Jump to content

Talk:Tron: Legacy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 199: Line 199:
==Interesting==
==Interesting==
I was perusing the official website for TRON: Legacy, and in the "codex" section containing information about each of the chracters, [[Dan Shor]] is credited as the actor in the role of Rinzler (here's the link http://disney.go.com/tron/html/codex/tron-legacy/programs.html#). I was using the "lite" version of the site, which does not support Flash. Strangely, when I checked the character information on the Flash version of the site, there is no actor listed in the role. I had paid little attention to the credits when I saw the actual film, but am fully aware that Anis Cheurfa was the stunt actor portraying Rinzler (SPOILER - and that Rinzler was in fact Tron, voiced by Boxleitner). The info on the official site however, would seem to suggest that Shor was possibly, at some point, connected to the film. Zargabaath 07:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zargabaath|Zargabaath]] ([[User talk:Zargabaath|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zargabaath|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I was perusing the official website for TRON: Legacy, and in the "codex" section containing information about each of the chracters, [[Dan Shor]] is credited as the actor in the role of Rinzler (here's the link http://disney.go.com/tron/html/codex/tron-legacy/programs.html#). I was using the "lite" version of the site, which does not support Flash. Strangely, when I checked the character information on the Flash version of the site, there is no actor listed in the role. I had paid little attention to the credits when I saw the actual film, but am fully aware that Anis Cheurfa was the stunt actor portraying Rinzler (SPOILER - and that Rinzler was in fact Tron, voiced by Boxleitner). The info on the official site however, would seem to suggest that Shor was possibly, at some point, connected to the film. Zargabaath 07:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zargabaath|Zargabaath]] ([[User talk:Zargabaath|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zargabaath|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== How much time passed for Flynn on the Grid? ==
Flynn states the portal to back home will remain open for 1 milli-cycle, which is equivalent of 8 hours grid time. A milli-cycle, based on metric terminology would be 1/1000th of a cycle. How long a cycle is in context of the film is not given, but probably isn't a very substantial amount of time.

If we assumed a cycle was 1 second long, therefore meaning that every second passing in real time was an equivalent of 8 hours on the grid, then Flynn, who spent 20 years real time in the grid, would have experienced effectively '''576 million years'''. This is like being around since insects since evolved on our planet and before dinosaurs existed.

However, if we assume he meant a computer clock cycle, then Flynn is much older, as a computer clock cycle is micro fraction of a second. A 1 Megahertz CPU has a million clock cycles per second. In 1989, 20 megahertz CPUs were released. If the milli-cycle that Flynn referred to was 1/1000th of a computer clock cycle, and his machine was on par with current standards (which a CEO of a computer tech firm would be), then a milli-cycle would be '''20 billionth of a second long''', or 1/20th of a nanosecond. This would mean he was 11,520,000,000,000,000,000 or eleven and a half quintillion years old. To put this number in perspective, that would make Flynn effectively '''837 million ''times'' older than the universe'''.

We could assume that a cycle is much longer, but based on the first Tron film, and how no time seemed pass between Flynn being zapped into the computer world and escaping it, that wouldn't seem to be the case.

Would love to hear something more definitive that this.

Revision as of 05:16, 19 December 2010

WikiProject iconFilm: American Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject iconDisney Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconScience Fiction Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

References to use

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]

Appearance by Tron Guy

yup that's right it is rumored that Tron Guy will in the movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.49.184 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And? Do you have sources, or are you just spreading rumours? magnius (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This thread does smack of forum chatter, doesn't it? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. So where's a good forum to discuss the new movie? Cousert (talk)

