"Terminator 2" Discussion - 7/07/02 - 7/13/02

[Morticia]

This is a thread to discuss the technical and/or thematic merits of "Terminator 2".

The purpose being to foster intelligent discussion of films without resorting to "It's a piece of crap." or "It's the greatest film ever." (And so that we all can gain a bit of a film education from everyone.)

We'll discuss a new film each week. Either slade or I will post the film in this forum in advance, and lock the topic until the first day of discussion (hehe, slade wasn't a slacker on this one - edit).

Thanks everyone. We are excited and we hope this works (we're open to any ideas of how to make it better).

****SPOILER WARNING**** of course this entire thread is going to be full of spoilers.


I guess it would be logical to compare/contrast with the first "Terminator" if the need arises....but remember, this will focus on "T2".

[Marty McFly]

T2, as far as I'm concerned, is one of the only films to break the "sequel rule". This film, no matter how you look at it, is a cinematic work of art. Cameron, who's known as a perfectionist, took his time with this film for a reason - and it was worth it. This film is not only a favorite of mine, but is considered a classic among films in general. The cast works just so well with the twisting and at times confusing storyline, and Arnold is at his best. Robert Patrick's incarnation of T-1000 remains to be a classic movie character, and his acting just excels throughout the whole picture. I never cared for the first Terminator as I did this one - maybe it's because of the low budget that it had or how it just looks real dated. But one thing I don't do is even compare the original to its far superior sequel. This is one of the only films in motion picture history that I can't find anything worng with - the acting, the plot, the special effects - all perfect on so many merits. Cameron's direction has made this film what it is - a cinematic masterpiece. And personally, I think it's one of the greatest films ever made.

[fuser]

A thing I have to say about one of my favorite movies ever is that even today the special FX look absolutely impressive! and I think that is because about 3 FX companies worked together.

• ILM, for all the CGI related shots
• Stan Winston's Studio - Animatronics for the T-800 and T-100
• Pacific Data Images - All the POVs of the Terminators

I consider T2's use of CGI one of the best ever, IMO it doesn't look fake at all and it's a movie done more than 10 years ago!.

Maybe that is because the T-1000 is chromed and that is one of the textures that are easier to achieve instead of realistic skin and fur.

And again because there were 3 FX companies it wasn't a CGI overkill (take note Mr. Lucas), James Cameron made a very wise choice on this.

[limacharliewhiskey]

Originally posted by fuser
[b]A thing I have to say about one of my favorite movies ever is that even today the special FX look absolutely impressive! and I think that is because about 3 FX companies worked together.

• ILM, for all the CGI related shots
• Stan Winston's Studio - Animatronics for the T-800 and T-100
• Pacific Data Images - All the POVs of the Terminators

Actually, more than 3 FX companies worked on T2. I've spent the last week looking at the very extensive "data hub" that is on the T2: Ultimate Edition 2nd disc (or Side 2, if you have the 2-sided version), and I've gotten through 25 of the 50 chapters on it.

I've only gotten halfway through the special effects section, but there were at least 5 FX houses to work on T2 (and maybe more, as I continue to check out all of the stuff on this disc).

You are indeed correct about ILM doing the CGI and Stan Winston handling most of the on-set effects for the film. I didn't get to the section about Pacific Data, but at least 2 other companies were involved. I forget the names of the companies, but one of them handled all of the Future War scenes, which were done with miniatures and rear-projection, and also handled the optical effects, like the laserblasts and the circular time-sphere lightning when the Terminator travels through time.

One other FX studio specifically handled the nuclear blast effect with all of the miniatures and the CGI effect of the spherical nuclear blast moving outward and incinerating the city, buildings, and cars (all miniatures, using high-poered air cannons). This, of course, was combined with Stan Winston's foam models of the "burned children" and burning Sarah Connor special effect.

Comparing the stories of the original Terminator and T2, I felt that the original film had much better pacing and suspense, like one long rollercoaster ride, but T2 definitely had a better story with much more interesting characters.

