a broad audience, the film primarily appealed to men: "Women appear to be more hesitant about the science-fiction sequel", wrote Fritz.[6] Jay Fernandez of The Hollywood Reporter felt that the disproportionate audience would be problematic for the films long term box office prospects.[5] Writing for Box Office Mojo, Brandon Gray attributed pre-release hype to “unwarranted blockbuster expectations from fanboys”, and noted that the films predecessor was considered a box office failure when it was released, and that the sequel handily out grossed it, even when inflation is considered. [7]

In international markets, Tron: Legacy grossed $23 million on its opening weekend, averaging $6,000 per theater.[8] According to Disney, 65% of foreign grosses originated from five key markets; Japan, Australia, Brazil, United Kingdom, and Spain.[8] The film performed the best in Japan, where it took $4.7M from 350 theaters.[8] Australia, ($3.4M), the United Kingdom ($3.2M), Brazil ($1.9M), and Spain ($1.9M).[8] By the following week, Tron: Legacy obtained $65.5 million from foreign markets,[9] bringing total grosses to $153.8 million.[9] At the end of its run the film grossed $228 million internationally.[10]

It's fine. My only gripe is that I think the analysis should be before the performance, but other than that, it looks good. :) —DAP388 (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
I disagree - I think the subject should come before the analysis of said subject... does that make sense? If you still disagree should we each invite a second set of eyes to come up with a consensus?--Williamsburgland (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Nah, it's only a minor gripe. It's good the way it is. —DAP388 (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference BoxOfficeMojo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Gray, Brandon (2011-05-01). "Around-the-World Brief: 'Thor' Conquers, 'Fast' Speeds Up". Box Office Mojo. Amazon.com. Retrieved 2011-05-02.
  3. ^ McClintock, Pamela (December 17, 2010). "Tron Earns $3.6 Million in Midnight Showing". The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved June 15, 2012.
  4. ^ McClintock, Pamela (December 19, 2010). "'Tron: Legacy' Wins Soft Box Office; James L. Brooks' 'How Do You Know' Disappoints". The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved June 15, 2012.
  5. ^ a b Hernandez, Jay (December 16, 2010). "BULLSEYE, Dec. 17: 'Tron,' 'Yogi,' 'Gulliver,' 'Grit,' More". The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved June 15, 2012.
  6. ^ a b Fritz, Ben (2010-12-17). "Box office projector: 'Tron' to beat 'Yogi Bear' and 'How Do You Know'". Los Angeles Times. Tribune Company. Retrieved 2010-12-28.
  7. ^ Gray, Brandon (2011-01-18). "'True Grit,' 'Inception' Impress Most in Tepid 2010". Box Office Mojo. Amazon.com. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
  8. ^ a b c d Segers, Frank (December 19, 2010). "'Tron: Legacy' Draws $23 Mil Overseas, Hits No. 1 in Europe, Latin America and Australia". The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved June 15, 2012.
  9. ^ a b McClintock, Pamela (December 26, 2010). "'Little Fockers' Wins Box Office; 'Gulliver's Travels' Disappoints". The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved June 15, 2012.
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference imazss was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Reception

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

We do need to arrange the positive and negative reception in a organized fashion, as there are mixed and positive infused with negative paragraphs. It's all a bit confusing. Rusted AutoParts 16:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't mind the basic format right now; it seems to be arranged by talking points, such as effects, story and character development, which I think reads better than two sections for positive and negative reviews, particularly since what makes a review positive or negative is often left up to the editor. I do agree that it needs tightening and better flow, and we could probably reduce the word count as well. Want me to take a quick pass at it and post a proposal here or are you working on it? --Williamsburgland (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
It was a point brought up in one of the GA reviews. And in my experience, if you don't fix anything the reviewers suggest, the next nom will be failed. I've been considering working on it, but the mass text confuses me a little. Rusted AutoParts 14:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, why not take a stab at it then; if I have any input I'll add it.--Williamsburgland (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
The reviews are linked to the most frequently mentioned aspects of the film. Not only does it give an insightful view on the critical reception, but it doesn't become repetitious and it looks much more organized (aside from the last paragraph, which I plan on writing in with the rest of the section). —DAP388 (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've got to say I'm having some issues with the changes that are taking place here - it seems like negative reviews are being removed in favor of more positive/neutral ones. Full disclosure - I liked the movie, but I do think the section needs to reflect critical consensus. I'll give it a closer read later on and share more specific thoughts here.--Williamsburgland (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the last paragraph of the article's lead-in, it states that film critics "were critical of the character development as well as the performance of the cast as a whole". Yet later, in the critical response section, its established that Micheal Sheen's performance received plaudits as opposed to the rest of the cast. Does this exception make the former phrase sound slightly contradictory? The wording made me re-read the sentence over again, therefore that's why I'm bringing it up. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think I agree... the issue is likely that the lead is making a generalization, which might be accurate in the context of the critical consensus, but not when considering individual reviews. We might want to simply include a quote of RT's critical consensus to avoid OR generalizations. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
The reception section isn't finished just yet. —DAP388 (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Plot contention - the color of Tron's lights

