Discuss Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Discuss → Movies → Terminator 2: Judgment Day → General
Getting Old is Weird
posted by AlienFanaticSTAFFMOD on May 27, 2019 at 9:34 PM
I am old enough to have seen Terminator 2 in the theaters when it came out, lo so many years ago. After watching the trailer for Terminator 6: Dark Fate I decided to re-watch T:2 while I exercised. After I finished watching, I was struck by how audience tastes seem to have changed over the years. Forgive me for a little bit of an "old dude rant," but I can't help it.
If you really watch T:2 you're struck by how little CGI there really is. There are sequences with the T1000, some of which hold up really well and others that don't, but there are far, far, FAR more in which James Cameron, lacking today's CG technology, relied on old in-camera tricks or simply avoided using CG at all. Examples
- The use of a twin for the "duplicated" guard in the mental hospital
- The use of a quick camera switch when the guard walks down the hall, the camera looks over at Sarah, then pans back to reveal Robert Patrick instead
- The use of ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS for stunt sequences, including jumping the tractor trailer rig and the motorcycle jump, instead of the weird CG puppets we get now.
- The focus on human-scale destruction instead of what I'd call "cartoonish" levels of mayhem you see in trailers for new movies, such as T:6.
- and on and on
I avoided referring to cases where CG probably COULD have been used effectively, at least today, such as during the nuclear explosions or forthe Skynet enemy vehicles.
The reason I bring this all up is that I was struck by how much more "present" the actors felt in this movie. Because there were visual limits to what Cameron could do, or perhaps because of his own proclivities, the movie stayed tight on Sarah, John, the T800 and the T1000. It never felt a need to increase the scale to ridiculous proportions, again perhaps because they couldn't. Today's Hollywood, though, seems to think that sheer spectacle and putting unlimited amounts of color and explosions on screen is equivalent to creating an effective action movie. Bigger is better and ginormous is better still. It's that attitude that prevents me from watching, for example, a Dwayne Johnson flick because they're just so ridiculously cartoonish and OTT. (The same goes for 99% of the superhero movies.)
Again, old man rant I guess but it feels like the movies are overflowing with "stuff" now that CG is everywhere, but the human element--the part at least I feel I can connect to--just isn't there anymore. It's been replaced by cartoonish characters so far out of the human scale I can't even relate anymore.
PS. I never noticed this before, but I was struck by how James Cameron used sunglasses for both the T:800 in T:1 and the T1000 in T:2 to increase the alienation the audience felt. The Terminators seem even more threatening and unstoppable when you can no longer see their eyes. (Robert Patrick's dead gaze is crazy effective.) In the trailers for T:6 Gabriel Luna, sans Ray Bans, looks like an accountant.
Reply by JustinJackFlash
on October 30, 2019 at 3:40 PM
I'm not sure these directors lack the skillset. Some of them probably do. But the talented ones probably know the deal: get paid a lot but be steered by Marvel.
Remember, these Marvel directors include the likes of Shane Black: writer and known expert of 80s and 90s actioners and Taika Watiti: Acclaimed director of innovative and quirky comedies such as What We Do in the Shadows and Eagle Vs Shark. And looking at Civil War and Winter Soldier I think it's pretty clear that the Russo Brothers are incredible action directors. I would like to see what they could be capable of if they were to make a more grounded action film where they have full control.
And yeah, we do have a serious lack of proper actioners from Hollywood these days. The Bourne films are all we seem to get.
Reply by autoexec.batman
on October 31, 2019 at 1:51 AM
Or perhaps they never really were as great as you are making be then out to be and they just got lucky by making a couple big budget action movies that were just slightly better than the generally abyssmal standards of the genre.
I mean, The first Terminator movie wasn't exactly art, but it looks fantastic compared to other action movies of the era like Cobra, The Running Man, Commando or the endless Jean Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagal films that dominated that time period.
No one thinks that these movies deserve to be Best Picture winners or anything.
Reply by JustinJackFlash
on October 31, 2019 at 8:19 AM
Judging by the standards of the average Best Picture winner I'd say they deserve to be. The Terminator is a better film than Chicago. Robocop is a better film than Green Book. Alien is a better film than A Beautiful Mind. Etc, etc.
Reply by martymonstertmdb
on October 31, 2019 at 9:45 AM
Don't be silly JustinJackFlash. The oscars are everything. That's why James Cameron's best films are Titanic and Avatar in that order.
Reply by JustinJackFlash
on October 31, 2019 at 12:42 PM
Hahaha! Did Avatar win Oscars!? Other than technical ones? I must have thought it so ridiculous at the time that I refused to acknowledge it. Blanked it from my memory.
Reply by Rudd-12
on October 31, 2019 at 1:39 PM
OP, no need to appologize! Many if us feel the same. I rarely go to the movies anymore. I'd rather rewatch T2 or Alien than go see any modern Supertrope movie. Long live the classics of film making.
Reply by Fergoose
on October 31, 2019 at 1:54 PM
I do like some of Waititi's work (Wilderpeople was really good), Black less so (like many, his best days lie behind him). But are we arguing that these guys can craft an action flick with the same skill as the guys I mentioned (particularly Cameron)? I think that is highly questionable, but good luck to Waititi, particularly if he continues to make the odd labour-of-love film.
And yes, Bourne Identity was this millennium and was good. Thought it was from the late 90s. So that counts!
Reply by Fergoose
on October 31, 2019 at 2:01 PM
So anything short of best picture winner, or anything that isn't a 'serious' movie cant be high quality? I think you are throwing an entire genre under the bus without good reason. If Alien/Aliens, T1&T2 and Robocop are lucky, then there must have been a surplus of four leaf clovers in the 80s. Modern, mainstream US cinema could really use some of that luck right now.
Reply by Fergoose
on October 31, 2019 at 2:11 PM
But wait a minute, you were just critical of people infinitely more talented than you in this very thread. And not just the posters. For example:
Does that mean it is a "valid opinion" for you to laugh and think of a 24 carat douchebag every time you look in the mirror? Using your logic and terminology of course (both of which I find wanting).
Reply by autoexec.batman
on October 31, 2019 at 4:12 PM
The Dark Knight is a better movie that. "Crash" and "Avengers Endgame" is a better movie than "American Beauty", but I still don't think either of them deserve a Best Picture nomination.
Reply by Billions
on October 31, 2019 at 8:28 PM
Learn to quote. You don't always need the last word you know. You've gotten yourself in such a rush to respond that you quoted nonsense at me.
Reply by A-Dubya
on November 1, 2019 at 12:13 PM
LOL 😄😄
Reply by Fergoose
on November 3, 2019 at 10:55 AM
Well, at least we have found common ground in agreeing that I had quoted complete and utter "nonsense". :p
Reply by Billions
on November 3, 2019 at 7:30 PM
I meant your nonsense reply quoting another reply of mine from another discussion on this thread.