Talk:Tron: Legacy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Zeus or Zuse?

I heard it as "zeus", which I took to be a reference to the old 1980s Zilog Unix OS (or possibly the Zeus Web Server). Google hits seem about even. Anyone know? --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It could also be a refererence to, y'know, the god in Greek mythology. ;) The end credits state "Zuse." jhsounds (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounded like Zeus but we should go with what the end credits say. Also this and other duel identities should only be mentioned in the plot section not the Cast section. -- Horkana (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

He is named after Konrad Zuse, the (German!) guy who build the first computer. Americans just can't pronounce it correctly... --87.123.38.233 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Got sourcing? Doniago (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In german translation the pronounciation is correct for Zuse. But of course this is no reference for stating he is named after Konrad Zuse. We'll maybe know more after seeing a making of. Hakito (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Tron 2.0 (Game) non-canon?

Is there any information about connections to the 2003 video game Tron 2.0? It seems strange that it would simply be ignored completely. Nevermore4ever (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It was, see Tron 2.0 article. If you look at the online viral promotional materials, such as the Encom news conferences, you see that the character Lora Baines is alive and now married to Alan Bradley. She thus didn't die in the nineties like in the Tron 2.0 story. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Tron 2.0 and the Tron: Ghost in the Machine are established to be a digitally fabricated reality, but in-continuity here and again here.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Those are blogs and forums and are not reliable. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Not when the one posting is the writer of the comic series. Which is the case here. Theplanetsaturn (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally believe that wouldn't count because he is voicing his opinion on an open forum. Unless a reliable source states that this is an official Disney stance, blogs and similar posts are still unreliable. But again, my opinion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Then by the same token, nothing the director of Tron Legacy should be taken as anything other than opinion. The person speaking is the authority on the Tron comic, and is qualified to speak on how the comic stands within the Tron universe. Where he speaks doesn't really change anything. As for any official Disney opinion: That has clearly changed over time according to their marketing needs, and therefore official Disney opinion is of less value (from a historical and encyclopedic viewpoint) than you imply.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between Kosinski speaking about the film and the comic author speakng about the comic. Disney directly produced Tron Legacy, whereas I think they only licensed the property out to the comic studio. Likewise, Tron 2.0 is a licensed property and was produced in cooperation with Disney, but Disney had far less to do with the game than it did with the movie. So the director's "opinions" about the franchise have far more weight than the producers of the other products, simply because he is directly backed by the property owner. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Both are official products of Disney, and bear the Disney company logo regardless of who produced them. Making a call on how directly or indirectly Disney was involved with one or the other is pure speculation. And such speculation should not factor into an encyclopedic point of view. Regardless, Kosinski has (to the best of my knowledge) not weighed in on the status of the comic. Nor has anyone associated with Disney done so, save the comic creator. The creator of the comic is qualified to speak on how his official creation fits within the Tron universe, provided he is not countering anything claimed by anyone else affiliated with Disney.

But If we really want to go with whose word has the most weight, Lisberger has (purportedly) claimed that only the original film is canon. Everything else is just one degree or another of spin-off material produced by third parties.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, what you're describing is "retconning", and it really happens all the time. If we don't have any official statements directly from Disney, who owns the base property, then ANYTHING we write here about what is canon and what isn't, is speculation. However, in all the press releases I've seen, Tron Legacy is the only media that's currently being described as a proper sequel to the original film. Also, Legacy doesn't attempt to retcon anything from the original film (though to be fair, neither does the game) - it only contradicts the game and possibly the comic (I haven't read the comic, so I couldn't say).

Probably the best thing to do for now is to mention the discrepancy between this movie, the game and the comic, and mention that no official statement on canon has been given by the property owner. If we have conflicting statements by the individual media producers, then we should mention those.

As for proper location of this: I think since Legacy has been called a sequel and at one point the game was also considered a sequel, this article should address the relationship between the movie and game only, and leave a broader discussion of property canon to the article on the overall franchise. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Slight correction to my comment above: Legacy is being called a true sequel to the movie, whereas the WP article on TRON 2.0 says (right at the top, though uncited) that the game is a "non-canon sequel". I don't know if that's a recent development or not, but my own recollection of events was that the media outlets considered TRON 2.0 to be a sequel at the time it was released, and that its status as "sequel" was later revoked, either by those same media outlets or by Disney itself. That all happened well before TRON Legacy was announced, though. So it seems appropriate to mention that turn of events. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As you basically say, Tron 2.0 was originally touted as an official sequel, and the material has been retconned. In what way it has been retconned is the question. Here's an excerpt from one of the links I provided from the writer of the comic:

"There is no reason to consider this story non-canonical. It takes place on a separate system operating under an entirely different set of rules. There are no actual Users identified and nothing I am aware of that contradicts the new film. This requires a retcon of the 2.0 game to have transpired as a false reality as well, but that was one of the points of the comic in the first place. To call question to the previous reality and make both the game and the comic fit into any new material that might surface, rather than lock the future of Tron in what definitive direction."

