Talk:Tron: Ares

Music by Nine Inch Nails, not Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross

The film was announced as "Music by Nine Inch Nails" not "Music by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross"

It's known and aware that Reznor and Ross are the core members of NIN, that being said: NIN and their sole names are separated bodies of work 2001:D08:182A:3B01:1:1:3BB8:587D (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

What's the issue here? They're listed as Nine Inch Nails in the infobox. Rusted AutoParts 00:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

"(stylized as TRON: Ares)"

@GSK, you reverted my edit about the stylization of the film's title. I don't want to edit war over this, but I just don't see why the article leads with this. You said that's how the film is stylized in marketing and advertising, but, looking at the poster , and other promotional materials, such as the official trailers , it's either stylized as TRON: ARES or Tron: Ares. Can you actually cite any reliable sources that back up your claim that it's stylized as TRON: Ares? Again, not wanting to edit war, just not sure why this is in the article when nothing I can find refers to it this way. Mjks28 (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi. In my (very limited) searching, I couldn't find a reliable source that uses the stylized text. I couldn't find one for Tron: Legacy either. I won't challenge any further removals of the stylized as text from the Tron articles. GSK (talk • edits) 17:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Great, thank you for replying. Mjks28 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Mjks28: Here it is. For some reason, their marketing department isn't doing a very good job at being consistent this time around (unlike previous years), but the Tron franchise has always been stylized in all caps. This is true for the previous films, TV series, and even the roller coasters, for which Disney consistently insisted on using all caps. You can verify this by looking at contemporary sources at the time of release. At least they're doing it correctly in the written press materials, but it is baffling that their social-media team did not get a memo to use the "official" stylization. I'll restore the notes here and elsewhere. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the usage from multitude of existing advertising materials should outweight one media release document. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not "one media release document", it's all of them (scroll down to "written materials"). And as you can see in the project profile, the press has been instructed to use the all-caps stylization; whether they choose to follow directions is another story, but there's no disputing that this is the official stylization, which is consistent with every other Tron project released in the past. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Dispute over lead wording of critical reception

Rambling Rambler is removing the only source that summarizes the film's overall critical reception, without replacing it with an alternative and leaving the content unsourced. The source in question — even if not perfect — represents the only synthesis of critical consensus currently cited in the article. Deleting it without providing a better or more comprehensive replacement undermines the article's reliability and violates WP:UNDUE, as it removes the sole summary of critical opinion and thus distorts the balance of coverage. Additionally, it's worth noting that you are currently the only user disputing the reliability of this source. The only other user who commented, TheMovieGuy, appears to have mistaken ComicBook.com for Comic Book Resources — the latter of which is indeed listed as unreliable at WP:RS/CBM.

If you believe the source is problematic, the appropriate approach is to propose an alternative or open a constructive discussion — not to delete without explanation. Earthh (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, this is now the second talk page subsection in quick succession you've inappropriately named about me and not the issue under discussion.

The lead is meant to act as a summary of the article overall, an article that states this:

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 54% of 99 critics' reviews are positive. Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 49 out of 100, based on 38 critics, indicating "mixed or average" reviews.

What you (and you alone) keep reverting repeatedly is a claim in the lead that has been disputed by multiple editors and personally I believe misrepresents the opinion of a single source as being general consensus.

The source used most explicitly in its comparisons says the following: While that’s a far cry from a Certified Fresh mark, Ares has a higher score than its predecessor. Tron: Legacy has a 51% on Rotten Tomatoes. The original Tron has the franchise’s best score with 60%.

You however keep introducing wording such as "Like its predecessor, the film received mixed reviews from critics, although it was generally regarded as superior"

A slight greater percentage of positive reviews does not constitute you introducing an unsourced claim that it was qualitatively "superior". Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Hello. I understand WP:FILM1STSENTENCE is not a MOS article, and is an essay, but it has some solid points about introducing the reader (especially a non-specialist reader) to the article. In the case of this film, neither director Joachim Ronning or the writers are the most noteworthy context. We do not need to include director and writer in every single lead sentence. The fact that it is a new Tron film is the most relevant aspect of the film. Plus, the writers do not even have Wikipedia articles, meaning that including them in lead constitutes undue weight, as the reader might have no idea who they are and if they want to know, they would not look further into Wikipedia due to lack of an article. The film is referred to as "Disney's Tron Ares" or as a "Disney film" first and foremost in mulitple realible sources and not "Joachim Ronning's Tron Ares". Reader needs to make sure they are reading about "Tron Ares, the sequel to Tron Legacy" or "Tron Ares the Disney film". Joy040207 (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Changing the opening sentence

Since attempts to add a note citing Tron: Legacy to the sentence "Fifteen years after Sam Flynn's attempt to retrieve his father Kevin from the Grid" are constantly being reverted, it should be replaced with simply "In 2025". Sam trying to bring his father back has no bearing on this film's plot anyways ~2025-36161-28 (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Arriva Kent 6559 (SK74 AXD), Alexander Dennis Enviro400, Route 101 to Maidstone, with TRON Ares advertisement, Chatham Bus Station, Railway Street, 2 October 2025.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Arriva Kent 6559 (SK74 AXD), Alexander Dennis Enviro400, Route 101 to Maidstone, with TRON Ares advertisement, Chatham Bus Station, Railway Street, 2 October 2025.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Plot section needs work.

"ENCOM's CEO Eve Kim and her partner Seth Flores visit a remote station near Skagway, Alaska built decades earlier by Kevin Flynn. Finding Flynn's "permanence code", enabling constructs to exist for more than 29-minute intervals, they transfer a digital orange tree into the real world."

This isn't true. The hut they visit in Alaska isn't Kevin Flynn's, it was put there by Eve's sister Tess and stocked up with a mixture of modern computers and old equipment capable of reading Flynn's old floppy discs, as well as Tess' personal effects and other things she found meaningful and motivating. The entire point of the location was that Tess was working offline in a deeply remote, hidden location to foil Dillinger's corporate espionage. ~2025-41757-04 (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)