Linda Hamilton says she wouldn't star in a 'Terminator' reboot: 'It's been done to death'
Linda Hamilton, who played Sarah Connor in the iconic movies, told Business Insider that she doesn't think there should be a "Terminator" reboot.
You're viewing a single thread.
Am I the only one who thinks T2 was the last good film in this series?
Since then it has disappeared up it's own arse the time lines and stories are so ridiculous.
T2 was the greatest action film of all time imo. Your can't top it, especially now when it would be all CGI. T2 is so damn impressive in part for the stunts and insane shit they were pulling, like the helicopter highway chase which now would be all CGI and lose all of its balls cause there's no longer a badass stunt man on a chopper dodging overpasses
T2's villain wasn't CGI?
T2's villain wasn't CGI?
Not always... They had an amputee play him when he was being frozen near the end there and his leg and hand breaks off.... They shattered a frozen mould of him for the next shot.... A few times he is played by acting twins... So for instance, there's two Sarah Connors at the end, and John has to decide whose the evil twin?... Well turns out Linda Hamilton has a twin sister, and she played the evil T1000... And same for the portly redheaded security sheriff's deputy in the psyche ward.
...also they used special rubber chrome squibs when he gets shot by bullets... Those hits are not CGI surprisingly.
The villain was CGI, but essentially everything else in the film was done with old school effects and actual filming locations.
Compare this to many, many modern movies where the stage is basically the size of oh about a basketball court and is surrounded by either green screens or high res displays with a few props, where the situation is essentially the inverse of T2: the only real thing is the actor and nearly everything else is CGI.
Hell even a lot of the shots of the wounded T1000 were done with sculpted mannequins and prosthetics and such.
Even in a what is probably the best current modern action movie series of John Wick, (though I have yet to see 4 so maybe this has changed) basically my only real gripe with it is that it uses CGI blood in action sequences instead of squibs.
EDIT: Also somewhat ironically... the latest couple of James Bond movies seem to still be using actual practical effects and real actual locations for action sequences, but apparently James Bond is now woke or gay or something because they bothered to attempt to actually make Bond have a character arc and seem somewhat like an human being with emotions, so theres that.
He was, and very well done, in an age where CGI was not something to fall back on like it is now. It was used in conjunction with stunts and practical effects. It can be used for an element like the liquid metal, but once you start doing cgi car and helicopter chases, your brain knows that none of it is real and you may as well be watching a cartoon. When there's practical effects and stunts, your brain knows to be impressed.
The scene where Arnold rides a Harley off an overpass is practical effects! I've seen the making of that scene and it's glorious.
T2 is the only one I like, I've only seen a couple but T2 SLAPS.
Sarah Connor Chronicles, and Dark Fate was pretty good. T3, Salvation, and Genisys were ok. I haven’t outright hated any entries.
Dark Fate was surprisingly really good. Obviously not as good as T2, which was one of the best movies ever made. But still exceeded every expectation I had.
I agree. I think fans are divided over John’s story in the first act: I personally didn’t mind it and thought it was good for Dark Fate to make a clean break, but I can see why others couldn’t get past it.
You're not the only one. That's why every time they make a new movie they give up on whatever else they've tried to make and go back to picking up where T2 left off.
Holy Matrix, they keep resetting the timeline to the 90s as a base for the best of times?
The Sarah Connor Chronicles was awesome
I loved T3, but I think there are only like 12 other people who feel the same way. I thought the scene at the end where John Conner realizes it's judgement day, and his foretold future is upon him is amazing cinema. It was the perfect culmination to the previous movies. I also really enjoyed how throughout the entire movie you can see Skynet coming online as it knocks out internet connected devices across the planet. It's a brilliant movie with some minor quality issues.
The lore itself is uninteresting at this point. The timeline seems done to death and none of it is interesting. I think the core of T2 is a horror movie where you get a nightmarish killer chasing our heroes. I think T2s story and lore works around that core perfectly. The other movies seem to work around a "twist" or some other gimmick that the core feels missing or inadequate.
Am I the only one who thinks T2 was the only good film in this series?
FTFY. Okay, okay, the first film was enjoyable, low-budget sci-fi cheese but you all have to admit there is a world of difference between the first and second movie, a qualitative quantum leap. Then the saga went ahead with bigger budgets and smaller brains. But that's James Cameron for ya.
I think you're being to harsh. I used to like T2 more than T1, but as I grew older I've switched to liking T1 more. T1 is a great horror film, and T2 is a great action film. T2 was a good end to the story started in T1. What they should have done is stopped making other movies in the timeline after T2. I wouldn't call Salvation a good movie, but it's the best out of all the rest because it actually tried something original. All the other movies are just T2 reskinned.
James Cameron is great at making action sequels to horror movies.
The was a 7 year gap between 1 and 2. 1 was a bit cheesey but was a pretty solid low-sci-fi for '84s abilities.
Cheese? What the fuck