Back when I saw T2 when it first came out, this was probably the first film where I consciously noticed how strong a female character that James Cameron had written. It suddenly made me notice how most of the female characters in the previous and future films tend to be very strong (not physically necessarily, but mentally) characters that is not often seen in films or television. Showing how the Sarah Connor changed as a person between the two films was part of why I enjoyed the 2nd film so much.

There is one loophole in the movie that I've heard mentioned by others, and I've just chalked it up to just movie-making storytelling, seeing as how T2 came after the first film:

Didn't Reese say that Skynet was defeated and that the time-traveling equipment was destroyed in the first film? Wouldn't that have prevented the more advanced T-1000 from being sent, assuming the T-1000 was sent through time after the T-800 Arnold in the first film (or even the T-800 Arnold protector in the 2nd film)?

Or did everyone assume these events took place before the Reese was sent through, or that there was a 2nd time-displacement machine located elsewhere?

Or did Reese just say that Skynet was destroyed, but not the time-displacement equipment?

At what point does the T-1000 get sent through time, since John Connor's forces had already captured the time-displacement equipment to send Reese through?

It's a minor plot point that's bothered me, but then I figured if it were true, the 2nd film could never be made.

[SeanL]

Originally posted by limacharliewhis
Didn't Reese say that Skynet was defeated and that the time-traveling equipment was destroyed in the first film? Wouldn't that have prevented the more advanced T-1000 from being sent, assuming the T-1000 was sent through time after the T-800 Arnold in the first film (or even the T-800 Arnold protector in the 2nd film)?

The way I understood it, was that Skynet sent the 2 terminators simultaneously.
So, the human forces sent Reese, and within minutes sent the reprogrammed T-800. Once the protectors were sent, everything was destroyed...

[Marty McFly]

One thing that I never understood was about a John Connor theory -

John sent Reese back to 1984 to protect Sarah, right? Ok, and Reese is John's father. But technically, John wouldn't be able to send Reese back to the past because he wouldn't have been born - Reese impregnated Sarah as a result of John sending him back. If he was never sent back, John never would've been born.

Is that just a huge loophole in the plot of T1/T2 or am I looking into this way too deep?

[SeanL]

Originally posted by Marty McFly
Is that just a huge loophole in the plot of T1/T2 or am I looking into this way too deep?

Marty, time travel poses some...interesting possibilities.

Think about this.... somebody goes back in time and kills the grandfather(before he was married) of the man who invented the time machine. Well if that guy's grandfather was killed, he wouldn't be born, which means no time machine. But, it also means that if there was no time machine then nobody could've gone back in time to kill his grandfather.

Doc Brown could probably explain it better.

[Marty McFly]

I guess you're right, Sean - I know time travel results in paradoxes like you described. In Back to the Future, paradoxes can destroy the universe - which would make since in say the real world.

When it comes to time travel though, not only is it confusing, but there are even loopholes in the generic theory itself. So in turn, I guess I answered my own question.

[MrSoze]

Greetings!

Hey all.

T2 is one of those movies that has so much going for it, I still am surprised to this day that I feel so ambivalant towards it. I still think that the first is a by far superior film, but let's look at this film as a whole.

I think that you have to throw alot of the plotholes out the window. First off, timetravel is by its own nature totally illogical. It's based on the idea that events that haven't happened yet will somehow alter the events of the past, and therefore requires that you suspend that disbelief at the door for timetravel movies.

Back to the Future, anyone?

But I think that T2 was and still is a landmark film for a reason that was cited earlier: the seamless mix of CGI into the film was unmatched by any film since, until Lord of the Rings. It's actually pretty weird to say, but looking back on the film now, it seems like Cameron needs to be commended for his restraint, not for his over-the-top special effects, simply because he could have very, very easily let this movie get crazy, really quick, especially with the T-1000 morphing technology.

