Terminator Salvation

[Random]

Wait....


T2 scared you?


*falls over laughing*

Please, it was an above average sci-fi flick, it wasn't even a good thriller. At no point was Sarah or John in any real danger, and I could figure that out when I was a kid. It was hamfisted, and with the ham acting and completely WTF moments of dialogue, it was almost TV movie level bad.

Why T2 got an R rating is completely the **** beyond me. I am astounded at how nostalgia clouds the truth.

Well as I recall T2 did just have bad language and a bit more graphic violence. And really Salvation isn't really hurt by the rating, as in, it doesn't feel like they're trying to make it friendlier. The language and violence are pretty high without breaking a PG13 rating. Sometimes R doesn;t mean better.

But Bass is totally right on the style. The first two had a very unique style and storytelling method that is not present in Salvation

 

[Planet-man]

I know it wouldn't make sense. As someone who seen the movie it definitely would not work story wise. But it is awesome just the idea of it. Think about sometime you exit a movie saying "Wouldn't it be something if...?" I like that filmmakers consider things like that so radically

Ideas like that aren't "awesome" at all to me because absolutely anybody can think of them. Any movie could potentially end with the world blowing up for no reason. Radical is easy. It's only a real idea if they can make the story make sense and still be just as radical and shocking. The fact that an ending that completely non-sensical actually made it this far just because Christian Bale thought it was radical is horrifying.

Wait....


T2 scared you?


*falls over laughing*

Please, it was an above average sci-fi flick, it wasn't even a good thriller. At no point was Sarah or John in any real danger, and I could figure that out when I was a kid. It was hamfisted, and with the ham acting and completely WTF moments of dialogue, it was almost TV movie level bad.

Why T2 got an R rating is completely the **** beyond me. I am astounded at how nostalgia clouds the truth.

Yeah, I'm sure it was also nostalgia that made people give it all those Oscars and all those hundreds of millions of dollars and have it become one of the most popular and beloved movies ever made.... within weeks of its release.... as well.

Oh, and you're never allowed to accuse me of "trying to be cool by hating on what's popular" again. Not to mention trolling. Bass is not only doesn't know "the truth" about T2, but his actual ability to tell right from wrong has been clouded. Holy ****.

 

[Bass]

Wait....

T2 scared you?

*falls over laughing*

Please, it was an above average sci-fi flick, it wasn't even a good thriller. At no point was Sarah or John in any real danger, and I could figure that out when I was a kid. It was hamfisted, and with the ham acting and completely WTF moments of dialogue, it was almost TV movie level bad.

Why T2 got an R rating is completely the **** beyond me. I am astounded at how nostalgia clouds the truth.

That implies I haven't seen it since the first time I saw it as a kid. I saw it this year. I probably watch it once a year. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it.

You are sometimes so surprisingly dismissive of other opinions, you remind me of JTG.

Yeah. I gotta agree with skotti on this one, Bass. The all-star team-up of Arnie and Eddie Furlong is a pretty sad watermark for acting. I certainly wouldn't call it horrifying.

I still hold to the fact that T2 is one of the greatest action films ever made. That's got nothing to do with the acting or the themes or anything like that. It's a great action movie entirely on account of the choreography of the action sequences. That's the only strength the movie has going for it, but it's executed so well that it doesn't matter.

Still, that projected ending to Salvation makes T2 look like Shakespeare.

Right, if you both watch the movie again, you'll notice that the movie plays up the horror and slowly replaces it with comedy and action as it progresses.

There's Sarah's nuclear dream (and her hole ordeal in the asylum), the repeated stabbings of the T-1000 are all pretty horrific as is that groan that accompanies him, that sound. There's the gravitas that the future will happen, and that humans are to blame for it. There's a desperation in the lack of rest, and blah blah blah. You either agree or don't. But with the exception of Arnie getting on the motorbike at the beginning, the film is played like a horror film until Sarah Connor decides to change the future. By the time we get to the raid on Cyberdyne, that element of the movie has gone (since they're trying to change the future) and Arnie can smile and crack gags, and wave his thumb in the air as he dies.

