Terminator 2 Grill a Movie
#1
Posted 17 May 2004 - 08:18 AM
It could never have taken place because the pretext of the first film absolutely ruled out the possibility of another terminator travelling through time to assassinate Sarah or John Connor.
Don't believe me? Watch the first movie again. Kyle tells Sara that in the future, the war had been won and the machines had lost. However, they sent one terminator through the time machine as a last ditch attempt to snatch the victory from the humans. Kyle went in after it. Sara asked him how he was going to get back and Kyle told her that he couldn't get back - because after he went through, they destroyed the time machine. That's right. The machines were vanquished and the time machine was destroyed. So after the terminator failed it's mission, it was over. End of story.
Second problem - even if we ignore this fact, the T-1000 could not have travelled through time anyway. Let me refresh your memories on something else from the first movie - the reason why the terminator had a human exterior was so he could travel through the time machine. Only flesh could go through. This is why Kyle couldn't bring any weapons with him either, if you remember. So the T-1000, entirely liquid metal, did not meet the pre-requisites for time travel.
The T-1000 Liquid Metal Guy - this is just too stupid for words. I cannot believe how many people can suspend their disbelief for this thing. There are many components that a machine would require to operate, especially a machine like this one that can think for itself and act independently. It needs mechanics and wiring to move and it needs some type of battery or other power supply. In addition to this, it needs a lot of memory chips and things like that. Now what happens to all of this when the T-1000 shape-shifts or turns into a moving liquid metal puddle to get under the crack of a door?
In addition to this, the T-1000 was not scary. When he is ripping off dialogue from the original movie, it just doesn't work. Compare the line "Get out." When the first terminator, missing one eye and in a bloody mess, climbs into the truck and says "Get out.", it is pretty intimidating. When the little T-1000 says it to the helicopter pilot, it's almost laughable.
The movie is not frightening when the original Terminator movie was. The original Terminator was. It was a suspense movie that maintained its tension right until the final terrifying act. Terminator 2 by contrast has so much silly stuff going on with the kid that it almost seems like a comedy in places.
Terminator had fantastic character dynamics - it was perfect. The young woman, the man who would do anything to protect her and the inhuman machine that would stop at nothing to kill her. Kyle's devotion to Sarah and the journey that they went through was very powerful.
In this movie, we get a good terminator hanging out with a kid and it's practically a big brother/little brother kind of movie. It's not Big Daddy but it's still pretty childish.
And now the kid... we are forced to suspend a lot of disbelief for this little brat. He is arrogant, rude, very immature and not only are we expected to believe that he is Sara Connor's son - we must also believe that he will become the leader of the army that overthrows the cyborgs in the future.
It is possible, I know. But this average movie goer would have been a lot more comfortable with a young man who was intelligent, mature beyond his years, serious and reserved.
Now, I must confess that having said all that, I can still enjoy the movie in its own right. So perhaps I should not have titled this thread as being part of the Grill a Movie series. However, what I don't like about this movie is that when I consider it as the second Terminator movie, it seems like an absolute mockery of the first movie.
The first Terminator was a very original and bold film. It was intelligent, thought-provoking - a masterful suspense story and I believe it was also a powerful love story.
Terminator 2 however was simply a Hollywood action flick. It was a fairly enjoyable one, I will admit that (although I admit this with shame). But when considered as the second Terminator movie, it was a travesty.
Okay, I know you'll be all dying to defend the movie and attack my criticisms so I'll leave the post open to you. I look forward to our debate.
#2
Posted 17 May 2004 - 09:47 AM
#3
Posted 17 May 2004 - 10:03 AM
It is a much less intelligent film than the first one.
Although I will agree with you that John Connor matured by the end of the movie. However, I think he should have been quite mature at the beginning.
By the way, do you really like Edward Furlong?
#4
Posted 17 May 2004 - 10:27 AM
T2 is technically a better film than THE TERMINATOR, but THE TERMINATOR has more heart. The story - plaigiarized from Harlan Ellison, a fact later copped to in the video credits - is one of those nice little self-causal loops that are loads of fun in time travel stories and occasionally in wildly experimental memory films like MEMENTO and LA JETEE (also a time travel story, but a bit more).
T2 is more a remake than a sequel, since every action sequence can be maped to the previous film, with Shwarzenegger replacing Michael Biehn and dumb one-liners replacing all of the suspense. I think when the Terminator says "I need a vacation" at the end of the film, even children of ten were biting their lips in disgust.
