Terminator 2 Review

[samuelk]

And now I'll say what is heretical, but I always thought the film's big effects coup, the "liquid metal" T-1000, looked lame. I know, I know, it unleashed the monstrosity that is "morphing" unto the world (and which in my view is partly to blame for so many crappy movies lately)...

The effect used for the T1000 is morphing only in the litteral sense of the word. The morphing technique that has become all-too-comon in low-budget films and TV sci-fi is a MUCH simpler process than the one used to create the T1000. In the simple morphing process, the graphic artist takes two STILL images (the before and after)--let's say for this example that you want to morph a man into a tiger. The CGI artist would begin with the still image of the man, and would mark the image with points, or "anchors" that correspond to points on the image of the tiger. For example, he might mark one anchor for the left eye of the man and match it to an anchor on the left eye of the tiger. This gives the morphing software points of reference (so that it morphs correctly -- i.e., the tigers front paws morph into the mans arms, the heads match up, etc.). Without these anchors, the morphing software wouldn't have any direction.

Morphing the T1000, on the other hand is quite a bit more involved. The process starts with the actor, who has to sit in a chair completely motionless while his body is scanned by lasers, creating a 3D representation of him in the computer. Any morphing is done in 3D, between two 3 Dimensional models and is a much more complicated and realistic process. I wouldn't equate it with the lame morphing technique that's used ad naseum today.

...but even by the rules and structure of the fantasy world Cameron created, the effect seems like a bit of a cheat. While in the framework of the film I could believe that a liquid metal Mr. Roboto could goop around and kill people, I'm still confused as to how his clothes and skin miraculously reappear around his pulsating liquid-metal core at a moments notice.

The clothing was part of the liquid-metal structure, not seperate from it.

And where is his CPU central processing unit located...

The idea of a "central" processing unit fundamental to almost every electronic device in use today, and so is generally thought of as the only way to build an AI. But you can think of the T1000 as one big CPU. Or better yet, think of it as a colleciton of thousands or millions of small CPUs. I kind of equate the T1000 to the Borg collective, in a way. It's a "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" kind of thing.

...and how are all the individual molecules bound together?

Probably much like regular molecules -- some kind of electrical attraction. Pumping a current through a network of molecules can achieve all kinds of interesting results.

And how come whenever the T-1000 gets split apart or blown up, all the pieces can still function?

This goes back to the idea of a network of small CPUs. Each individual piece of him that gets blown apart has a limited ability to function. In every case in the movie, when a small piece of the T1000 was blown off, it really didn't do much except return to its friends (like a lone borg wanting to return to the Collective). Each little CPU could have a limited ability to navigate itself towards the collective network.

And if the machine is supposed to be liquid metal by Earth standards (this is still, after all, supposed to be a "realistic future"), how does the metal heat itself up and cool itself off so quickly?

Again, I never thought of the T1000 as melting or cooling off. As I said earlier, you can get certain materials to do all kinds of things when you apply an electric current to them (you random crystal structure to become perfectly ordered by applying an electric current -- which is the secret behind those windows that can instantly transition from clear to opaque at the flip of a switch).

I always invisioned the T1000 as being made up of millions of tiny CPUs surrounded by a liquid-metal material. Each CPU can electrically influence the liquid metal around it, and together they form an AI "conciousness". Maybe somewhere in the T1000 is a "main" CPU that contains data on its overall mission (but it's probably not necessary).

Remember that this whole "Terminator" thing started when the Skynet computer became a conscious, thinking intelligence. So you just kinda have to except that in the Terminator movie universe things are a bit more advanced than they are here. But even so, it's not too difficult look at present technology and develop your own theories on how things work.

Sam

[Mother]

Yay Sam!

I'm glad someone else jumped in to correct the "morphing" comments in the review. As Sam pointed out, the morphing process used in T2 is/was QUITE complex and not a cheat at all. There's a MASSIVE difference between 2D morphing (2 stills or 2 scanned in moving sources) and 3D morphing.

They don't even look the same. 2D morphing is a cheat. . .it's a glorified "dissolve". A program called Elastic Reality (now a part of AVID) was popular for 2D morphs (it's also good for wire removal).

T2's effects were designed and crafted. Todays morphs are plopped down like turds with little thought as to their relevancy to the message.