It's not the best film ever, and the first movie is probably a better film, but the reason people still remember it fondly is because it was genuine in its excitement, and in conveying the core of its premise: that a nightmare of a future is on the horizon. Nightmares are scary.

The first two Terminators played on that fear. The other movies and tv show didn't. They play on the kinetic excitement of humans fighting robots and nothing else.

 

[Bass]

But Bass is totally right on the style. The first two had a very unique style and storytelling method that is not present in Salvation

It's bizarre. If any part of the franchise desperately needed to be R, it would be this one. We got glimpses of it, and it was enough to make you think the future was hellish. I saw the trailer for this, and I felt like one could simply ride out into the desert, hide in a shack, and avoid it. It looked like the world was actually okay, just had some debris and not roads of skulls everywhere. :?

 

[Zombipanda]

Right, if you both watch the movie again, you'll notice that the movie plays up the horror and slowly replaces it with comedy and action as it progresses.

There's Sarah's nuclear dream (and her hole ordeal in the asylum), the repeated stabbings of the T-1000 are all pretty horrific as is that groan that accompanies him, that sound. There's the gravitas that the future will happen, and that humans are to blame for it. There's a desperation in the lack of rest, and blah blah blah. You either agree or don't. But with the exception of Arnie getting on the motorbike at the beginning, the film is played like a horror film until Sarah Connor decides to change the future. By the time we get to the raid on Cyberdyne, that element of the movie has gone (since they're trying to change the future) and Arnie can smile and crack gags, and wave his thumb in the air as he dies.

It's not the best film ever, and the first movie is probably a better film, but the reason people still remember it fondly is because it was genuine in its excitement, and in conveying the core of its premise: that a nightmare of a future is on the horizon. Nightmares are scary.

The first two Terminators played on that fear. The other movies and tv show didn't. They play on the kinetic excitement of humans fighting robots and nothing else.

I watched T2 about a month ago. I'm actually thinking about watching it again tonight. Honestly, I love the movie. Looking back at it, so much of it is campy. But, I feel the reason it works has nothing to do with the script writing or the acting. It's just brilliant from a technical standpoint. It works because of how well they visualized the future, how well they visualized the villain, and how well the action sequences were strung together.

I think, if anything, it's a testament to the fact that film, as a medium, doesn't need to stand on the strength of its characters. Strong visuals and strong kinetic energy can hold up a movie. The horror is just icing.

Because really... Where does the horror come from? The idea that humans are relying too much on technology? Okay.... That's fine, but it doesn't really expand on the ethical conflict. Is it that humans are cruel, but if we try, we can be better? Again, not something that's touched on in any meaningful way. And the time travel element is laughably non-sensical. The horror relies on an innate fear that's as visceral as the action.

I don't think the problem is that it's not horrifying enough (although, with the glimpses of the future in T2, it should have presented a more grim and gruesome future earth). It's that the flow of action won't ever be able to stand up to the tempo and choreography of Terminator 2.

 

[Random]

Ideas like that aren't "awesome" at all to me because absolutely anybody can think of them. Any movie could potentially end with the world blowing up for no reason. Radical is easy. It's only a real idea if they can make the story make sense and still be just as radical and shocking.

I'm not saying it's awesome just because it's shocking, it's that directors are willing to try the radical, to try the unique. To do something totally different. Not just the norm of the happy ending, but willing to take a popular franchise and throw it on it's head. Hollywood needs more original line of thinking like that to push a story into a different territory. Yes if they had just replace the last scenes it would not work, there would of had to be reshoots to gear the movie's story towards that ending. It seems the change was made quite early and wasn;t a last minute decision.

The fact that an ending that completely non-sensical actually made it this far just because Christian Bale thought it was radical is horrifying.

Did you read the article? Because it was the director that was really pushing for it. The studio signed off on it before Bale was attached. Bale was just in support of doing something radically different. And when the decision was made not to he gracefully agreed. It was not just Bale yelling "we need this to be the ending!" He was just offering his opinion. The ending didn't get as far because of Bale, would have gone just as far even without him.