two major items

a) there MUST be an official citation from Disney showing that this film is in production before it is added to List of Disney feature films. One of you who are familiar with editing this page should be able to track one down. The comiccon trailer is not an official announcement, as that was merely proof-of-concept. Yes, I know about the D23 announcement stating the Tron footage will be shown at Expo, but that doesn't count either. b) this page should be renamed to "Tron (2011 film)" from its current Tron 2.0, as there is no proof that the 2.0 name is real. SpikeJones (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.... and now we're down to one major item, as the film has, while not been officially officially announced, made it into a Disney press release for its announcement at Comic-Con. What's left is that there is a high probability that the name of this article will change. Chances are "Tron (2011 film)" is going to be what it is, but we'll need to wait some more before that decision is made. SpikeJones (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're not going to simply call it "Tron" as it is a sequel, and it is still far too early to speculate on what its final title will be. I do think that this article should be renamed to the more generic "Tron 2" "Tron sequel" or "Unnamed Tron sequel". magnius (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Unnamed Tron Sequel" would qualify as a reason to get the article speedily deleted (if it's unnamed, then how is it encyclopedic?). "Tron 2" is too generic and potentially confusing with "Tron 2.0". "Tron (2011 film)" is the most specific name based on what we currently know. Regardless, it's not something we need to take care of now, but to be aware of once the official name announcement is made. SpikeJones (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen the officially released synopsis, you could be right about the title being just "TRON", although I hope this changes as it is rather confusing. magnius (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed

Aside from there not being a single reliable source, this image is not going to be used in the film by the artists own admission: [1]. Therefore, I am removing the image until something verifiable comes along. magnius (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As well as removal of fanart, I am removing the Daniel Simon picture as the sourced article does not explicitly state that this cycle is a concept from the film, it seems just to be an example of Simon's work from here [2]. magnius (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jefferies

Are we sure that this guy was involved in writing the film? --Kelseigh (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course he wasn't, clearly a simple error that you could have sorted out in less time that it took you to post this stupid question. magnius (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly had no idea who the actual writer was, but thanks for the condescending insult, it's really encouraging. --Kelseigh (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be nice..., Rhetth (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of Darkness

There's a lot of discussion on whether Tron Legacy is inspired by Heart of Darkness. One earlier script was, and apparently the film script doesn't, but the trailer sure seems to hint at it. Regardless, the relationship between the two works seems to be strong. JAF1970 (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viral site

Flynn Lives JAF1970 (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canon

It would seem that the game Tron 2.0 isn't going to be regarded as canon. In the game, Flynn didn't disappear in 1989, as there are more modern e-mail conversations. The Tron wiki over at Wikia says Steven Lisberger doesn't consider the game as canon either. --Mosquitopsu (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly a surprise, the game didn't sell too well and the majority of the audience would have no idea what the plot was (I know I don't). magnius (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, there's an item you have to recover in the game which is called the Tron Legacy code. I think the similarity to the new movie's title is more than a coincidence. Devil Master (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIR, the Tron Legacy Code is named so because it's a replacement/upgrade of Tron. Any similarity to the movie is likely only coincidence.--Cyberman TM (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As always, we'll need verifiable info from reliable sources before this is anything more than speculation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities to Other Works

Just commenting that the trailer highly reminds me of Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash. Then again, the original Tron came way earlier. Quantalume Wanderer (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Character "Clu"

Wasn't Clu "de-rezed" at the beginning of Tron? Cousert (talk)

Ever heard of backups? Devil Master (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Is the cyber world of Tron run on a quantum computer? Supposedly backups won't be possible on quantum computers (the mere act of looking at a qbit will change its value). Cousert (talk)
Maybe this will help - [3] Cousert (talk)
It's just a film, and we have no clear idea of the plot, so this is a pointless coversation. Talk pages are not here to serve as a general discussion forum, if you wish to discuss your original research or POV then take it to a dedicated site. magnius (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete my Wikipedia account. I have no interest in participating in a group that censors its members. Cousert (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Who's censoring what? Magnius merely pointed out that this discussion is outside what's acceptable on the article talk page. There are policies on Wikipedia, and editors are expected to abide by them - if you aren't willing to deal with that, then by all means, post a request to have your account deleted at the Administrator's Noticeboard. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of sequels?