But he limits it, allowing it to help be a part of the character, instead of letting it define the character. It's a small distinction, but an important one for Jim. The key to both movies is one, single, terrifying fact- The Terminators WILL NOT STOP. That is the one theme that is just driven home, and he uses the CGI in this film to reinforce that, instead of playing with his pretty pictures just because he can. (*cough* True Lies, Titanic *cough*)

I mean, really the only twist in this film from the first is the existence of Arnold as the good guy instead of the bad guy. Also, there's the issue that the first movie sets a much more terrifying tone because of it's single track mind, whereas this one has so much more it 'wants' to say.

Here's a theory- Most, not all, but most, films benefit from being simple and one track. Spielberg's best film, to this day in my opinion, is Jaws. The reason being is that he doesn't let up his focus for a second from the main problem- there's a big shark that's eating people. All the other stuff, the male-bonding, the town politics, the characterizations that Scheider, Dreyfuss, and Shaw give their characters, it all stems from that, but Spielberg just lets it happen, instead of forcing it.

Cameron, for my money, made the best film of his career when he made Aliens. That movie is much the same way- he focuses on what he does best, and lets the movie fall in line behind that. In T2, he's trying to talk about man's responsibility to machines, mothers and sons, and the morality of killing (e.g. Sarah not killing Dyson, Dyson dying at the lab). Just focus on the story, Jim, and it'll all come through. You did with the first Terminator, and that's a great film. T2 is an interesting film, certainly with great technical merit, good performances, and some great moments, but it does have a hard time overcoming the heavy-handed nature of the script.

By the way, does the end of T2 piss anyone else off, or just me? I mean, I'm willing to forgive all the timetravel stuff, but come on; you can't fundamentally alter the entire future, which, having done so, invalidates the entire movie we just saw, since the paradox of John never fighting the machines leads to Reese never being sent again, which leads to John not being born no matter how you slice the time travel. I hate being treated like that by a filmmaker- it's a copout. If the machines do rise, how? We need the explanation, otherwise T2 doesn't have a point except to indulge us on the self-importance people can have about their lives.

Anyway, like I say, T2 is an interesting exercise for me, but not a great film. It has great moments, but it just doesn't all hold together.

Comments?

Yours in the Force,
Rick Poehling

My view on the time travel theory in the Terminator flicks incorporates a bit of quantum theory into it. There are a boatload of "Possible" futures that could stem out from certain dates or keynote points in time. It might not matter much overall if I have baloney or liverwurst on my sandwich, but it would matter if on a certain day a certain congruence of events happened that allows the Skynet computer to come into existence. Once these events are known, they can be diverted.

Normally, the cliched ending of such a story where someone from the future comes to the present to try to affect a change would invariably be the reason that the future comes into existence. Very Rod Sterling, very overused.

I like the fact that Reese was able to set into motion conditions that we see in T2 that actual prevent his future from coming about.

Does it create a paradox?

Maybe. But, if all those futures are possibilities until certain conditions are meant, than all teir reality is equally valid. It would be smilar to checking out a book from a library that subsequently burns to the ground. Doesn't neccessarily mean the book that I checked and is sitting on my coffee table is going to burst into flame.

Of course, this time travel theory for the Terminator "Universe" is only valid until something comes up in the third movie that will contradict it.

[limacharliewhiskey]

Originally posted by MrSoze
[b]By the way, does the end of T2 piss anyone else off, or just me? I mean, I'm willing to forgive all the timetravel stuff, but come on; you can't fundamentally alter the entire future, which, having done so, invalidates the entire movie we just saw, since the paradox of John never fighting the machines leads to Reese never being sent again, which leads to John not being born no matter how you slice the time travel.

There is nothing that really says that they prevented or completely altered the future. If that were true, Cameron would have gone with the alternate Future Coda ending showing the happy 64-year-old Sarah Connor and Senator John Connor, which would've indeed invalidated the movie. Instead, he chose to go with the darker ending, leaving an ambiguous ending. And since there's a T3 coming along, the struggle against the machines is not over yet.