My philosophy is that you should always at least appreciate someone doing something innovative, pushing what a blockbuster can do storytelling wise, things that are different and not predictable. Have the bad guys win. Sure it would left me sour in the theater but damn it I would respect the balls it took to have the terminator win.

I watched T2 about a month ago. I'm actually thinking about watching it again tonight. Honestly, I love the movie. Looking back at it, so much of it is campy. But, I feel the reason it works has nothing to do with the script writing or the acting. It's just brilliant from a technical standpoint. It works because of how well they visualized the future, how well they visualized the villain, and how well the action sequences were strung together.

I think, if anything, it's a testament to the fact that film, as a medium, doesn't need to stand on the strength of its characters. Strong visuals and strong kinetic energy can hold up a movie. The horror is just icing.

Because really... Where does the horror come from? The idea that humans are relying too much on technology? Okay.... That's fine, but it doesn't really expand on the ethical conflict. Is it that humans are cruel, but if we try, we can be better? Again, not something that's touched on in any meaningful way. And the time travel element is laughably non-sensical. The horror relies on an innate fear that's as visceral as the action.

Right on the money, it was how it was done, rather than what.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

If I'm not mistaken didn't T2 come out in the days before the PG-13 rating? I watched it the other day and I'm not so sure it would have been rated R if it was released today. A fair amount of blood and violence is allowed in PG-13 movies today. I really get annoyed by the people that complain about the new movie simply because it's rated PG-13, as if that in and of itself is some sort of cop out. I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not saying that it is good or that the filmmakers couldn't have done more to make it a more mature movie, so take that for whatever it's worth.

 

[thee great one]

That's a rubbish ending. If Marcus could do that, why doesn't he do that when he meets Connor for the first time?

I've not seen the movie (I doubt I will), but it seems that it's just become Men vs Machines and nothing more. It's PG13. It's TRANSFORMERS.

The first two Terminator movies scared me. The first movie is a horror film, not an action movie. It's a HORROR film. Like FRIDAY THE 13TH or NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET or ALIEN. And the second movie, was an action movie with horror elements, both keeping true to the desperate futility of the impending armageddon. That the armageddon is coming, you can't stop it, and it's the end of everything. This oppressive future terror.

And it turns out that this terror is rated PG13.

It's betrayed itself.

I agree. It felt like survival horror to me. T2 was pretty scary when I was a kid.

 

[Bass]

Because really... Where does the horror come from? The idea that humans are relying too much on technology? Okay.... That's fine, but it doesn't really expand on the ethical conflict. Is it that humans are cruel, but if we try, we can be better? Again, not something that's touched on in any meaningful way. And the time travel element is laughably non-sensical. The horror relies on an innate fear that's as visceral as the action.

I would think the horror lies in the whole "nightmare man is coming to get you and you can't stop him".

I don't think the problem is that it's not horrifying enough (although, with the glimpses of the future in T2, it should have presented a more grim and gruesome future earth). It's that the flow of action won't ever be able to stand up to the tempo and choreography of Terminator 2.

I agree - visually, the movie is stunning. It's almost 20 years old, and it still looks amazing. The T-1000 hasn't aged at all. And also, the structural pace is remarkable. It's one of the things that annoys me, actually - there are so many different versions of the movie out there, and each one adds some random number of minutes to the film that hurts the pacing. Like the scene where Sarah tries to kill the T-800 when he's switched off. Or the scene where the T-800 tries to smile. It's not that they're bad scenes, it's just that the kinesis you describe so well is missing when they're around.

If I'm not mistaken didn't T2 come out in the days before the PG-13 rating? I watched it the other day and I'm not so sure it would have been rated R if it was released today. A fair amount of blood and violence is allowed in PG-13 movies today. I really get annoyed by the people that complain about the new movie simply because it's rated PG-13, as if that in and of itself is some sort of cop out. I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not saying that it is good or that the filmmakers couldn't have done more to make it a more mature movie, so take that for whatever it's worth.

