Sci-Fi Tron: Ares with Jared Leto

For Tron: Ares, it’s a start that’s under the previous installment, Tron: Legacy ($44M) 15 years ago. Potential moviegoers are fiercely making the decision not to go, meaning there’s no fear of missing out. This is what moviegoing has become: when it’s undeniable, there’s a flood. When it’s meh, whatever. People weigh their wallets, and if it seems like it’s worth waiting at home for, they’ll wait. Tron: Ares gets a B+ CinemaScore the same as Tron: Legacy — what’s the rush? The word isn’t out that this movie is better than the last despite turing a new leaf. Definite recommend at 57% in Screen Engine/Comscore PostTrak is alright, not ecstatic.
Tron: Ares was looked upon as the movie that would get the fall going in some capacity (no one was expecting that Conjuring: Last Rites which remains this season’s top opener at $84M, nor with Demon Slayer: Infinity Castle at $70M), and Disney gave it their all with San Diego Comic-Con neon stunts, a Nine Inch Nails concert the other night at the premiere, etc.
Why isn’t Tron: Ares brighter? Is it because of Jared Leto and the tabloid headlines he generated in the last year? Disney disregarded that noise and boldly trotted him out at SDCC, as well as other functions, strategically positioning the Oscar winner. He’s not the chief reason why most people went to see the movie in PostTrak audience exits at 14%. Those who bought tickets came because it’s a Tron movie (47%), because it’s sci-fi (41%) and the cool VFX (33%).
Some of what’s going on here as to do with the limitations of sci-fi at the box office. While there are amazing instances of Avatar ($77M), there’s something of a ceiling with the genre outside of Star Wars and some Star Trek. What’s happening here with Tron: Ares isn’t different from what happened with another high-hope, pricey starring sci-fi franchise reboot, 2017’s Blade Runner: 2049 at $32.7M, which came in below its expectations (that had its own franchise mythology mishaps in the marketing; the assumption being the audience for the IP was bigger than it was. Also that campaign hid more than it needed to, out of fear of spoilage, which would up being to its detriment). We can also add in Furiosa as an underperforming comp at $26.3M.

It has 15 years of ticket price hikes helping it but at the same time people in general go to the theaters less than 15 years ago.
 
Just saw it and waiting for One Battle After Another to seat. That one is in 2.5 hrs.

My review of this movie is in a theater, this is a 3.5 out of 5. At home I think this would be a 2.5 out of 5. It's fine more or less as a story. Nothing groundbreaking but not abysmal. Just very stock and standard. But it's visually great. So at a theater with a great sound system and in the best auditorium available, this will be better than watching it at home. This won't translate the same on a home TV.
 
Do you not understand how inflation works? This is them keeping the budget down. This movie is much cheaper then Legacy. Legacy would cost 250m today.

Also, important to point out. The grid, not super expensive. It's a vacant world. Shooting on location? Much more expensive.

I pay a mortgage and house bills all on my own. Of course I know how inflation works, so you can drop the condescension.

My point is, this movie is never going to make a profit at the cinema with that budget.
 
Just saw it and waiting for One Battle After Another to seat. That one is in 2.5 hrs.

My review of this movie is in a theater, this is a 3.5 out of 5. At home I think this would be a 2.5 out of 5. It's fine more or less as a story. Nothing groundbreaking but not abysmal. Just very stock and standard. But it's visually great. So at a theater with a great sound system and in the best auditorium available, this will be better than watching it at home. This won't translate the same on a home TV.
Yeah pretty much agree, not bad but nothing to rush out and see. Watched it in 3D and that was pretty spectacular visually but story/character wise not going to cut it at home, just very basic.
 
I've always found the Idea of Tron interesting but it's creatively hindered by being a Disney property. All three films are boring as piss with great soundtracks. I was more excited to hear the soundtrack than to see the actual movie.
 
The weird lack of promotion and Leto finally being outed as a sex pest probably didn't help.
It's a Tron movie. Tron Legacy got a giant push, and only did moderately well. This franchise just has a niche appeal. Add that to the fact Jared Leto is all-time problematic and unpopular currently, and well....this is what you get. I guess see you in 15 years!
 
It's a Tron movie. Tron Legacy got a giant push, and only did moderately well. This franchise just has a niche appeal. Add that to the fact Jared Leto is all-time problematic and unpopular currently, and well....this is what you get. I guess see you in 15 years!
Niel Blomkamp we need you. :o
 
Tron is done. Oh well. This was always a property wih niche appeal. At least they finished a trilogy. Also the Disney World ride too.
 
I pay a mortgage and house bills all on my own. Of course I know how inflation works, so you can drop the condescension.

My point is, this movie is never going to make a profit at the cinema with that budget.
You said they needed to keep the budget down. Can you explain how that budget isn't low for a blockbuster in 2025?
 
You said they needed to keep the budget down. Can you explain how that budget isn't low for a blockbuster in 2025?

The last Jurassic World movie cost $180 million also and had a ton off effects. Not hiring Leto would have been a start.
 
The last Jurassic World movie cost $180 million also and had a ton off effects. Not hiring Leto would have been a start.
So the same price. Cheap. And they had an actor in that movie that cost a lot more then Leto.

My stance on this movie is clear. I don't think they should've made it. But what you are saying makes no sense. This is a cheap blockbuster in 2025. Especially with how it looks.
 
So the same price. Cheap. And they had an actor in that movie that cost a lot more then Leto.

My stance on this movie is clear. I don't think they should've made it. But what you are saying makes no sense. This is a cheap blockbuster in 2025. Especially with how it looks.

But a Jurassic movie is a sure fire hit is what I am saying. A Tron movie definitely isn't so I don't know how they thought this would be profitable on that budget.

I get Tron movies aren't super cheap, so the decision to make one with that budget just doesn't make business sense to me.
 
The budget wasn't the issue. Leto was. He has no drawing power. Especially with the character shown being a boring cut out. Good fx only go so far. You need to show some interesting characters in your marketing. And the marketing for this movie was ****.
 
But a Jurassic movie is a sure fire hit is what I am saying. A Tron movie definitely isn't so I don't know how they thought this would be profitable on that budget.

I get Tron movies aren't super cheap, so the decision to make one with that budget just doesn't make business sense to me.
Your choice comes down to either making one at that budget or not at all essentially. But if you're making the choice to make one, then you have to invest that money. Tron just isn't cheap to produce by design. I wouldn't have greenlit this movie at all. Even though I like the franchise
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"