On the flip side, Long before the statement above, Kosinski was asked if the Tron 2.0 video game be considered canon for the new movie. He responded "no" [1]. But a few years earlier the game WAS the official sequel [2] - The relevant quote: "It's extremely rare, however, for a game to be the official sequel to a movie -- especially a film that's 21 years old." and Lisberger in an interview acknowledged the status of the game as well: "It's sort of groundbreaking to approach it this way. We've been kicking around scripts and concepts in the film division for quite some time now. The game division just blasted ahead and took the lead on this." and "There has been a regrouping and rethinking about how one does a film in conjunction with the game and, in a way, as a sequel to the game now".

So there is no doubt that 2.0 was the official sequel to Tron and that it has been retconned. Again, the question is whether or not the material was retconned out of continuity altogether or retconned in another fashion. Personally, I think that the canon of Tron will "officially" be whatever the marketing people feel it needs to be at a given time, so debating it too much is a pointless endeavor. Obviously, the continuity has proven to be flexible.

However, I think all we really need to cover with this is that the material was official and has been retconned so that it's place within the canon of the films is questionable. Jeremy edited the pages to reflect some of this weeks ago in a manner that seemed acceptable to me. It only came up again here as the question was asked on this page by another party.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that level of discussion about it. Okay, I see where the confusion lies, then - definitely a case of inconsistent marketing, if nothing else.

In a way, this kind of thing sorta fits with the Tron universe more than it would with most other properties (Matrix is about the only other major property I can think of where they could get away with this). Since we're talking about a simulated, digital reality in each of the major stories, the idea that each story could be in itself a "sequel" (more accurately a spinoff) to the original film makes sense - computer systems are malleable, copies can be made and branched, rolled back, changed mid-stream, etc. They touch on that at the end of Legacy. So to portray Ghost, 2.0 and Legacy as independent sequels makes sense only within the scope of their respective digital realms. The problem occurs when events in the real world have to be retconned (eg. Lora Bradley's death in 2.0, vs. her still being alive in Legacy). Even Matrix has ways around that sort of issue by blurring the lines between reality and simulation more.

Back to the point, tho: See my subsection below - obviously, we're fans of the franchise, but we're not official, reliable sources. We still need some actual sources to discuss the retcon issue, and preferably a definitive statement from Disney either confirming retcon or deliberately obfuscating it. Once we have those, we can reflect that discussion in the article - we don't have to answer the question, just reflect the discussion. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. With almost any other property there would be very little room for multiple continuities. But with one based around artificial reality there's considerably more flexibility. Subsequently, the real world aspects being retconned are less troublesome than you think. The Ghost in the Machine comic establishes that the real world aspects of 2.0 were also a part of a simulated reality. As seen in this quote from the writer here:

"As the history of Jet Bradley in the comics is established to be a false set of memories, the game 2.0 can be included in the timeline just by being an earlier part of Jet's delusion, rather than being the story of a separate being. It's a retcon of the 2.0 material, but I don't see any other way to approach it other than to call one an alternate universe."[3]

To be clear, the death of Lora Bradley is one of the things suggested to be false in the comic. As is the existence of fCon and just about everything else suggested as reality in 2.0. That's what the comic story is about, digital reality and artificial intelligence unaware of it's own nature.