That's a very fair point. I'm sure any film made 17 years ago will seem 'tamer' by today's standards, but I think that the rating goes further than just what's shown on screen. In SEVEN, you don't see a single murder nor body. Just hints and little shots here and there. And there's little swearing. But that film just can't be a PG13. Even if you took out the swearing. The subject matter and the way in which its used is too intensive for younger audiences. ALIEN has one visual moment: the chest-bursting scene. Other than that, it barely swears or has blood. And you never see the Alien completely. And it's an 18. It's more than just what you can see. A PG13 isn't necessarily a death sentence; Pixar makes movies more deep than most PG13s (or any films ever ever ever), but in this particular franchise I assume its relevant.

But what you say is fair; I'm just assuming and writing it off because of its rating and that's not particularly fair of me.

 

[Planet-man]

I agree with Bass about T2, in all but about T1 being the better film. I think T2 is better overall, but T1 is just better from a relative standpoint, in that it's an incredible achievement. Basically a B-Movie on a shoestring budget that became something beautiful and way more than just the sum of its parts. It's one of like four or five films specifically responsible for me wanting to make movies.

And about the pacing of T2. The fully expanded version is, to me, the definitive version of the film. Scenes like the ones you described do affect the pacing, but I think they effect it for the better.

It's bizarre. If any part of the franchise desperately needed to be R, it would be this one. We got glimpses of it, and it was enough to make you think the future was hellish. I saw the trailer for this, and I felt like one could simply ride out into the desert, hide in a shack, and avoid it. It looked like the world was actually okay, just had some debris and not roads of skulls everywhere. :?

I agree with this too.

I'm not saying it's awesome just because it's shocking, it's that directors are willing to try the radical, to try the unique. To do something totally different. Not just the norm of the happy ending, but willing to take a popular franchise and throw it on it's head. Hollywood needs more original line of thinking like that to push a story into a different territory.

But who cares, if it doesn't make sense? Creativity and spontaneous randomness aren't the same thing. A meteor hitting and turning everyone into a baby would've been a pretty shocking ending for a blockbuster too. Would it impress you? It's not what Hollywood needs. The only thing they need is good writing. Good writing can make an unoriginal story into an incredibly moving script. Radicalness can't make a hole-filled story make sense.

Did you read the article? Because it was the director that was really pushing for it. The studio signed off on it before Bale was attached. Bale was just in support of doing something radically different. And when the decision was made not to he gracefully agreed. It was not just Bale yelling "we need this to be the ending!" He was just offering his opinion. The ending didn't get as far because of Bale, would have gone just as far even without him.

Sorry, I meant the director too, and mentioned him in an earlier post. I basically just mean the idea of a decades-old franchise coming that close to being completely buried by such nonsensical idea just because a few newcomers wanted to shove it in there.

My philosophy is that you should always at least appreciate someone doing something innovative, pushing what a blockbuster can do storytelling wise, things that are different and not predictable. Have the bad guys win. Sure it would left me sour in the theater but damn it I would respect the balls it took to have the terminator win.

I still disagree. I don't think innovation takes any balls on its own. I would respect the balls it took to hunker down and make a good story that really works out of innovation. Otherwise it's just wasting the idea.

If I'm not mistaken didn't T2 come out in the days before the PG-13 rating? I watched it the other day and I'm not so sure it would have been rated R if it was released today. A fair amount of blood and violence is allowed in PG-13 movies today. I really get annoyed by the people that complain about the new movie simply because it's rated PG-13, as if that in and of itself is some sort of cop out. I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not saying that it is good or that the filmmakers couldn't have done more to make it a more mature movie, so take that for whatever it's worth.

PG-13 was created in '83 because of Temple of Doom. T2 was '91.

I think it getting an R made sense, and it still probably would get an R today, because of all those people getting stabbed in the face and the f-bomb being thrown around every few minutes.

 

[Random]

But who cares, if it doesn't make sense? Creativity and spontaneous randomness aren't the same thing. A meteor hitting and turning everyone into a baby would've been a pretty shocking ending for a blockbuster too. Would it impress you? It's not what Hollywood needs. The only thing they need is good writing. Good writing can make an unoriginal story into an incredibly moving script. Radicalness can't make a hole-filled story make sense.