Are there plans to do more than one sequel if the first is successful? Maybe a trilogy? Cousert (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Don't know. No reliable sources exist to say whether there are any plans like that yet. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link to director

Shouldn't there be a wikilink to Joseph Kosinski? Or am I missing something? Please, be gentle. Rhetth (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there should, but you also added a load of redlinks which was the reason for the revert. I hadn't noticed that you has created a page for the director, up until now he has been a redlink too. magnius (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Red links are extremely useful because they are excellent in identifying articles that need creation. This is especially true in a case where a simple search with the string "Joseph Kosinski" shows about a dozen or so Wikipedia articles mentioning the red-linked subject. In such a case, the red link identifies that the article is needed but not yet created. We should not de-link red links unless it is unlikely that an article about the subject will be created. It's always a good idea to click the red link and check the Special:WhatLinksHere link as well as to do a search of Wikipedia with the string in question before de-linking any red links. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real trailer

When can we expect to see a trailer for the movie, not just the test film they showed at Comic Con? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.45.171 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want a link to the trailer on the main article. This is a valid request, please do not delete it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.45.171 (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then please do the research yourself. The talk pages are meant to discuss issues/suggestions/conflicts regarding the article, not to make this type of requests. Also, please remember to sign your comments. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Flynn's alias?

Does Sam Flynn have an alias?

If Dad was CLU, then Java could be appropriate, I should think. Java is a short name, like CLU. Although CLU predated Java by about 20 years, it had similar features: Garbage collection, Exception handling, and iterators. CLU has clusters, used for abstract data types, so they weren't fully object-oriented, as JAVA's classes are rhyre (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is something that would be best suited for a forum. Unless we have a source that states something of this nature, any talk on this subject would be speculation and off-topic for purposes of the article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. (Though it might be fair to mention, Flynn himself did not have an alias while on the Grid, he just went by "Flynn." CLU was just a program Flynn created). Zargabaath 16:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Budget amount

Are we sure the budget is 300 million. I want a source claiming that amount. Anyone want to lend thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.234.143 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, this has been added and reverted endlessly for months. About time we had a source, or not at all. magnius (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title wrong

Why Tron : Legacy instead of Tron Legacy ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.245.234.47 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with that question ... why wasn't there a move discussion before this took place? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, in fact I questioned the move at the time, but no consensus ever got reached. Time this was opened up for question again. magnius (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember seeing someone on Tron's page (I think) change the reference to this movie to include the colon. At the time they said that all of the official movie press was listing the film that way. No one else commented and a few days later I saw the move change log go by in my watchlist. I just assumed someone confirmed that (since I never bothered to go look it up for myself). Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google shows imdb (yeah I know) has it listed without the colon. It is, however, in the official "info" blurb (although it seems to be absent from the movie's logo) on the official site. SO I believe the title is correct with the colon. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support page move. There are enough references on the official Tron website and in released official Disney statements that show the colon is used in text, even if the colon is not displayed in the graphic logo.SpikeJones (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.233.237.215 (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Morgan?

"As Dr. Lora Baines, Cindy Morgan appeared with Bruce Boxleitner (as Alan Bradley) at the Encom Press Conference in San Francisco, April 2, 2010. It was revealed that Lora and Alan had married." However, Cindy Morgan is not listed under the cast. Is she in the movie but hasn't been seen yet or is she only doing the promotion? Occamsrazorwit (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last I heard, she's not actually in the movie. I haven't been following all the story behind this movie, but if it has any relation to the game Tron 2.0, then Lora Baines/Bradley would have died in a dematerialization accident before the game's (and this movie's) storyline. I honestly don't know if there's any continuity between the PC game and the movie, so it's possible that Lora would still be alive and just not appearing in the film. (It's also possible that she'll be in the movie uncredited - some very famous actors sometimes do that.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true

"At over twenty-eight years, this film marks the longest gap between a live-action film and its theatrical sequel in Hollywood history."

