With all the buzz on terrorists, you think a sequel might revolve around say...a cyberterrorist using a weakened MCP, but in really the MCP is using him.

Then there is that whole yap about national security ...blah blah blah. So basically will a tron sequel reflect "our" times?

David1 Wrote:Possibility 2. Flynn get's fat and old, but must come out of retirement to face a more powerful russion computer. He turns to Dillinger (now reformed) to train him, who explains he must find the "Code of the tiger" within himself. Working title: Tron 2, followed by Tron 3, Tron 4, Tron 5 etc.

I like this one for a couple of reasons.

1. It gets us several sequels in quick succession.

2. The sixth move, simply named TRON, will be a return to form and complete the circle!

TRON worked because the world of computers were completely new back in 1982 to mainstream audiences & no one knew what was "inside the box."

A TRON sequel would have to do the same: Introduce the audience to a new aspect of computers that they would be completely unaware of. The last phenomenon that TRON could have utilized would have been the rise of the Internet. Depending on who you talk to, a hypothetical TRON sequel for the Internet ("InterTRON"? "InTRONet"?) would have had to have been released between 1993-1997 to have had the same impact that the 1982 TRON had.

Since the Internet is now long in the tooth to be used as an emerging tech, what could replace it? I don't know. Stem cell research (a long shot, admittedly, to be used in a TRON sequel) is still in its infancy & its possibilities of curing conditions once thought incurable are endless. Cell phones emerged to the general public (at least in the US) during the mid-to-late late 90's, with them becoming increasingly computerized starting in the early 00's. Cheap laptops? DVRs? Casual gaming? Flash memory? Social networks?

It could easily be another decade or longer before another "Internet-sized" computer-related phenomenon emerges that would give TRON sufficient material for a sequel. After all, it took roughly a generation for VCRs (mid-to-late 70's) to emerge which would re-revolutionize how people watched television (early 1950's). Admittedly, color television (mid-to-late 60's) was supposedly a fairly large phenomenon when it emerged, maybe more so then the current HDTV/Analog switchover we are experiencing now. Cable television (early-to-mid 80's) was probably the last major tech increase for analog TVs.

Of course, why does it have to be a MOVIE? Why not a series of computer games since the story line is ABOUT video games? TRON 2.0 succeeded in the aspect that you could capture the look & feel of the movie inside of a video game. Video games are traditionally cheaper then movies to make.

"More of the Same" is really hard to pull off nowadays. The TRON sequel would really need a unique edge in order to stand out & be viable.

TheDigimon Wrote:With all the buzz on terrorists, you think a sequel might revolve around say...a cyberterrorist using a weakened MCP, but in really the MCP is using him. Then there is that whole yap about national security ...blah blah blah. So basically will a tron sequel reflect "our" times?

first off, everything is formatted, and people are mostly paid for.

(I'd relate that to tron, but it applies to the theme of this topic)










since I left that on the edge of nothing, I can say I never saw the current events, capiche?













or, on second thought, I'll show you what I was going to post.


My opinion, one shouldn't use the vanity of our circumstances from people, politics, currency, famine, presidency, war, and death, rather from technology from the inside of the mind seeing technology.

There are far too many reasons to know why we are inside computers, rather than who purchased the next presidential candidates, who owns oil, which, replaces your dollar with the amero, that would mean that the system was ultimately just about humanity, terrorism, the feeble mortalized mind.

some people are just paid for. end of line. lol.



(I was just told I sound too wordy)