Many of the criticisms lobbed at 'TRON: Legacy' over the past few weeks have had to do with its weak story. The visuals? Cool. Story? Eh. Fans have been more lenient than critics, but general consensus remains that this could've been a better movie. So if that's the case, then how could this film have been better? Was it the story that got in the way, or was it Disney's marketing strategy?
Disney wanted this to be the beginning of a brand-new franchise -- and it still may become that -- but was it a good choice to launch a new franchise with a sequel to a 28-year-old film that you didn't want people to watch beforehand? With Hollywood remaking and rebooting franchises left and right, you have to wonder whether it may have been a smarter decision to reboot the TRON franchise instead of make a sequel. Yes, the TRON brand is so firmly rooted in the '80s, and a sequel may make more sense on paper (especially when Jeff Bridges agrees to reprise his original role), but a reboot would've allowed Disney to make a movie on their own terms, from scratch, without being restricted by the installment that came before.
Therefore we'd have less exposition (aka "time spent telling the audience everything that happened in and since the first film") and more time to spend on creating a spectacular new adventure using all the great technology found in today's world. Considering the majority of people seeing it wouldn't be familiar with the original (because they never saw it), why do a sequel and not a reboot? Throw Tom Hardy or Sam Worthington in that sucker (and give Bridges a cool fanboy-friendly cameo) and maybe we would've seen a better movie.
What do you think?