Tron 3 Is Cancelled

Dave Knott writes: Tron 3 won't be coming to a theater near you. Disney had been developing a sequel to Tron:Legacy since the movie, made for $170 million, grossed $400 million worldwide. But now they have chosen not to move forward with a third installment in the sci-fi series, sources say. "Disney has had strong success with its live-action properties recently, including Maleficent and this year's Cinderella, which earned $527.4 million worldwide. But it recently had a stumble with the $180 million live-action film Tomorrowland, which underperformed at the box office this past weekend with a $33 million U.S. debut."

Comments

Of course it bombed

[cheesybagel]

Too much money wasted on big name actors and advertising. Ludicrous story. It goes on and on.

I do think it is too early for another Tron sequel though. If they had made one one year after the last one it would have been ok but not now.

Re:Of course it bombed

[iluvcapra]

With regard to Tron 3, it's not so important that Tron 2 bombed-- what really matters is Escape from Tomorrowland bombed, and Disney has decided if it's going to make fantasy films, it'd rather plow money into it's wholly-owned subsidiaries, Lucasfilm and Marvel.

America, you will be getting all your science fiction and fantasy in Avengers form in Galactic Basic. This is a win if you like big scifi movies that make billions of dollars, it's a loss if you liked a little bit of diversity in your movies. Disney will now double down on sequels and reboots.

Re:Of course it bombed

[phantomfive]

Too much money wasted on big name actors and advertising. Ludicrous story. It goes on and on.

The same could be said of Pirates of the Caribbean, right?

Re:Of course it bombed

[Gadget_Guy]

I don't understand why Hollywood won't cast teenagers to play teenagers.

There are numerous reasons. The look of adults will remain more consistent throughout the filming of a movie and between sequels (not to mention a TV series), while no amount of contractual obligation can stop a child actor from growing. I heard on a director's commentary of a film (can't remember which one) that said that they had problems reshooting parts of an earlier scene because the child had changed between the start and end of the movie; probably no so noticeably as you watch the film sequentially, but when it they intercut shots into the same scene then it could be obvious.

Child actors also have limits on how long they can film and require schooling during the shoot. It's possible that trained actors are easier to direct and put in better performances, but that is just speculation and there are definitely examples of children doing some stunning work. Finally, teenagers can be right pricks sometimes (although so can some prima donna actors too).

Re:Of course it bombed

[Piata]

But that's where you're wrong. Edge of Tomorrow is fantastic and if you don't like Tom Cruise you get to watch a cowardly version of him be shot, burned, sliced, crushed, ran over and die in more ways than I can remember for the first 2/3rds of the film. The problem with Edge of Tomorrow was the marketing. They never really got across what kind of movie it was or why it was worth watching. They also should have kept the original name (All You Need Is Kill). The exo skeletons may have also been a hard sell as they just appear cubersome and awkward.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Let Flynn and Quora ride off into the sunrise, and let it be OVER. Stories end. How about you come up with new ones?

Re:The Trailer Was Astoundingly Awful

[pr0t0]

It looks amateurish because it was made by amateurs. It's a fan-made trailer. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt40...

Re:Yeah sure

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that Disney is one of the largest multimedia conglomerates in the world, right? While the word Disney gives rise to images of cartoon princesses they also own ABC, Marvel, and the Lucasfilm properties, among many other things.

To say they only make princess movies is like saying Kraft only makes crappy cheese products or Pepsi only makes cola.

Disney makes only one thing : homogenised culture to be consumed around the world.
It's the McDonalds of films. Insipid to the very core.

Re:Yeah sure

[Brulath]

Disney makes only one thing : homogenised culture to be consumed around the world. It's the McDonalds of films. Insipid to the very core.

Remarkably, not everyone on this planet wants to spend all of their movie-viewing time on art-house pieces with complicated themes; sometimes you just want to be exposed to a universe that hadn't existed previously in your imagination, whether it's a reworking of an old story or not. Same as a good chunk of the population doesn't mind some McDonalds every now and then; sometimes you just want a cheap burger.

Re:Tron could be a very good series

[mccalli]

" However, if Disney would actually give it to a good director and writers and take it darker..."

No. No. No.

Enough with the silly darker trend. Have you actuallyseen the original Tron? You know with the talking silly Bit in it? It's adventure certainly, but it's not dark. Tron 2 went more philosophical and arguably darker as well, and I happen to really like the film, but I would argue that's also part of what killed it.

Everyone time I hear of a reboot it's "we'll take the original and make it grittier", or "we'll take the original and make it darker", or sometimes we're treated to both gritter and darker at the same time. Bah. Enough of this - it's an adolescant's version of what makes a grown-up film. Give me varied films with a mix of emotions in them please. Relentless dark and misery is not what I want to be offered all of the time.