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

This is a minor detail, but one that has become a consistent issue with regards to this article. The color of the lights on Tron's armor, both prior to his transformation into Rinzler and subsequent to his regaining his identity, are WHITE (similar to Sam, Flynn, and Quorra). Not only is this clearly evident in the film itself, but every piece of tie-in media for the film (Tron: Evolution, Tron: Uprising, Tron: Betrayal, etc.) also depicts Tron with white lights on his armor. Tron: Evolution goes so far as to offer an indirect explanation as to why Tron's color is white (Flynn bestowed upon Tron some of his administrative power). It's understandable that due to certain environmental factors, the white lights in the film occasionally appear to be blue - however, there is still a stark contrast between blue and white, as evidenced in this image: http://idigitalcitizen.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/sam-flynn-battle-2560x1440.jpg?w=2560 I do not understand why this issue persists, but I must once again motion that where the article currently says "blue," it should be changed to "white." Zargabaath 01:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's not too important of an issue to publish onto the article. It's eludes blue, and if we change that, fanboy IP's will make a point of reverting back, causing an edit war, and we want to avoid that. Rusted AutoParts 19:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I was not aware that the accuracy of a Wikipedia article was contingent on it's propensity for starting edit wars; and when did Wiki begin curtailing to fanboys? To the point at hand, I would argue that if the color is important enough to be mentioned in the article at all (which it currently is, as "blue"), then the correct color should be listed, period. Also, from a contextual standpoint, the changing of Tron's colors signified his breaking free of Clu's control, which is a relatively important plot point. Again, to the question of color, the only reason Tron's lights appear even slightly blue is because extraneous color from the environment can sometimes bleed into the glow of white light. When determining the actual color, one only has to look at the core of the light, which (as demonstrated in the image I linked above) makes it very simple to make the distinction. Look at the the flashback scene from the film in which Tron and Flynn are confronted by Clu - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUCBTize2mg#t=1m11s ...there's no question that Tron's light's are white, just like Flynn's. Zargabaath 09:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The following images are taken from Tron: Legacy and it's official tie-ins Tron: Evolution and Tron: Uprising, all of which indicate that the color of Tron's armor before becoming Rinzler was WHITE - http://www.solidimagearts.com/danplatt/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/tron_boxleitner.jpg, http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wxtdziSoI_M/TP4RCPQ6MII/AAAAAAAACug/5pnmJhGvX3U/s1600/tron%2Bevolution%2BGame%2BPC.jpg, http://static.thesystemaddicts.com/images/610x320/tron-evolution--15.jpg, http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6rmvwcSzl1qbu0veo1_500.png, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7L5rYo5BOI. I've provided a wealth of evidence supporting this fact, and will change the information so that it is accurate the article. Zargabaath 12:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, why is it important to note the light color of the armor at all? Is it helping to clarify a plot point, something that the costumers debated that we're covering in production? If not, it probably has no business being in the article at all as it is the very definition of a trivial detail. Millahnna (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
As stated in an earlier post, the change in the color of Rinzler's lights signifies his breaking free of Clu's control and regaining his original identity as Tron - it is the conclusion of Tron's (the titular character) involvement in the film, and creates a plot device for the potential sequel(s); it is not trivial at all. This fact has not been a point of contention previously, so there is no reason to question it now; it is the color of the lights (which must be mentioned for purposes of differentiation) that has been "debated" despite an abundance of physical and contextual evidence indicating the truth. Zargabaath 11:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

No no I get all of that (the story significance of the color change). But there's still no need to actually mention the color itself at all. "The lights change color" is what is important. "Tron falls into the Sea of Simulation, where the colored lights on his armor change from matching CLU's to Tron's" would work just fine. That said, I agree it's a little odd that it was stable and then suddenly is a point of such heated debate, when again, kind of trivial what the specific colors are. Millahnna (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The destruction of the Grid?