I think one thing about time travel movies is that each movie has its own set of rules that don't necessarily apply to other films. Back to the Future had its rules, which were very well explained by Doc Brown on the chalkboard in the 2nd movie. Timecop had its rules. The Star Trek movies and TV shows have their rules. Even Donnie Darko had its rules, which were quite bizarre to me, and I never really understood that film but still enjoyed it.

The Terminator films have certain logic to them that I've found acceptable within the story and the presentation. I've never tried to apply the Star Trek or Back to the Future time travel rules to Terminator to make more sense or become more confusing.

My take on the John Connor/Reese theory. John's father was originally someone else other than Reese, but once Reese was sent back in time, it just became Reese. John Connor didn't have to be born at the same moment or have the same father, just as long as he was born at some point. Once Reese became the father, a nice time paradox occurred, but John would've still been before even if Reese never showed up. His father would've just been a different person.

And to follow up on my previous post about special effects, there were a total of 7 FX houses that worked on T2, after finishing going through the Data Hub on the Ultimate Edition DVD.

[Triple HHH]

Originally posted by limacharliewhis

There is nothing that really says that they prevented or completely altered the future. If that were true, Cameron would have gone with the alternate Future Coda ending showing the happy 64-year-old Sarah Connor and Senator John Connor, which would've indeed invalidated the movie. Instead, he chose to go with the darker ending, leaving an ambiguous ending. And since there's a T3 coming along, the struggle against the machines is not over yet.

That's true. I thought that image of a dark highway was very effective. It implies an uncertain future, but more importantly, James Cameron inserted a line I think speaks volumes. "If a machine could learn the value of human life, maybe we can too."
I'm not sure where I read this, or maybe it was the commentary, but the image of the dark road leading to nowhere was Cameron's way of putting responsibility onto our laps, and it was up to us to make it a good one.

Any plotholes, big or small, are very inconsequential to me because in the end, the film is simply so imaginative, creative, and well-made on all fronts that I don't even have the heart to pick it apart. I still remembered the day I saw this in a half-filled theater and every single person must've been floored -- by the groundbreaking effects (I could look at the liquid metal all day), the taut suspense (when Arnold has to protect John Conner), and a great plot. Cameron's vision is so pure and confident, and I agree with Spielberg who hailed Cameron as one of the best directors of ACTION sequences. Cameron knows how to stage something special, something different and unforgettable.

[Flash Ahhh]

Great thread you guys...

A lot of your replies were pretty long and I hate big paragraphs, so I didn't get through everyones replies.

If I repeat anything that anyone said, I apologize.

T2 is a great movie. It also is a movie that has two very influential scenes in it, both involving Sara.

The first one is the scene in the hospital when the police officers are presenting Sara with the pictures of the two attacks by the T-800. They show the pictures from that same day, and the pictures 10 years ago. I cannot fathom how Sara didn't say anything. She just knew she had to escape. She didn't tell them she could help them and free her and take her with her. I was amazed. No eruption, nothing. Just a glazed stare. When the cop is talking about the foster parent being murdered and John being missing, classic.

The second one is when Sara is talkign to herself (voice over) on Enrique's ranch whiel watching the T-800 play with John and she gives the man vs machine as a father theory. Excellent.

Two great scenes. Maybe I read into things so much.

I must say I like the extended specal edition of T2. There are only two scenes really I can do without. The aged Sara scene at the very end, and the T-1000 searching Johns bedroom. The addition of the CPU chip scene at the gas station, the smile scene and the T-1000 morphing problems scene should have never been cut in the original edit.

I won't beat the "what if" time travel paradox ideas. THose debates can go on forever.

Futher, I'd like to say as far as sequels go, T2 is probably one of a very small handful of movies where the sequel is better than the original. What else can we say that about? Empire over A New Hope? Maybe hard call. Aliens over Alien? Another hard call. Usually the sequel can't take the original.

Cameron is doing something right. Also T2:UE is probably one of the most jam packed with "quality" extras DVD there is on the market.