Again, not saying that the ending wouldn't have holes, the story would need to be rewritten to make sense with that ending. The concept of machines wining is a great one. The concept of everyone dieing in the last scene does not automatically mean it';s bad writing. Just because it's shocking doesn't make it a bad idea

Sorry, I meant the director too, and mentioned him in an earlier post. I basically just mean the idea of a decades-old franchise coming that close to being completely buried by such nonsensical idea just because a few newcomers wanted to shove it in there.

I understand that, with a series like Terminator you'd want to the ending to be something less controversial. But to be honest, it's not going to end with Cameron making it as great as the first two were. The property has been handed off, if the story gets a chance to end it's going to be in a relatively newcomers' hand.

I still disagree. I don't think innovation takes any balls on its own. I would respect the balls it took to hunker down and make a good story that really works out of innovation. Otherwise it's just wasting the idea.

... I don't think you understand the concept of balls? It generally means to have the courage to go out on a limb. Writing a good story does not take or give any indication to the possession of balls. Bending over for the studios to make things happy for sequel indicates lack of balls, opting to do a safe ending as oppose to a controversial one indicates lack of balls. To say I'm going to provoke a reaction from you, I am going to take you breathe away. Whether you like it or not I'm going to make you think a certain way. That is an true artist's dream and it takes balls. Specially for an American blockbuster. I salute anyone willing to challenge the notions Hollywood has enforce with the "Blockbuster" and push the boundaries of storytelling for the medium.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

PG-13 was created in '83 because of Temple of Doom. T2 was '91.

I think it getting an R made sense, and it still probably would get an R today, because of all those people getting stabbed in the face and the f-bomb being thrown around every few minutes.

For some reason I thought it was a lot later than that, but now that I think about it it was after Temple of Doom. My mistake.

But what you say is fair; I'm just assuming and writing it off because of its rating and that's not particularly fair of me.

I wasn't referring to you...mainly people on other sites that I have seen post comments on articles, etc. You make a valid point about how time changes our perceptions of what material is appropriate for what rating.

 

[Jaggyd]

That implies I haven't seen it since the first time I saw it as a kid. I saw it this year. I probably watch it once a year. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it.

You are sometimes so surprisingly dismissive of other opinions, you remind me of JTG.



Right, if you both watch the movie again, you'll notice that the movie plays up the horror and slowly replaces it with comedy and action as it progresses.

There's Sarah's nuclear dream (and her hole ordeal in the asylum), the repeated stabbings of the T-1000 are all pretty horrific as is that groan that accompanies him, that sound. There's the gravitas that the future will happen, and that humans are to blame for it. There's a desperation in the lack of rest, and blah blah blah. You either agree or don't. But with the exception of Arnie getting on the motorbike at the beginning, the film is played like a horror film until Sarah Connor decides to change the future. By the time we get to the raid on Cyberdyne, that element of the movie has gone (since they're trying to change the future) and Arnie can smile and crack gags, and wave his thumb in the air as he dies.

It's not the best film ever, and the first movie is probably a better film, but the reason people still remember it fondly is because it was genuine in its excitement, and in conveying the core of its premise: that a nightmare of a future is on the horizon. Nightmares are scary.

The first two Terminators played on that fear. The other movies and tv show didn't. They play on the kinetic excitement of humans fighting robots and nothing else.

No offense, but calling me dismissive of those who have a differing opinion, is definitely a pot calling the kettle black scenario.

I mean you have a wonderful track record of dismissing other people's opinions. We're geeks, being over opinionated over unimportant things is par for the course.

But, I stand by my thinking you're opinion that Terminator 2 is horror, well it's bollocks. It's not, it's an action film at best, and a comedy at worst. I totally understand your argument, but what you're trying to say is there, just isn't. There's no real fear that the heroes might fail, we get minute glimpses at a *possible* horrific future, between long and loud scenes of action.

Seriously, Terminator 2 is no more horror than The Matrix.


Oh and before I forget.

The unfilmed "everyone dies" ending... so glad it wasn't filmed.

Yeah, I'm sure it was also nostalgia that made people give it all those Oscars and all those hundreds of millions of dollars and have it become one of the most popular and beloved movies ever made.... within weeks of its release.... as well.