------------------
Mother
listen.to/radiodecay/ | ICQ Me!

[Prophet]

I was thinking some about the whole liquid metal thing, and i came up with this:

The substance that we call "metal", in its "solid" state is really just a liquid that flows vvvvvveeeeeeerrrrrrryyyyyy slowly at rooms temperature. So via a little molecular manipulation, the melting point of said metal can be altered for a short period of time, allowing it to "flow" more quickly, and when the desired shape is achieved, the melting point can again be changed. Although melting point is the incorrect word for this scenario, i can't think of anything that would function better.

The ooooother option for the changing....
Nano-Bots! (gimme a break, I have been playing the game Deus-Ex for days). Theoretically, it is entirely possible to create millions, or billions (in the case of the t-1-whatever), each with their own individual cpu's and program, that all work in tandum to achieve their main goal (kill so and so). The bots, it has been shown, have the abilaty to rearange matter at a molecular level, and so the "morphing" could either be the bots rearangeing themeselves to form the new being, or the bots moving around molecular matter to form it. Just think of a bunch of little tinny fork lifts pushing metal molecules around.
Pretty far-fetched, but one must suspend a certain ammount of disbelief when watching ANY Sci-FI flick.

oh well, my two cents

[samuelk]

The substance that we call "metal", in its "solid" state is really just a liquid that flows vvvvvveeeeeeerrrrrrryyyyyy slowly at rooms temperature. So via a little molecular manipulation, the melting point of said metal can be altered for a short period of time, allowing it to "flow" more quickly, and when the desired shape is achieved, the melting point can again be changed. Although melting point is the incorrect word for this scenario, i can't think of anything that would function better.

Actually, metal is NOT a liquid that moves very slowly at room temperature (but that's another discussion) however, melting is the EXACT word for what you are describing. Melting simply involves increasing the amount of energy contained in a substance. Once the molecules in that substance have enough energy and start moving around more, certain bonds are broken and attractions between molecules are overcome, and the molecules are allowed to move more freely. In order to make a solid become liquid, you have to "heat" it in some way, which goes back to the question of "how does he melt so fast?" asked in the review. I don't consider the T1000 as melting.

The nano-machine idea works pretty well, though. If you consider that the T1000 is made up of billions of nano-machines, then that large collection of machines could move like liquid, but could also form rigid and semi-rigid structures (which is how the T1000's "body" could form skin and clothing as well as buttons and other harder objects). It kinda reminds me of a newtonian fluid -- like a cornstarch-water solution. If you mix cornstarch and water, you get a thick liquid--it pours and flows like liquid. But if you take a stick and start to stir the liquid, it immediately resists your movements and becomes less viscous to the point of actually crumbling like a solid. But the instant you stop stirring, the mixture becomes fluid again. It's really neat and kinda weird.

Sam

[1138]

Actually, metal is NOT a liquid...

With Mercury being the exception?

------------------
Floyd is pink. Lando is a sex machine.

[samuelk]

Originally posted by 1138:
With Mercury being the exception?

Er, I guess I should have said that metal in its solid form is not really a liquid moving very slowly. When metal is liquid, it's liquid. Molten iron is a liquid.

Sam

[1138]

Oh yeah, I totally agree with you. Not until it has crossed the melting threshold is a metal a fluid. I just wanted to mess with you some too.

------------------
Floyd is pink. Lando is a sex machine.

[Ambushbug]

Prophet may be thinking of *glass*, a liquid that is viscous enough that it's easily mistaken for solid. Apparent proof: Stained glass windows that are hundreds of years old are thicker at the bottom than the top due to the glass slooooooooowly working its way down.

AB

[samuelk]

Originally posted by Ambushbug:
Prophet may be thinking of *glass*, a liquid that is viscous enough that it's easily mistaken for solid. Apparent proof: Stained glass windows that are hundreds of years old are thicker at the bottom than the top due to the glass slooooooooowly working its way down.

AB

I thought that's what he was thinking of, too. Glass is referred to as an "amorphous solid". Although there has been some disagreement over whether it really is a liquid. I've heard of the stained glass examples you mentioned, but I've also heard that some old windows actually had the bulge at the top or sides. Word is that the bulge actually has something to do with an imperfect manufacturing process. But the idea of glass being an amorphous solid is debatable.