-Flash

[slade]

This is a movie that I loved when it came out (I believe I was 16 at the time). It is a nicely paced (one of its greatest assets) fun action movie with some cool, cutting edge special effects. At the time, the ridiculous, moralizing narrative didn’t bother me too much, and it was definitely worth dealing with to see these two awesome machines go at it with each other. But, I haven’t watched it since then. . . until tonight.

I still enjoyed watching T2 this go round, and I think that I could have really got caught up in it all by popping some popcorn and turning off my brain. But, since I watched it for “film class” I instead grabbed a pen and paper and got my brain ready for some analysis.

What I thought went well

The pacing, as I mentioned above, is excellent. This movie does a great job of introducing the characters in the first act in a frenzied way that still lends itself to some character development (except the bad guy, who doesn’t really need developed in this particular movie). There was a dirty spot on my disc at the one-hour point, forcing me to check the time mark so I could return to where I was after cleaning my disc (rental—what do you expect). I was surprised that an hour had passed already (of course, I watched Gosford Park last night, so it was a pretty huge contrast).

The rest of the movie does a good job as well at moving the plot along while allowing for (mostly) meaningful action that moved the story. The ending, for me, does get a little drawn out. After a while, it began to feel like a bit much of a climax. The final fight scene (from the helicopter chase to the end of the movie) just seemed to keep going and going. But, a minor complaint for an otherwise well paced film. Given that pacing is a huge part of what the major Hollywood studios are shooting for—I’d say, “well done.” (It would be interesting to see how the director’s cut is paced—I’d ask if anyone has watched it and how it compares, but I haven’t read any of the other comments yet, so I don’t know if this has been addressed or not.)

The action sequences were well put together and fun to watch. Letting two machines duke it out is a fun way to do an action film, because they can successfully “get” each other, and yet still keep fighting.

The special effects were a mixed bag. The effects on the T-1000 were spectacular and fun to watch. The dream of the nuclear bomb going off was a joke—some of the models looked worse than ones I built as a kid.

I also thought there were some nice little things. For example, John playing Missile Command in the arcade. A game where you defend cities from an automated threat from above.

What I thought struggled

The worst thing about T2 for me was the heavy handed moralizing that went on, and on, and on, throughout the entire movie. The narrative by Sarah Connor was just obnoxious. A good set up in the beginning, I guess, for those who might not have seen the first one, but beyond that it was just absurd. The worst offense was when she was discussing what a “perfect father” the terminator was. Interestingly, I didn’t think she mentioned the one quality that I thought he really did do well—listen. Throughout the movie he lets John drone on and on about various things. He also makes John feel important by taking his advice about how to interact with other humans. These two things are excellent things to do for a 12-13 year old kid—but she didn’t even mention them—which I actually like.

I think the film did send some interesting messages, some subtle, some not so subtle. The not so subtle ones (like the narrative mentioned above) annoyed me. I actually appreciated some of the not so subtle (like the effective examples of parenting that weren’t pounded on us by Sarah’s narrative).

Some of the less-subtle examples include the Terminator’s statement, “it’s in your nature to destroy yourselves” (which I actually disagree with). Which was following the gun-play of the two little kids. The end narrative was also really bad, “If a terminator can learn the value of human life, maybe we can too.” :barf: gimme a break. And, did I miss it somewhere, but I never did see him “get” the value of human life.

A more subtle example (although far from completely) is the soundtrack. It had an ominous, apocalyptic feel to it that drove home the message that we’re going to kill ourselves. I thought it was interesting that they recording the sound track at a higher volume than the sound effects through the battle at the computer company (and other places).