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There's been quite a lot of debate about this in the past, but I personally think that from what I saw, when Flynn and CLU were destroyed, they took the Grid with them, since everything in the Grid was caught in the blast front of the explosion. Visokor (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not really, we see the blast taking the Portal, CLU´s ship and the floating rocks over the Sea of Simulation and that´s it, the Sea itself and the rocky shore, as we can see, are not destroyed so the City and the large wastelands are likely to have survived as well; what role the Grid would play in a future sequel is anyone´s guess... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.27.43.242 (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Grid and everything in it could be restored from a backup.Cousert (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Think I should clear this up after a rewatch, it did look like only the Sea was leveled... Visokor (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Contradictory statement: "Wholly shot in 3D"

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I found this phrase twice in the article: "Tron: Legacy was wholly shot in 3D", but then explanatory text in the Filming section says that portions of the film were shot in 2D. It was well-publicized that the "real-world" sequences were deliberately presented in 2D in the theaters, and some text in Filming suggests that these sequences were later enhanced or converted to 3D in post-processing.

Overall, I found the article's discussion on the use of 3D to be confusing and self-contradictory, but I don't have enough information to know which interpretation is the correct one. Could someone with some more knowledge here go through and fix the contradictions? Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Since I couldn't seem to get anyone's attention to this, I took it upon myself to find a site that acknowledged the 2D real-world sequences and updated the article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
The source that the claim was attributed to does not state it was "shot wholly in 3d" so I don't think there is a problem with removing that statement. It was probably just some editorializing. Good catch anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Inaccurate content - written by a Michael Sheen fan?

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a whole section that reads like a Michael Sheen hagiography, praising his performance to the skies when he actually has a fairly minor role in the film. I have removed this sentence:

Dargis ascribed Sheen's exceptional performance to a seemingly "uninteresting" cast.[1]

because the reference quoted said no such thing. It in fact said "Those limits are even starker in “Tron: Legacy,” which, in its sampling of old movies (its predecessor included), only emphasizes how uninterested the filmmakers are in showing you something you haven’t seen before. Michael Sheen shows up to deliver the closest thing to a performance in the movie, playing a club owner whose cane and song-and-dance evoke the top-hatted fox in Disney’s “Pinocchio.”" The word "uninteresting", quoted as from the NY Times review on the Tron Wikipedia page, actually occurs nowhere in the NY Times review. Dargis nowhere describes Sheen's performance as exceptional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.210.250 (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference nytimes22 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Sheen inaccuracies part 2

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Again, some very disingenuous editing with this sentence:

Michael Sheen's portrayal of Castor was particularly acclaimed by commentators, who—because of his flamboyance—drew parallels to the English singer-songwriter David Bowie,[1][2][3][4]

I can't look at the Variety page because it is paywalled now; USA Today says "The story trips up substantially as it unfolds, with a scenery-chewing performance by Michael Sheen as Castor/Zuse, an androgynous club owner who looks to be channeling early David Bowie. His turn is meant as comic relief, but this movie thunders along so seriously that the attempt at humor feels jarring", Philly.com says "The movie perks up a bit when Michael Sheen, resembling David Bowie in his Aladdin Sane period, goose-steps through a Grid nightspot, twirling his neon nightstick like a majorette her baton." and Boston.com says "Did this movie need ... Michael Sheen queening it up as an albino David Bowie (inglorious alabaster)." So the parallels to David Bowie are drawn but Sheen's acting is hardly '"acclaimed by commentators". They are noting his turn, not necessarily praising it. "Scenery chewing" is used for over-acting; 'perks up a bit' when he appears is, again, hardly a ringing endorsement of his acting, and "queening it up" most certainly is not. I am rephrasing it in the main text to more accurately reflect this. 86.133.210.250 (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference variety was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference usa29 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Philly was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference bost was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

IMAX 23 minute preview…?

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was at the London IMAX preview (if you mean the thing that you could get tickets for by following on-line viral marketing), and it definitely wasn’t 23 minutes of footage that was shown… It was a farce: we were instructed to turn up really early, queued for ages, were kept in a lobby for a very long time, then herded into the screen where attendees were handed a “Flynn Lives!” tee-shirt (which could have been a nice souvenir, if it hadn’t been done with no regard for matching size of recipient and garment), and then left to sit for another age. Then the lights dimmed, we were shown the trailer (90 seconds? Two minutes?), lights up, a man with a microphone told us to tell everyone how great it was (it wasn’t all that), and in spite of requests from the audience to at least show the trailer again, we were shown the door instead. It generated a lot of negative feeling from those who had come from London, let alone people who had come from across Europe and even N. America. Other venues may have had more (at least one got Q&A links with cast members I think), but the London one was a text-book example of how to lose the good will of an audience packed with people willing something to be good… Jock123 (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you look at the provided citation, the preview that's being discussed appears to have only been offered in North America (at least, that's how it's loading for me). If reliable sources have discussed the preview that you attended perhaps it can be discussed as well? DonIago (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tron: Legacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tron: Legacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tron: Legacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Cult classic status