Sam

[1138]

Yeah, I've heard the same about glass. The old story is that really old windows in very old buildings are thicker on the bottom than on the top because the glass is a very viscous fluid and slowly moced down to the bottom over such a long time. I've personaly seen such glass windows, and at first glance it would seem to be true. Though I've also heard now that the theory is wrong and that the reason why very old windows are thick on the bttom is that back in the days when said glass was new, window making was very imperfect and that it tended to to be thicker on one side. The reason why now there are only bottom heavy ones is that the ones that were top or side heavy broke over time due to not being thick enough on the bottom and were replaced repeatedly until a bottom heavy one came along that did not break due weight and thickness on the bottom. So the debate rages on. BTW, talk about getting off topic. Yeesh.

------------------
Floyd is pink. Lando is a sex machine.

[willb3d]

About the T1000, there are a bunch of problems about him that you just have to ignore. For example, when he sticks his barbs into the elevator, why doesn't he just flow his entire body in, or whirl his blades around? Movie would been too short, that's why.

[indiephantom]

I'm really really really really looking forward to this disc.

[Prophet]

DOH! ya'll are right, upon re-thinking what i was writting, i realize i was mistaking glass for metal! arrrggghh...
and even if you substitue glass for metal in my post, it is still very ludocris, gotta have some coffee before writting stuff...

[This message has been edited by Prophet (edited 07-19-2000).]

[Dominik Pfleghaar]

Whoa, I think the key word in this whole discussion is fiction, not science
If you're looking at movies (and this movie in particular) from the scientific side, there are a whole lot of strange things to argue about (eg the laws of physics don't apply to some things/guys...)

Still, it is kinda fun to try and find scientific explanations for such things

------------------
Unca Dom
dvdfile.com Administrator
pfleghaar@dvdfile.com
My dvd collection

[samuelk]

Still, it is kinda fun to try and find scientific explanations for such things

[/b]

My point exactly. And I only bring that kind of thing up because it seemed to me that the original reviewer was using those questions as a sort of briefly negative critique of the film. Since Science-Fiction by nature has a sort of built in license for creative freedom, scientific inaccuracies aren't really a good thing to grade. Camera-work, lighting, acting, special effects, etc., sure, judge away. But within reason, one of the main purposes or effects of a sci-fi film is to pose a "what if" scenario that often involves altering or bending the rules of science, or maybe just "fast-forwarding" into the speculative future.

Sam

[walk]

Actually they did use some of the traditional "morphing" technique in T2, in the sequences where the T1000 changes from "liquid metal" appearance to his human (cop/etc) form. They used very short bits of morphing to make the images blend seamlessly.

Also, T2 was certainly not the first or most famous use of "morphing". ILM had also used it previously in "Willow" and it had appeared in several TV commercials. But it wasn't until the Michael Jackson video, "Black or White", which was comprised almost entirely of "morphing", that it became universally recognized.


[This message has been edited by walk (edited 07-20-2000).]

[samuelk]

Originally posted by walk:
Actually they did use some of the traditional "morphing" technique in T2, in the sequences where the T1000 changes from "liquid metal" appearance to his human (cop/etc) form. They used very short bits of morphing to make the images blend seamlessly.

True, but the overall effect (of the 3D liquid metal object changing from shape to shape) is what the review was talking about. The "tweening" you mention could almost be considered "touch-up" work, given its simplicity in relation to the 3D work.

Also, T2 was certainly not the first or most famous use of "morphing". ILM had also used it previously in "Willow" and it had appeared in several TV commercials. But it wasn't until the Michael Jackson video, "Black or White", which was comprised almost entirely of "morphing", that it became universally recognized.

I don't think the morphing in "Willow" was entirely CG. I think a lot of that was done by hand (i.e., artists painting the in-between frames by hand). I think the main reason morphing in "Black or White" stood out (aside from the video being so popular) was the fact that the morphing was a little more complex than normal, involving MOVING images morphing into one another. Most morphing done in TV involved morphing between static images.

Sam

[manigrasso]

I just want to go record as saying I really miss "Pong."

[Mother]

It's better to miss Pong than to miss Ping.

------------------
Mother
listen.to/radiodecay/ | ICQ Me!