Oh, and you're never allowed to accuse me of "trying to be cool by hating on what's popular" again. Not to mention trolling. Bass is not only doesn't know "the truth" about T2, but his actual ability to tell right from wrong has been clouded. Holy ****.

Okay, you're both missing my point, but I freely concede I didn't convey it in the most mature way possible.


I'm not saying Salvation was better than the originals, I'm not defending McG's inability to direct... well anything. What I'm trying to get across is, Terminator 2 is NOT what you guys are trying to make it out to be. PM, no offense, but a few technical Oscars and a big box office, does not a good film make. I mean, there have been some terrible movies that have won real Oscars, and made **** loads of money. I'm just arguing against this overhyped view that Terminator 2 is some "beloved" film. Yes, it was innovative, it was one of the first movies to really convincingly blend CGI actors with real ones, but it was a bland story with some amazingly campy acting. I mean, I understand you want the Terminator to look like he's learning to be human, but 2 hours of Arnold spouting some terrible catch phrases does NOT convey "humanity". Eddy Furlong... don't get me started on his reading of lines, and what the hell happened to Linda Hamilton, she was perfect in Terminator, but she became a horrible Ellen Ripley caricature.

 

[Zombipanda]

Again, not saying that the ending wouldn't have holes, the story would need to be rewritten to make sense with that ending. The concept of machines wining is a great one. The concept of everyone dieing in the last scene does not automatically mean it';s bad writing. Just because it's shocking doesn't make it a bad idea

Please share. Why is the idea of robots winning a great one? And is it really great enough to rewrite an entire script about it?

... I don't think you understand the concept of balls? It generally means to have the courage to go out on a limb. Writing a good story does not take or give any indication to the possession of balls. Bending over for the studios to make things happy for sequel indicates lack of balls, opting to do a safe ending as oppose to a controversial one indicates lack of balls. To say I'm going to provoke a reaction from you, I am going to take you breathe away. Whether you like it or not I'm going to make you think a certain way. That is an true artist's dream and it takes balls. Specially for an American blockbuster. I salute anyone willing to challenge the notions Hollywood has enforce with the "Blockbuster" and push the boundaries of storytelling for the medium.

Please. That's not "pushing boundaries". It doesn't bring anything new to the story. It's shock for the sake of shock. If Salvation had cleverly built to a point where the ending would have a meaningful resonance, and the studio pressured him into changing it and thus underlying the story, then that would have been one thing. But that's not the case. The movie was a straight-forward action vehicle, and changing the ending would just make it into a straight-forward action vehicle with a banal ending tacked on that carries no subtext.

I would think the horror lies in the whole "nightmare man is coming to get you and you can't stop him".

I agree that T-1000 was a great, terrifying villain, but I don't think that necessarily means it's a horror movie. I just feel like they create a villain that was sufficiently menacing for the amount of action in the movie. The "unstoppable man" can fit into both genres equally well (Hell. It's the impetus of 95% of films), but T2 wasn't a horror movie any more than Aliens was. Both took a (rather innovative) horror movie and used these elements to craft (excessively badass) action films. But the horror isn't the core of the movie. It's just window dressing.

I agree - visually, the movie is stunning. It's almost 20 years old, and it still looks amazing. The T-1000 hasn't aged at all. And also, the structural pace is remarkable. It's one of the things that annoys me, actually - there are so many different versions of the movie out there, and each one adds some random number of minutes to the film that hurts the pacing. Like the scene where Sarah tries to kill the T-800 when he's switched off. Or the scene where the T-800 tries to smile. It's not that they're bad scenes, it's just that the kinesis you describe so well is missing when they're around.

It really is a great action movie. The only action flick with tighter, more methodic pacing is Die Hard.

Nothing will ever trump Die Hard.

 

[SSJmole]

I agree that T-1000 was a great, terrifying villain, but I don't think that necessarily means it's a horror movie. I just feel like they create a villain that was sufficiently menacing for the amount of action in the movie. The "unstoppable man" can fit into both genres equally well (Hell. It's the impetus of 95% of films), but T2 wasn't a horror movie any more than Aliens was. Both took a (rather innovative) horror movie and used these elements to craft (excessively badass) action films. But the horror isn't the core of the movie. It's just window dressing.