And, some of the most subtle (although some of them were a bit obvious—but at least not heavy handed) were some of the existential concerns it looked at by the whole doomsday scenario. For example, contrasting the traffic jam (something people get extremely annoyed about in their day to day lives) at the start of the movie with the scene of the skulls of all those people. As if to say, well, being in a traffic jam is bad, but being dead is worse—so get over it. Another was the police and security trying to “keep us safe” when we’re all going to die anyway. One that I did like (I like camera work) was when the camera focused on the “to protect and serve” on the police car of the T-1000 right before he goes to search for the leader of the human resistance (he’s protecting and serving, but it’s robots, not humans). Another one that I liked was the “Praise the Lord” bumper sticker on the truck of the lawn maintenance guy (the one they take after the helicopter crash).

Another thing that didn’t work for me was the inconsistencies in motivations for the characters. We spend 5 minutes of the movie going through a nightmare, carving on a table, and then John and the Terminator working out the solution to Sarah’s motivation to go after Dyson. Which is okay, but a bit of overkill. Then we have no explanation for why the Terminator suddenly decides to go shoot up all the police cars, which really does much more harm than good (but, of course, is fun to watch).

Cinematography was a mixed bag. While adequate, it certainly wasn’t eye catching.

Acting was a mixed bag too. I’ve certainly seen much worse in action movies, but this certainly wasn’t great. I did like how Arnold Schwarzenegger and Robert Patrick moved like machines. I also thought that Edward Furlong did a decent job playing John.

So, a fun, no-brainer popcorn flick. Not so great when placed under the microscope a bit. But, either way, some of the heavy handed moralizing has to go.

As a side: it’s always interesting to see something you know about in movies, because they always seem to get it wrong—which just makes you realize how they must be screwing up on other stuff too. The psychiatrist said Sarah had “acute schizoaffective disorder” characterized by her violence and depression. Schizoaffective disorder doesn’t have anything to do with violence and is characterized by psychosis (her “delusions” would work here), not depression (the depression is present, but secondary to the psychosis). Anywho. . . :P

Now, I’ll read what’s been said so far (since I haven’t yet).

[slade]

Well, having now read what everyone said, I can see that what some of you found impactful, I found obnoxious. But, that's all good.

I agree with what most everyone has said so far, but will be interested to see what you think about my opinions.

In my mind it's hard to get past the time travel paradoxes (quantum physics or no). But, those aren't a big deal to me. I only know of one movie that actually effectively (in my mind) dealt with them--Millenium. Again, just attribute this to it being a mindless popcorn flick--which means, ignore plot holes.

I also disagree with some of you about T2 being better than Terminator. I would say different, rather than better. Terminator was a low-budget, nail bitting, action movie that helped propel its participants to stardome (granted they were mostly on their way). Its more gritty and down to earth. T2 is what happens when you get a budget. It looks sleeker and has funner special effects, but it loses that gritty edge. I personally care for the gritty edge over the sleek special effects, but I would ultimately just classify them as different--and both enjoyable, but for different reasons.

[limacharliewhiskey]

Originally posted by slade
(It would be interesting to see how the director’s cut is paced—I’d ask if anyone has watched it and how it compares, but I haven’t read any of the other comments yet, so I don’t know if this has been addressed or not.)

The pacing does slow down in the Special (and Extended Special) Editions in the middle of the movie, but the added scenes do help add to the character development. I easily understand why the scenes are omitted in the theatrical cut to maintain pacing and the main storytelling, keeping the movie under 2 hours 20 min., which seems to be the threshold mark between a normal movie length and really long movie length. These scenes are very interesting to see re-inserted into a movie when feature time length is not a factor in a home viewing environment.

The special effects were a mixed bag. The effects on the T-1000 were spectacular and fun to watch. The dream of the nuclear bomb going off was a joke—some of the models looked worse than ones I built as a kid..)

Yeah, the miniatures on this one did look cheesy. As I mentioned in an earlier post, 7 different FX houses worked on this film, and 1 of them (4-Ward Productions) worked on only the nuclear blast. However, the guys at 4-Ward did win an award for creating and showing the most realistic nuclear blast ever shown on film.

The worst thing about T2 for me was the heavy handed moralizing that went on, and on, and on, throughout the entire movie. The narrative by Sarah Connor was just obnoxious. A good set up in the beginning, I guess, for those who might not have seen the first one, but beyond that it was just absurd. The worst offense was when she was discussing what a “perfect father” the terminator was.