But as you say, to the point: I doubt we'll see anything that isn't somewhat ambiguous on this matter. It's certainly conceivable that we may see things that dismiss the past works, as promoting or incorporating previous marketing efforts of the franchise serve little to zero purpose to a company like Disney. But I do think that the creator of one iteration of the franchise explaining how said iteration works within continuity (provided that explanation does not contradict the more recent material) is a reliable enough source. Like I said earlier though, the acknowledgment that 2.0 was the official sequel and that (to whatever degree) it has been retconned is sufficient for me.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning canon issues in article

The more I think about it, the more I think the article deserves some discussion about how TRON 2.0 and Ghost in the Machine were retconned by Legacy's plot. If we add some notes to the article about this, where do you think they should go? Of course, we can't really do that without some official sources, but surely at least one of the sources we turn to for such things must have noticed the discrepancies, right? I'm too busy at the moment to look them up myself, but let's get a collection of sources here so we can review them and the proposed article text, and decide if it has enough coverage to warrant mention. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Home media

Resolved

 – A source has been located. --McDoobAU93 19:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed this section because it contained all of two sentences, neither of which was backed up with reliable source information. When a verifiable source publishes a release date (VideoETA says they know, but can't announce it yet) that isn't speculation or rumor, then the section can be added back. --McDoobAU93 17:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not WP:BLP. This claim is not contentious. There is absolutely no need to delete the whole section. It has been tagged Citation needed, provide the best information available and wait and see, WP:IMPROVE it as more information becomes available. -- Horkana (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

At the same time, why should the project be on the hook for spreading false information, regardless of the article being about a living person or not? For all we know, Disney may wait until next December to release it (A Christmas Carol was released to home video a year after the theatrical run). This article doesn't need to be up-to-the-millisecond accurate, but it should be accurate, and speculation of release dates isn't accurate. --McDoobAU93 18:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It was as reliable as anyone with any sense expect Wikipedia to be, especially when it was clearly tagged with citation needed.

Deleting the whole section is out of sight out of mind and utterly fails to encourage other to improve the section, and Wikipedia would never have gotten this far with that attitude. -- Horkana (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The {{citation needed}} tag was not meant as a way to defend speculative statements. Yes it was more than likely going to happen, but there was still that chance that it wouldn't (see Song of the South) or it wouldn't when it would be expected (refer to previous example). As to the statement "out of sight, out of mind", I would suggest the very opposite. I've seen more than a few articles expanded and updated (with cited sources) because something that was expected was NOT there. --McDoobAU93 00:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

At the very worst you should not remove the section heading and should leave it along with an expand section and maybe a comment in the wiki source reminding editors to provide proper references. Leaving okay information leads to improvement, deleting it entirely often leads to good faith attempts to add worse quality information, which only needs to be tagged. Deletionists generate unnecessary work. -- Horkana (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Program and User

Just a quick explanation of this revert.

In the TRON universe, it's been established that, when referring to the human representations of programs in the digital world, the term "Program" (capitalized) is used, and when referring to actual humans from a Program's point of view (creators of the system, super beings, etc., whether they are inside or outside the digital world), the term "User" (again, capitalized) is used.

So referring to Sam as "not a Program, but a User" is consistent with other uses of the same terms in both this article and that for the original Tron. There really isn't any need to add special emphasis (italics) on those terms here, since the purpose of the sentence is just to distinguish between the two roles. Likewise, there isn't any reason to de-capitalize them, as that would make the terms inconsistent.

Note also that there is one place where the term "program" (lower-case) is appropriate: Namely, when describing the ISOs for the first time. There, we're describing what they are, not who they are. Likewise, if there were a case where we wanted to describe someone like Alan Bradley or Edward Dillinger as a computer user, we'd likely use the lower-case form since we'd be describing that person's real-world role, not their relationship to entities in the digital world.

Does that help? :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent but I think the distinction does need to be emphasized to make it clearer to other editors that it is entirely deliberate. Now that you've explained it here perhaps that too will discourage them from removing the capitalisation but I still think the extra emphasis is worth having. -- Horkana (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It would be like saying "Instead of slicing a potato, he sliced a parsnip." Compare to "Instead of slicing a potato, he sliced a parsnip." Does the emphasis really add anything? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Tron Guy

Uh hello? What about the Tron Guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3609OtM138c It seems no coincidence that Tron: Legacy only came along AFTER the Tron Guy became popular and raised a public interest in the original Tron movie. Yes, Tron was popular and a cult film before the Tron Guy, but only among a small community of g33ks. Without the tron guy, there would not be a Tron sequel. Why is there no reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkruijff (talk • contribs) 14:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe the Tron guy was as influential as you claim. The articles about Tron I have read do not mention him. If you can find articles to support your theory that he had some influence in the sequel getting off the ground then please discuss it here before trying to add to the article. -- Horkana (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a LOT of speculation about Tron Guy's influence when TR2N was first "announced". I remember seeing several attempts to include him in the early versions of this article, and each one of them was deleted due to lack of sourcing and notability. I haven't seen any official sources related to Tron Legacy mention him at all, much less state that he had anything to do with making the franchise more popular. Likewise, nothing related to Tron 2.0, Tron: Ghost in the Machine, or Kingdom Hearts II (where Tron and the Grid figure heavily in the game's storyline) have mentioned Tron Guy in any way, shape or form. I hate to say it, but he's basically just a fan whose video went viral - he's notable in his own right, but he's not tied to the official franchise. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Explosion

