After a 15-year lull in the once technologically revolutionary “Tron” franchise, its third installment, “Tron: Ares,” marks a return to the digital frontier of the Tron universe, but fails to innovate or stun in any of the ways its predecessors have.

The story follows Jared Leto’s character Ares, a computer program made by Julian Dillinger, the grandson of “Tron’s” antagonist Edward Dillinger, who is chasing after the “permanence code,” which would allow him to live in the real world. The movie’s MacGuffin, while incredibly vague, causes Ares to cross paths with Greta Lee’s character Eve, who is trying to keep the code out of the hands of the Dillingers. Ares and Eve then must work together to stop Julian from bringing an army of programs from the grid into the real world.

“Tron: Ares” simply lacks the flair, vision, direction, visual identity and technological nuance that “Tron” and “Tron: Legacy” possess. The aesthetics of “Tron: Ares,” aesthetics which have been the main draw of the franchise since 1982, show no originality or progression of the art style from the previous two. Director Joachim Rønning shows no sense of boldness in his direction, doing nothing to innovate or distinguish his film compared to the clear direction of Steven Lisberger in “Tron” or of Joseph Kosinski in “Tron: Legacy.”

Vehicle and costume designs are virtually the same as in “Tron: Legacy” and the cartoon “Tron: Uprising.” Nothing looks or feels original in “Tron: Ares.” When you look at the sets of “Tron: Legacy,” they’re large practical sets with incredibly detailed lighting, packed with stunning set pieces. You can feel the world being presented. 

The sets of “Tron: Ares” are mostly just the streets of Toronto at night, tech offices, an empty gray hangar, or the occasional CGI-backdropped single room in the grid, all of which leave you feeling nothing.

The clear lack of creative direction in “Tron: Ares” is incredibly disappointing given how “Tron” and “Tron: Legacy” laid unforgettable reference points with their visual identity. Lisberger’s work as an animator and Kosinski’s work as an architect seep into the visuals and designs within their respective films, complementing each other through the decades. 

“Tron” is dripping in intricate lights and hard lines that bleed into every fabric of its digital world. This was completely redefined and reenvisioned in “Tron: Legacy,” but retained the core of what made “Tron” so visually stunning. The artists of both films poured so much character and care into the look of “Tron,” while “Tron: Ares” does nothing new and even lessens the impact of what came before it.

One of the main reasons why “Tron: Ares” fails to entice audiences is that it blends the line between the real world and digital world rather than committing to the intrigue of the grid. “Tron: Ares” spends so much of its runtime showing off the technology and programs of the grid in our world, but fails to realize why the first two “Tron” movies were so memorable. 

The majority of the runtime of the first two movies takes place within the grid with its massive arenas and digital hubs. Their characters explore numerous locations that have their own identity and life to them. It all feels special because it’s so different from our world. 

“Tron: Ares” never commits to displaying the digital world, and instead it occasionally shows you the ribbons of light from a lightcycle or staff to try and keep you entertained. Unfortunately, Rønning fails to understand that audiences want to truly experience the digital world, not be teased with sporadic four-minute glimpses into the grid.

The score of this movie also fails to bring audiences into the world of the grid in the way that Wendy Carlos’ and Daft Punk’s scores did for “Tron” and “Tron: Legacy” respectively. Nine Inch Nails are unable to separate their signature sound of industrial electronic from this project and the score makes the scenes feel tonally fractured. Carlos’ and Daft Punk’s scores, however, are brilliant examples of music that build the world of the grid, and both feel like they actually exist in the world of “Tron.”

Another fatal flaw of “Tron: Ares” is that its characters have no depth or real arcs, and do not even exist as conduits for the audience to experience their respective worlds. Everyone in this movie is either a tech genius, a ruthless AI killer or a cunning business executive. Strangely, Ares feels the most relatable, despite his superhuman intellect and physical ability, because he’s the only one questioning what’s happening around him.

However, Leto’s performance is simply boring. Ares, a program, spends the entire movie looking bewildered and speaking monotonically as if Leto and Rønning were under the assumption that because Ares is a computer program he is meant to act like a robot. This is a clear contrast to past franchise performances from Bruce Boxleitner, Dan Shor and Michael Sheen, who all played programs but delivered performances that bore actual soul and character.

Sadly, Lee, Evan Peters and Gillian Anderson are given very little to work with in the film. Their characters represent the human world of this movie, yet the screenplay’s characterizations of them are so shallow, predictable and uninteresting that it wastes the talents of the actors. Unfortunately, no lot of talented actors could save this movie’s predictable and weightless story that tries to ask the question: “What is the point of life?” And if the point of life is to watch Disney continually squander art in their franchises, sequels and reboots, then a life worth living it is not.

“Tron: Ares” fails to live up to the legacy of its predecessors both in world building and in technological innovation. “Tron” pioneered computer-generated graphics in film, while “Tron: Legacy” introduced technology used to de-age actors. No matter how uncanny, both were milestone technological developments. “Tron: Ares,” however, goes for nothing new and does not push any boundaries. Instead, it disappoints those who waited 15 years to see where this franchise would go.