100% agreed on this. It's not horror.

 

[Bass]

It doesn't make sense how Conner was made Captain. It's so contrived.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Touche.

No offense, but calling me dismissive of those who have a differing opinion, is definitely a pot calling the kettle black scenario.

I mean you have a wonderful track record of dismissing other people's opinions. We're geeks, being over opinionated over unimportant things is par for the course.

I have a wonderful track record of being dismissive? Please show it to me.

But, I stand by my thinking you're opinion that Terminator 2 is horror, well it's bollocks. It's not, it's an action film at best, and a comedy at worst. I totally understand your argument, but what you're trying to say is there, just isn't. There's no real fear that the heroes might fail, we get minute glimpses at a *possible* horrific future, between long and loud scenes of action.

Seriously, Terminator 2 is no more horror than The Matrix.

I said T1 is a horror film, and that T2 is an action movie with horror elements.

And the second movie, was an action movie with horror elements,

The idea T2 is potentially a comedy is just inflammatory.

As for the idea that T2 is as much horror as THE MATRIX... I tend to agree. THE MATRIX does have the same horror trappings; the nightmare future and the "villain wants to get YOU". However, I don't think it applies those trappings as effectively as T2.

What I'm trying to get across is, Terminator 2 is NOT what you guys are trying to make it out to be. PM, no offense, but a few technical Oscars and a big box office, does not a good film make. I mean, there have been some terrible movies that have won real Oscars, and made **** loads of money. I'm just arguing against this overhyped view that Terminator 2 is some "beloved" film. Yes, it was innovative, it was one of the first movies to really convincingly blend CGI actors with real ones, but it was a bland story with some amazingly campy acting. I mean, I understand you want the Terminator to look like he's learning to be human, but 2 hours of Arnold spouting some terrible catch phrases does NOT convey "humanity". Eddy Furlong... don't get me started on his reading of lines, and what the hell happened to Linda Hamilton, she was perfect in Terminator, but she became a horrible Ellen Ripley caricature.

While I agree that Oscars and money doesn't inherently make a good film (though it's a good indicator), TERMINATOR 2 is a good film. The way you can tell is because it's 18 years later, it's still stands up. Especially in the SFX - Fantastic Four 2 came out and people complain the 21st century CGI Silver Surfer isn't as good as the 1991 T-1000.

I don't get how the story is 'bland'. It's certainly more substantive than the new STAR TREK.

As for the acting, the trio of Furlong, Connor, and Schwarzenegger are fine. They're not powerful performances, but they don't need to be. And the supporting parts of Dyson and the T-1000 are very well acted indeed. While I agree that Arnie's slow evolution to behing human is hit and miss, it's one of the annoying things about all the different edits since the theatrical release. Some have too much, others too little, of this element of the movie. I only have one version of the movie (and it includes the stupid smiling scene that was originally cut) so I can't say which one got it 'right'. I don't get what the problem is with Furlong's readings. He says his lines, and he does them fine. He's not particularly good, but he's not bad. He's just a bit of a douche, unfortunately. And I think Hamilton, apart from the scenes where she goes off on a tirade of how men don't know what it's like to have a baby, she plays Sarah fine. She's meant to be Ripley. In this movie, the hapless victim is played by John Connor. She's the Kyle Reese role.

I agree that T-1000 was a great, terrifying villain, but I don't think that necessarily means it's a horror movie. I just feel like they create a villain that was sufficiently menacing for the amount of action in the movie. The "unstoppable man" can fit into both genres equally well (Hell. It's the impetus of 95% of films), but T2 wasn't a horror movie any more than Aliens was. Both took a (rather innovative) horror movie and used these elements to craft (excessively badass) action films. But the horror isn't the core of the movie. It's just window dressing.

I agree. What's interesting is that the trick of taking a sci-fi horror movie and moving it into sci-fi action for the sequel is something James Cameron did both for the Terminator franchise, and the Alien franchise. Same director, same trick.