The narrative didn't bother me. I think it was just ironic how she mentions a killing machine that gave her nightmares for a decade could be a more protective father figure than John's stepfather or any of the mercenaries she lived with to get her military training. The father figure concept didn't occur to me, and I probably would've missed it until Sarah mentions it in the narrative. It was helpful to me, as at that point in the film, I'm wondering how they plan to stop the T-1000, not how fatherly the Terminator is.

Some of the less-subtle examples include the Terminator’s statement, “it’s in your nature to destroy yourselves” (which I actually disagree with). Which was following the gun-play of the two little kids. The end narrative was also really bad, “If a terminator can learn the value of human life, maybe we can too.” :barf: gimme a break. And, did I miss it somewhere, but I never did see him “get” the value of human life.

When the Terminator learned that it didn't have to kill humans to follow orders and complete its tasks, I thought that was enough to demonstrate that the Terminator has "learned the value of human life". Arnold's Terminator doesn't kill a single character in the entire movie except the T-1000. Not what you expect from a Terminator movie.

Then we have no explanation for why the Terminator suddenly decides to go shoot up all the police cars, which really does much more harm than good (but, of course, is fun to watch).

If the police succeeds in capturing them, they can't blow up Cyberdyne. Terminator stalls them for time by using the mini-gun to blow up all of the cars. I didn't think an explanation was needed for this.

Cinematography was a mixed bag. While adequate, it certainly wasn’t eye catching.

I thought cinematography was pretty good for a sci-fi film that had so many location shots and a kinetic style of shooting. Did you expect a desert shot of Tunisia like a Star Wars film or something? Most sci-fi films tend to be shot on studio sets completely, like Aliens. Films in urban settings can't really have many scenic shots except maybe helicopter shots of the city lights as an establishing shot at the beginning of the film. Considering what footage had to be cut for Cameron to keep the film under 2.5 hours, I'm not surprised there weren't any scenic shots, as they didn't help tell the story. This was a major reason why the Future War scenes at the beginning weren't any longer. It would've been cool to see, but it didn't help the narrative nor introduce any of the main characters.

Acting was a mixed bag too. I’ve certainly seen much worse in action movies, but this certainly wasn’t great. I did like how Arnold Schwarzenegger and Robert Patrick moved like machines. I also thought that Edward Furlong did a decent job playing John.

I actually loved the acting in this movie and couldn't really find any faults with any of the main or supporting roles. Was there a particular actor/actress or particular scene that you found a major fault with? I don't know of many 10-year-olds who could have done a better job than Eddie Furlong. It might've been nice to get a great kid actor like Haley Joel Osment if he had been born earlier, but he probably would've been wrong for a role like this. They had to cast a kid who could potentially look like he could become a military expert and leader of the human resistance forces.

In my mind it's hard to get past the time travel paradoxes (quantum physics or no). But, those aren't a big deal to me. I only know of one movie that actually effectively (in my mind) dealt with them--Millenium. Again, just attribute this to it being a mindless popcorn flick--which means, ignore plot holes.

Getting slightly off-topic, but I consider Millennium to be one of the worst films to ever hit the big and small screens. Because it was so bad, I didn't pay attention to any of the details of the time travel. The logic, or lack of it, was absurd in that movie. Stephen King's "The Langoliers" was a big stretch of the imagination, but it had a certain logic that explained the "people disappearing from a flying airplane" scenario better than Millennium did.

Best time travel logic that made sense to me is still the Back to the Future movies.

Terminator was a low-budget, nail bitting, action movie that helped propel its participants to stardome (granted they were mostly on their way). Its more gritty and down to earth. T2 is what happens when you get a budget. It looks sleeker and has funner special effects, but it loses that gritty edge. I personally care for the gritty edge over the sleek special effects, but I would ultimately just classify them as different--and both enjoyable, but for different reasons.