In the climax, Flynn merges with Clu and a massive explosion occurs. There's currently a bit of an edit war about the few seconds following the explosion - whether or not the result of the explosion should be mentioned at all, and whether or not the explosion wiped out the whole Grid or whether to state what happens is speculation. Let's get a discussion going.

First off, I worded it last week as "causing a massive explosion, leaving nothing but the Sea of Simulation in its wake". I posit that this is NOT speculation: The movie clearly shows multiple shots all around the Grid of Programs and structures being wiped out by the explosion, an expanding sphere of light that suddenly collapses on itself, and then an eerily quiet scene showing nothing but simulated water and the suspended point of light. Not even the portal is left. Given the already-established symbolism of the digital world (most of it established in the first TRON), it seems pretty clear that this scene was meant to show the Grid as a whole being wiped out in a matter of seconds.

Simply stating that the event caused an explosion leaves the reader with no real context as to the result or its implications. Sure, maybe it's speculation to say that the entire Grid is gone, but it would also be speculation to say that any of it persisted. Likewise, not stating what we saw on the screen will likely lead people to speculate about it and lead to more edit wars. I think that if we're going to remove speculation, we should go back to the wording I'd put in, or at least something similar, stating that only the Sea of Simulation was visible after the explosion. This way, readers can still wonder what happened to the Grid, but the article simply states what was visible and doesn't either leave out too many details nor speculate. Does that sound reasonable? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Editors failing to follow the Simple rules and explain themselves with an edit summary show a distinct lack of good faith, especially in the cases where editors ignored a warning comment indicating the change would be contentious and needed discussion. Your bringing this issue here does show a lot of good faith and I hope we can adjust the wording to something we can both agree on.

You wrote "it seems" & "it was meant to show" and this puts me back to WP:OR original research. I didn't make those rules but that's what we're stuck with. As I recall the dialog said the merge would destroy them both, it didn't say it would destroy the whole grid. The explosion was supposed to look extensive, and sure it was a massive explosion. I'm not against a bit of rephrasing but I don't want to give it undue emphasis, and buildings destroyed does not necessarily mean characters are dead (see also Zuse and about a million films were they characters aren't dead until you've seen the body). Maybe I'm a little too cynical.
If you'll forgive me speculating here for a second we don't know what Sam backed up on the storage round his neck, and short of another film or tie in comics/novelizations we won't know what survives but the earlier claims that "the entire grid is destroyed" seem at odds with him backing things up. A change of wording about the explosion would have to be balanced against the "backup" comments, or if you had a way to rephrase that slightly dubious assumption I'd be less concerned about the explosion claims but those two statements jar.

The other thing editors kept doing was spelling out what Tron changing color meant but there is really no need to spell it out, the readers can draw their own conclusion on that one. I'm hoping we can adjust the wording about the explosion to "say what you see" and again let readers draw their own conclusions as viewers of the film would. -- Horkana (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading through fan forums and reviews people do seem to think the grid was destroyed but Screenrant asks what does that actually mean, and considers what the backup might mean too. The cynic in me says Flynn is only dead if they try and make another one without The Dude. -- Horkana (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, I myself have the sound and solid theory that the explosion from the merge of Flynn and Clu took the Grid with them. Let me put it this way: if a universe's creator -in this case, Flynn- was to die, his creation -in this case, the Grid- would cease to exist also. There are similar instances in media and literature that when those who don't use magic to good ends die, all their magic dies with them. Visokor 11:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

2D versus 3D

Can anyone provide a source citing the actual breakdown of 2D against 3D scenes in the various versions of the film (cinema against IMAX).
Currently the section on filming reads "The film's beginning portions were shot in 2D.[38] 40 minutes of the film were vertically enhanced for IMAX.[39]"
Citation 38 (^ Cybergosh (October 7, 2008). "'Tron 2' 3D in 2010". UGO.com. Hearst Corporation. http://movieblog.ugo.com/movies/tron-2-3d-in-2010. Retrieved April 25, 2009.) actually states "the entire film will be shot in stereoscopic 3D".
As such this citation is erroneous and should be removed. If no-one has any to hand I will go digging later when I have more time. MrJerricho (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Tron is light blue