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

'The Ringer' recently published an editorial talking about why this movie is a cult classic. I attempted to add this as a citation to some text, along with another website I found saying something similar from a couple years ago, but apparently XLinkBot doesn't like one or both of those links. I'm really only interested in the Ringer article. Is The Ringer not a good source? It's a highly popular news and editorial site, not some random blog. By the Wikipedia guidelines, it would count as a reliable source, if also one with an opinion; am I misinterpreting the guidelines? Considering this movie's still active fanbase, I believe that a sentence citing this article would not be outside the rules, but I am open to disagreement or correction on this. --Christuffer (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

After consulting with user, Doniago, I've concluded presently that I disagree with the XLinkBot. If anyone cares to chime in and/or disagree, please do so. --Christuffer (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree in recent years it unquestionable that Tron legacy has become a cult classic similar to blade runner Black roses124 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Plot-length vio

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The plot is more than 1,400 words, which is insane. WP:FILMPLOT specifies 400-700 words only. Making substantial trims now.

Note: The footnotes directly below have nothing to do with this post, and were here and when I posted this.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proposed addition to Themes section

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago11 comments4 people in discussion
  • Specific text to be added or removed:

In 2013, it was noted that the movie’s plot appeared to be a futuristic retelling of the Greek myth of Persephone, in which a desirable yet innocent young woman who pines for human life in the warmth of the sun is rescued from the dark and chilling confines of Hades, the underworld and realm of the dead. In Greek narratives, Persephone is often known simply as “the Maiden” (Greek Korē, Latin Cora; cf. Quorra) and is betrayed by Zeus (cf. Zuse), who in the myth is actually her father.[1]

  • Location of addition:

In the section titled "Themes," forming a new paragraph between the first and second paragraphs of the current revision.

  • Reason for the change: I made the edit myself yesterday, but it was reverted due to a perceived conflict of interest as I am the author of the cited work. I therefore ask others to judge the merit of the update and decide whether or not to include it.

LloydGraham (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Graham, Lloyd. "Resurrecting the Maiden: From Hades to the Grid". Academia.edu. Retrieved August 22, 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
@LloydGraham   Done Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @Duke Gilmore - however, I don't see the proposed addition to the Themes section in the current version of the main article. Does this mean that I'm now cleared to make the addition myself? (Apologies for my ignorance, but I have never had to invoke an Edit Request before). LloydGraham (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@LloydGraham Really done now. Sorry, I must have missed the "Publish" button. Duke Gilmore (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Cheers.Reply
Many thanks @Duke Gilmore. LloydGraham (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to bother you again, but your decision in the Request For Edit matter on Talk:Tron: Legacy (for which I waited patiently for months) has been overturned by someone who has suddenly mounted a hostile campaign against my contributions to WP. Do you (or does any other editor) know how I can obtain independent arbitration in respect of the deletion of the segment-plus-citation that you added a year ago? LloydGraham (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LloydGraham: I gave a reason below but if you would like to escalate things there are avenues. You could try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but I would warn you that WP:BOOMERANG may come into play. When your years of self-promotion are brought to the attention of administrators, I don't think the outcome will be what you desire. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

One person's view is WP:UNDUE. There is no widespread belief in this interpretation and it skews the balance so I removed it accordingly. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

This former User’s one-person view – and unilateral deletion – is indeed WP:UNDUE as the two sentences in question were added by an independent editor in response to a formal Edit Request. Anyone with a basic knoweldge of Greek mythology who has watched the movie should be able to recognise the Cora/Quorra and Zeus/Zuse correspondences. The User in question did not bother to seek discussion or approval for their deletion on this Talk page. Moreover, their deletion formed part of a highly personal WP-wide campaign against me based on their capricious misrepresentation of the WP:SELFCITE policy; this included an attempt to have my User account deleted, which was immediately rejected by the Admins. As the User could not apply their favourite misrepresentation to justify this deletion because a formal COI process had been completed, they simply picked another pretext from their cancellation arsenal. Since said User’s accounts (under various names) have now been removed from Wikipedia, I have taken the WP:BOLD step of restoring the deleted sentences by reverting their action, and am flagging that reversion here for transparency. Please review the reversion and comment here if you have any concerns about it. LloydGraham (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Removed, as obvious self-cite spam. The fact that ThaddeusSholto closed their account here is not an excuse for you to continue to spam references to yourself onto various Wikipedia article. Axad12 (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
For further details on this editor's campaign of WP:SELFCITE please see the following post [1]. Axad12 (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tron:_Legacy&oldid=1257397157"