Agreed here. I still consider the original Terminator as the overall superior movie of the two, but T2 is an excellent film that expands greatly on the original concept.

[tomdkat]

Well, it's obvious that T2 had a MAJOR impact on special effects with the H-1000 Terminator. Some really "next level" kind of stuff.

However, do you think T2 is any more or less influential on special effect techniques than The Matrix, which is ANOTHER movie that "raised the bar" with regard to special effects?

Peace.....

[fuser]

Originally posted by tomdkat

However, do you think T2 is any more or less influential on special effect techniques than The Matrix, which is ANOTHER movie that "raised the bar" with regard to special effects?

Peace.....

Well, to answer you Tom, if I remember correctly T2 was the first movie to feature a CG character fully integrated in the scene, and morphing.

That technical achievement led to other movies like Jurassic Park. Simply put, T2 was a total revolution.

At least to me it put the words 3D Animation, Rendering, Wireframe, ILM, Silicon Graphics and Morphing, etc in my vocabulary.

[slade]

Originally posted by limacharliewhis

When the Terminator learned that it didn't have to kill humans to follow orders and complete its tasks, I thought that was enough to demonstrate that the Terminator has "learned the value of human life". Arnold's Terminator doesn't kill a single character in the entire movie except the T-1000. Not what you expect from a Terminator movie.

I guess I didn't see it as him "learning" anything--he was just following John's orders. Not a big deal, but just another reason that whole narrative ending didn't work for me. It's like a fable, with the moral spelled out (in case you missed it) but the moral doesn't really follow from the story, IMHO.

If the police succeeds in capturing them, they can't blow up Cyberdyne. Terminator stalls them for time by using the mini-gun to blow up all of the cars. I didn't think an explanation was needed for this.

I guess I would need to rewatch it, but I didn't get the sense that they were immediately attacking, but when he attacked them it stepped up the level of conflict and then they did go in. But, not a big deal, I can easily write it off as an action film device--but it detracts from it as working for me on any other level.

I thought cinematography was pretty good for a sci-fi film that had so many location shots and a kinetic style of shooting. Did you expect a desert shot of Tunisia like a Star Wars film or something? Most sci-fi films tend to be shot on studio sets completely, like Aliens. Films in urban settings can't really have many scenic shots except maybe helicopter shots of the city lights as an establishing shot at the beginning of the film. Considering what footage had to be cut for Cameron to keep the film under 2.5 hours, I'm not surprised there weren't any scenic shots, as they didn't help tell the story. This was a major reason why the Future War scenes at the beginning weren't any longer. It would've been cool to see, but it didn't help the narrative nor introduce any of the main characters.

No, I didn't expect, or desire, scenic shots. And, I didn't think it was bad, but it just wasn't good. Look back at the discussion for Rushmoore and BeanBandit's (I believe it was) summary about the scene shots. Not breathtakingly beautiful shots--but well composed shots. T2 didn't do this. It's shots were composed of the necessary elements, but nothing beyond that to subliminally draw us in or tell more of the story.

I actually loved the acting in this movie and couldn't really find any faults with any of the main or supporting roles. Was there a particular actor/actress or particular scene that you found a major fault with? I don't know of many 10-year-olds who could have done a better job than Eddie Furlong. It might've been nice to get a great kid actor like Haley Joel Osment if he had been born earlier, but he probably would've been wrong for a role like this. They had to cast a kid who could potentially look like he could become a military expert and leader of the human resistance forces.

I agree Eddie Furlong did a good job and was perfect for the role. However, the acting that was most strained, IMO, was between him and Linda Hamilton. It just seemed very forced in several spots (can't remember specifics now). I thought Linda did a great job in teh mental hospital, but outside of that she really got on my nerves. Her flat-toned narratives, most of her interactions that didn't involve violence, and her lack of good facial expressions just didn't help me stay in disbelief land. Arnold and the other Terminator (his name currently escapes me) did servicable jobs. It's not too hard to act like like an emotionless machine though.