Tron is light blue. Tron is not white. This can be seen in the film, yet some people dispute this. The article for Tron (film) mentions "blue for good and red for evil" (and also notes some color scheme inconsistencies, but nothing seems to support the claim that tron is white). The tron logo can be described as is cyan (or turquoise or aqua, all shades of blue) against a black background. Although myself and other editors have held that Tron is blue User:Zargabaath asserts that Tron is white and that there are sources to confirm this. I reverted his change of the plot text to the older verison with long standing but would be very interested to see the sources mentioned, and why we should go against what can be seen onscreen. -- Horkana (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In Tron: Legacy, and it's official tie-in video game, Tron: Evolution (a prequel to Legacy), the color of Tron's armor is white. The "blue for good and red for evil" logic may have applied to the original film, but Legacy and Evolution feature green, yellow, and white characters as well, effectively negating the black-and-white mentality of that argument. Tron's color is explained in Evolution, when the protagonist character, Anon, receives part of Flynn's power and his armor changes from blue to white. It is implied that Tron had received the same power when Flynn imported him to the Grid. In Evolution and Legacy, it is VERY clear that Tron's illumination is white, much in the way that Kevin, Clu, and Sam's are. In some instances, I can see how the surroundings in a scene can make the illumination appear blue, but there is still a noticeable difference... http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/tron-legacy-the-grid.jpg. I don't really know how this is still a discussion, but here is an image from Evolution to support my claims... http://gamerzdb.com/static/7db49ea67c9bcd7fe398cfa69186741b.jpg. Tron's illumination = white. Zargabaath 17:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should not hold to just the color of the Tron logo or to Tron's color in the first movie - the standards in the new Grid appear to be very different. And in general, we should stick with what's visible unless we have a reliable source to say otherwise - to my knowledge, no reliable source from an interview with the movie's producers or cast states that Tron should be blue in Legacy. The colors in Legacy (and for what the person above described in Evolution as well) seem to suggest both faction and rank/status, so it would make sense for Tron to match Flynn's color when he switches sides. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tron's color is white. It is particularly evident in the flashback scenes, before Tron is "killed" his illumination matches Kevin's (which is undisputably white). There are some points where the surroundings (being predominantly black and blue) make the white lights appear blueish around the edges, but it's obviously just a bleeding effect. It does not change the fact that there is a stark contrast between the white illumination and the blue illumination on the costumes (also, there are NO "light blue" characters). I will change this (again) in the article. Zargabaath 11:21, 04 November 2011 (UTC)

Home media

Home media

The Blu-ray and DVD will be coming out in the next few weeks, so I thought it would be a great time to improve the section. Because I have a potential conflict of interest, I wanted to get everyone's thoughts on my draft before posting it in the article. Below is a mock-up of what I think the section could look like. I used what was already there as a skeleton for the section, and then expanded it with some important information that was missing. Let me know what you guys think. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tron: Legacy will be released on Blu-ray Disc, DVD, and digital download in North America on April 5, 2011. A five-disc box set entitled The Ultimate Tron Experience contains the Blu-ray 3D, Blu-ray 2D, DVD, and digital copy of Tron: Legacy, as well as a Blu-ray 2D version of Tron: The Original Classic Special Edition, in collectible packaging. A separate five-disc box set referred to as the Tron: 2-Movie Collection contains the same elements, except it does not include collectible packaging. A four-disc box set is also produced, without 3D Blu-ray. The film is also packaged as a two-disc DVD and Blu-ray combo pack, as well as a single-disc DVD version. Tron: Legacy will be released as a digital download in high definition or standard definition, including versions with or without the digital extras.

One notable feature for all versions of the home media release is a preview of the 10-part animated series Tron: Uprising. The Blu-ray versions of Tron: Legacy also include an interactive bonus piece called The Next Day: Flynn Lives Revealed that explains what happened immediately following the end of the movie, as well as Disney Second Screen.Tron: Legacy will be the second Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment release that includes Disney Second Screen, a feature accessible via a computer or iPad app download that provides additional content as the user views the film.