Actually, Return to Oz was 44 years after The Wizard of Oz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.30.57.81 (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Return t Oz isn't strictly a sequel (although admitedly set after the events of the previous film). Rather like the recent Alice in Wonderland, it uses a follow up book as it's source material, but isn't a sequel to the Disney animated feature. magnius (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, The Odd Couple 2 does prove the statement wrong, being a direct sequel that came out 30 years after the original film.
All true, but it doesn't stop them marketing it as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendroche (talk • contribs) 05:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British?

"Tron: Legacy is a British and American upcoming 2010 science fiction film."

Is there any cite to suggest British involvment in the film? As far as I can see from the information in the article itself none of the people or companies involved in its production are British. 82.69.25.240 (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having done a fair amount of looking around, the only British involvement in Tron is that it's being released here.Where is WikiResearch? (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Tron 2" redirect

I started a discussion about the "Tron 2" redirect here. Any input is welcome. Rehevkor ✉ 02:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for Alan Bradley & Lora Baines marriage

I have no idea how to link this, so I'm posting it here to let someone who does know how to add it. On the official TRON: Legacy site, under the Codex, then Users, then Alan Bradley it confirms it by saying: "After Flynn's disappearance in 1989, Alan continued at ENCOM to protect the company and married Dr. Lora Baines." You can only direct link to the user page of the codex, not the individual entries, here's that link: http://disney.go.com/tron/html/codex/tron-legacy/users.html --Maestro4k (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation?

Correct me if I am wrong, but an IP has placed a Copyvio warning template because the plot summary is very similar to the Facebook profile. Should we just rewrite the plot summary? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the last version before the copyvio went in, and compared it against the Facebook version. There are a number of similar phrases, and would agree that this is at least plagiarism. I think a copyvio tag was probably a bit excessive, especially when the description was at least sourced. That said, the description does need to be altered ... for now. This will be a moot point next Thursday night/Friday morning, when the fanboys (er, "enthusiastic editors") get in here and post complete plot descriptions of the film. Anyone know an online admin that follows this article that can take care of this by deleting the offending content and letting other editors rewrite it? --McDoobAU93 00:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright for facebook articles and pages only covers material that is uploaded to the site (such as pictures, videos, artwork, etc.) (see Facebook Copyright info). As the plot outline has to be entered manually (even if copy-pasted) it does not fall in this category. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any copyright notifications or even that the page has been created by the copyright holders. It seems likely that this page was created by a third party (who may also be responsible for posting the copyright infringement). Without confirmation from Disney Studios the copyright notification has no validity and should be rescinded immediately. I have contacted Disney and requested assistance from them to resolve this matter. I would also state that it is my belief that if no evidence of copyright can be found for the material then, as the article provides free publicity and advertising for the film that the article be re-instated in full (which it has)
The article itself, however, should be redone anyway as it is poorly written and far too much like an advertisement for the film.Angry Mustelid (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb Dubai

IMDb should not be used as a source for release dates in this case. At least one of the dates is wrong - Dubai. the DIFF website puts the date as 18th - this is also repeated in a number of news articles. As the primary source, this supercedes IMDb and brings into question the accuracy of information for any other release dates. Angry Mustelid (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Hello, I have removed Brigham Taylor and Julien Lemaitre from the Producers in the infobox to more accurately reflect the production credits: [4]. The article could benefit from an inclusion of the film’s official Facebook page and Twitter handle to the External Links section. Based on the External Links policy, I have determined that the links provide unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. Wanted you all to weigh in on this before making the change. HipJorge (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Facebook page is just a fanboy rehash of the official page with some comments. It and the twitter link should probably be added (only because the fanboys will complain and do it anyway) but only for a limited time - 3 months after release, neither are going to have any new content (until maybe DVD time) and neither can be considered reliable sources of information.Angry Mustelid (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold and do something about it then. ♫ Douglasr007 (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I went ahead and added these links. Wasn't sure about the formatting, if you feel there is a better way to format this type of EL, I'm open to change it. HipJorge (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception Section Commentary

The critical reception segment reads: "The audience less-received the Tron Sequel because it lacks the depth to match its predecessor."