 

[SSJmole]

As for the idea that T2 is as much horror as THE MATRIX... I tend to agree. THE MATRIX does have the same horror trappings; the nightmare future and the "villain wants to get YOU". However, I don't think it applies those trappings as effectively as T2.

But in the matrix the point is the villain has already got you. It's why it's called the matrix, they have you in the matrix.

 

[Zombipanda]

I agree. What's interesting is that the trick of taking a sci-fi horror movie and moving it into sci-fi action for the sequel is something James Cameron did both for the Terminator franchise, and the Alien franchise. Same director, same trick.

....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
James Cameron presents... Event Horizons.

 

[Planet-man]

Again, not saying that the ending wouldn't have holes, the story would need to be rewritten to make sense with that ending. The concept of machines wining is a great one. The concept of everyone dieing in the last scene does not automatically mean it';s bad writing. Just because it's shocking doesn't make it a bad idea

Nevah evah said it did. Said just 'cause it's shocking, it's not automatically a great one.

I understand that, with a series like Terminator you'd want to the ending to be something less controversial. But to be honest, it's not going to end with Cameron making it as great as the first two were. The property has been handed off, if the story gets a chance to end it's going to be in a relatively newcomers' hand.

I don't care if it's controversial or not as long as it's a good, well-written ending. And you can't just say nobody could have made this film as good as T2. Where's the evidence? I think there probably are, and I'm mad it wasn't given to them.

... I don't think you understand the concept of balls? It generally means to have the courage to go out on a limb. Writing a good story does not take or give any indication to the possession of balls.

We have different definitions going out on a limb. I don't think this ending was going out on a limb at all. It wasn't a line followed to a stance taking. It was a crude, juvenile shock tactic done for no reason other than to be unexpected. This is not going out on a limb. This is ****ting your pants in public.


Writing a good story does take balls. It's hard, it's confusing, it forces you to make decisions and look for every area of attack to cover and try and find new things and hope that you won't look like a fool by the end. Writing a good story, following through, from beginning to end, is the definition of going out on a limb.

To say I'm going to provoke a reaction from you, I am going to take you breathe away. Whether you like it or not I'm going to make you think a certain way. That is an true artist's dream and it takes balls. Specially for an American blockbuster. I salute anyone willing to challenge the notions Hollywood has enforce with the "Blockbuster" and push the boundaries of storytelling for the medium.

He could have ended the film with footage of himself jacking off. He could have not put in the second reel at all. He could have done any stupid, random thing and the only thing it would teach the audience is that directors have to ability to control the story they are showing them.

If taking someone's breathe away was enough in and of itself to make somebody a good artist, they could just punch you in the stomach and be done with it. Shock doesn't count if you cheat. I salute those willing to break the rules of Hollywood too. I don't salute those willing to break the rules they've set up in their own film e.g. plot points.

Any idiot can change to rules of the game halfway through to make themselves win. An artist uses the rules to their advantage to blow people away with something new.

Okay, you're both missing my point, but I freely concede I didn't convey it in the most mature way possible.


I'm not saying Salvation was better than the originals, I'm not defending McG's inability to direct... well anything. What I'm trying to get across is, Terminator 2 is NOT what you guys are trying to make it out to be. PM, no offense, but a few technical Oscars and a big box office, does not a good film make. I mean, there have been some terrible movies that have won real Oscars, and made **** loads of money. I'm just arguing against this overhyped view that Terminator 2 is some "beloved" film.

My point wasn't that Oscars and money mean a film is good.

It was that immeadiately laughing off somebody's love of Terminator 2 as nostalgia making them forget that it was actually bad is insane because everybody loved that movie as soon as it came out, so it's obviously not nostalgia.

Please. That's not "pushing boundaries". It doesn't bring anything new to the story. It's shock for the sake of shock.

Exactly. Empty.

 

[Jaggyd]

It was that immeadiately laughing off somebody's love of Terminator 2 as nostalgia making them forget that it was actually bad is insane because everybody loved that movie as soon as it came out, so it's obviously not nostalgia.


.

Seriously, EVERYONE on this site has done the EXACT same thing, on NUMEROUS occasions. So have a Coke and a smile.