Sources:

• http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=58720
• http://collider.com/tron-tron-legacy-blu-ray-details/75818/
• http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=5876
• http://www.discdish.com/index.php/2011/02/03/new-release-tron-legacy-dvd-blu-ray-and-3d
• http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2011-02-24-bambi24_ST_N.htm

I went ahead and made this edit after receiving feedback from User McDoobAU93, but I am still open to feedback. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tron: Legacy → TRON: Legacy — Isn't this the more common formatting? George Richard Leeming (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Wiki does not use stylized article name. Oppose. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 09:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

See MOS:TM. Oppose. jhsounds (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Wikipedia does not use names as they appear in the trademark unless they are also capitalized per MOS:TM. I think WP:SNOW is starting to apply here... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 11:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - on the grounds of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks); Wikipedia uses standard English text formatting and capitalization rules and not the stylized version promoted by the company. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit paragrah explaning the "new" system,

Revised sentence that talks about the new system. I revised the part about Tron. In the first moive, Tron was a security program created by Alan Bradley to indepdently monitor the old system, and to also be a check for the MCP. While it can be assumed that Tron asn the other main characters in the first movie were digital copies of themselves, it still would not be technically accurate in the Tron character's case.

Rayghost (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Tron's Second Year

Why Isn't Tron: Legacy a 2009 Film but a 2010 Film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.125.238 (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing Info about San Diego Screening and Flags in Gaslamp Quarter

I was in San Diego immediately before comic-con in 2010 and was on a ship returning to port during a screening that wasn't mentioned in the Tron: Legacy wikipedia entry. Hopefully someone can find reference to these facts, but I won't add them to the page since I don't have references other than my own experience:

• As part of comic-con they put Tron: Legacy flags all over the gaslamp quarter at least a few days ahead, because I saw them as we walked around early one morning.
• On one of the days of comic-con I was coming back in a ship up to the port next to the gaslamp quarter next to the big old ships there, and I saw a light flickering. The 1st mate on our vessel said that it was a Disney movie that they were showing on the side of a destroyer that was parked there. This was a screening not mentioned in the wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.68.4 (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Biased "Reception" section?

Reading over the "Reception" section, it seems there is almost no mention at all of the criticism of this film. It only quotes positive reviews. Somebody should add a few critical reviews as well. The article would otherwise appear to be highly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.107.72 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Are there critical reviews that you believe would be best suited for inclusion? Doniago (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to add critical reviews, or what/who would be considered a good source/critic, but I know there are critical reviews out there. It's not as if it got a raving reception, after all, but the article makes it out to be much better than it was — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.107.72 (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Actually, it looks like someone went over the article and deleted all of the criticism for falsely positive responses. It's vandalism! Look at the history of the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.107.72 (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

File:TRON Legacy Light Cycle.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TRON Legacy Light Cycle.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Inline commentary

I remove the inline commentary from the article. If you want, place a comment at the top of the article, an not at every disputed location throughout the article. That is inappropriate. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a policy backing up your view? I disagree, though I won't revert your changes without consensus from other editors. The reality, though, is that those comments were inserted because editors were frequently making inappropriate changes that the notes were put in place to prevent. If a comment is placed at the top of the article it is easily overlooked IMO. Doniago (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Inline commentary in an article is disallowed as part of the manual of style, which sub-page I cannot tell you as there are literally dozens, but it is in there. I was wrong, it used to be disallowed, but is no longer. See WP:COMMENT and WP:COMMENTARY. That being said, I prefer it to be used sparingly, but that is just me. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I would agree in general, but the problems that prompted the notes here have been persisting. If the notes have deterred any editors from making inappropriate changes I would say they are useful. As noted though, I'll leave them out unless other editors care to chime in. Doniago (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Jerem43. I understand the intent for those in-line comments, but they appeared to be doing more to clutter the markup than to actually discourage the behavior we wanted to discourage. We have the ability to create editorial notes that appear above the edit box, specifically to address situations like this, and we can also add in-lines back if it turns out we really need them. But I agree, let's use them sparingly. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Music credits

Right now, the music portion of the infobox credits Daft Punk, Journey and the Eurhythmics for the film's music. Is this correct? I thought Daft Punk was the only group credited with composing the film's original score, and Journey and Eurhythmics were only credited with licensing some of their songs. It would be kinda like crediting Vincent Van Gogh as Art Director for an appearance of his Starry Night painting. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)