That just sounds like free speculation to me, as if someone came in and typed their personal opinion on the matter. It shouldn't be stated as fact like that; there should be clear identification of the source of that commentary. After all, it's not Wikipedia's place to provide subjective analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.186.155 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2D/3D issue

I'm not sure how his/her edit affected the article, but an edit summary by 76.66.181.112 included a claim that the 2D segments were fixed-depth 3D rather than true "flat" 2D, and I wish to respond. This may be true of the non-3D scenes in the TRON world, but all the real world stuff was completely flat 2D with no effects. The message at the beginning of the film does not say that glasses "MUST be worn at all times", it simply asks the audience to keep them on even though the film switches between 2D and 3D. The glasses used with realD 3D don't do much when you're viewing 2D except dim and/or blur the picture a bit, like very lightly-tinted sunglasses. Fixed-depth 3D does exist and may have been used in non-3D TRON world scenes, but the real world stuff was plain old 2D, and intended that way. They could just as well have said "put your glasses on when entering the TRON world" since that was the only time they were needed. MaxVolume (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I viewed the film in IMAX 3D, and peered out of the side of my glasses numerous times to try and see which scenes were 2D. To my knowledge, the only part that was not 3D were the credits (I figured the "real world" scenes were the most likely to be 2D, but alas, they were 3D as well). I cannot speak for the RealD cuts. Zargabaath 07:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting

I was perusing the official website for TRON: Legacy, and in the "codex" section containing information about each of the chracters, Dan Shor is credited as the actor in the role of Rinzler (here's the link http://disney.go.com/tron/html/codex/tron-legacy/programs.html#). I was using the "lite" version of the site, which does not support Flash. Strangely, when I checked the character information on the Flash version of the site, there is no actor listed in the role. I had paid little attention to the credits when I saw the actual film, but am fully aware that Anis Cheurfa was the stunt actor portraying Rinzler (SPOILER - and that Rinzler was in fact Tron, voiced by Boxleitner). The info on the official site however, would seem to suggest that Shor was possibly, at some point, connected to the film. Zargabaath 07:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zargabaath (talk • contribs)

How much time passed for Flynn on the Grid?

Flynn states the portal to back home will remain open for 1 milli-cycle, which is equivalent of 8 hours grid time. A milli-cycle, based on metric terminology would be 1/1000th of a cycle. How long a cycle is in context of the film is not given, but probably isn't a very substantial amount of time.

If we assumed a cycle was 1 second long, therefore meaning that every second passing in real time was an equivalent of 8 hours on the grid, then Flynn, who spent 20 years real time in the grid, would have experienced effectively 576 million years. This is like being around since insects since evolved on our planet and before dinosaurs existed.

However, if we assume he meant a computer clock cycle, then Flynn is much older, as a computer clock cycle is micro fraction of a second. A 1 Megahertz CPU has a million clock cycles per second. In 1989, 20 megahertz CPUs were released. If the milli-cycle that Flynn referred to was 1/1000th of a computer clock cycle, and his machine was on par with current standards (which a CEO of a computer tech firm would be), then a milli-cycle would be 20 billionth of a second long, or 1/20th of a nanosecond. This would mean he was 11,520,000,000,000,000,000 or eleven and a half quintillion years old. To put this number in perspective, that would make Flynn effectively 837 million times older than the universe.

We could assume that a cycle is much longer, but based on the first Tron film, and how no time seemed pass between Flynn being zapped into the computer world and escaping it, that wouldn't seem to be the case.

Would love to hear something more definitive that this.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tron:_Legacy&oldid=403130572"