Yes, the time travel story stinks, yes the entire film is predictably cribbed from its predecessor, and yes the liqui-metal monster is completely impossible. I had hoped, during the ad campaign, that somehow the parts of the original terminator, fallen as they were back in time, would be shown also to have been the cause of the whole intelligent machine business in the first place, a new self-causing loop as big as the one in the first film. When I heard that they were doing just that, I was excited. All excitement was replaced by apathy by the time the film was over. they did nothing with this great concept, and even replaced it with the completely absurd "future is not fate" nonsense that is fine in the multiple-universe idea, but not possible under the TERMINATOR rules.
Low budget sci-fi is not of itself "cheesy." There are few films that even try to be sci-fi; most are just dumb war movies or crap horror set in space. THE TERMINATOR was so rare it deserved not to have had a sequel.
#6
Posted 17 May 2004 - 10:48 AM
What do you mean? Have you SEEN American History X? And Detroit Rock City is one of few comedies from the past five or six years that I find to be genuinely entertaining.
#7
Posted 17 May 2004 - 06:15 PM
The one thing that bugs me about both T2 and T3 is that the villain, as a shapeshifter, could just morph into some unsuspecting form, go up behind the good guys, and kill them. Easy. The fact that the Terminators, once their identities were discovered, went in AS THOSE DISCOVERED PEOPLE, was much more unforgiveable than any of your small holes. Not to mention the fact that, come on, he blows him into little particles, and the particles themselves come together and the terminator is fine, and then he drops him in lava and that kills him? I think that T2 should have ended there, with Schwarzenegger shooting the frozen T-1000, saying Hasta la Vista, baby. Then you can have the same scene where he has to destroy himself, but the fact that those little pieces came back together almost ruined the ending for me.
But even that did not ruin either movie. I thought both were well-done (T2 moreso than T3) and very entertaining action flicks, with a bit more intelligence and character-driven story than the usual action picture.
Oh and though I didn't think Furlong was too bad, I loved Nick Stahl. I'm so glad they cast him and not Furlong in T3. Isn't it amazing how much he does look and act like Reese? I thought Stahl was the best part about T3.
#9
Posted 17 May 2004 - 10:20 PM
Problem with this is, then it suddenly doesn't matter if John Connor dies. Since the future and all of its major events is "inevitable," I guess some other guy will come along, like other people will come along to replace all those lieutenants the T3 killed. It's confusing, it's stupid, it's hogwash. Actually no; I would not wash a hog with this movie. I would be castrated by PETA.
T3 is the sickest, dumbest excuse for sci-fi ever made in the modern era. It's as though its writers had no idea what the premise of the first film was. Frankly T3 makes the BACK TO THE FUTURE series appear as tightly plotted as CHINATOWN. There's no reason to watch a movie that has no story, or worse, a stupid one, unless the effects and the stunts are amazing. The effects and the stunts in T2 compensate for its embarrassing and dumb story. The character stuff is also good, given the pretext. The effects and the stunts in T3 are ho-hum, big deal, and the character stuff: "You were my first kiss;" "We were fated to meet" made me gag until I tasted blood.
#10
Posted 17 May 2004 - 10:28 PM
For the record I, like many, am a big fan of the first Terminator - i feel it is superior and would probably have best been left alone.
But the fact is i don't care if T2 (or T3 for that matter) aren't as 'potent' as The Terminator. Who the hell should? (aw geez, i'm setting my self up with that one... please don't go nuts)
Anyway, for further evidence of Edward Furlong's goodness, see Pecker.
- Hassan i Sabbah
"There's nothing wrong with anything."
- Philip J.Fry
#11
Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:32 AM
Just reading a little more of this post, Terminator 3 sounds really bad... worse than I had initially feared.
I also feel like retaliating against the term 'nitpicking' which was used against my criticisms. If something in a movie is completely impossible and extremely inconsistent with parametres that were set up in a movie that preceeded it, then to criticise it is not nitpicking. These are very serious faults.
However, I'd just like to remind everyone that I did confess in my initial post that Terminator 2 was still an enjoyable movie for me. But when you think about it as a sequel to the original Terminator, it is a real injustice.
Making a slap-stick weightless film as a sequel to a very powerful movie is just wrong.
And perhaps those of you familiar with my other posts would know that I have a real problem with bad sequels. Bad stand-alone movies only hurt themselves. Bad sequels (and prequels) hurt good movies.
#12
Posted 18 May 2004 - 05:43 AM
Yeah. I was. I don't care if it doesn't make sense. I took the story in the context of the movie so that I would get maximum enjoyment out of it. Looking that way, it is a bigger rehash of T2 with a better actor playing Connor, though there is a worse female lead. Fine, tell me Judgement Day was inevitable. That's the story you want to tell, that's ok. I felt it was entertaining enough as an action flick to take the story in its context and not analyze it so deeply.
#14
Posted 18 May 2004 - 09:19 AM
#15
Posted 18 May 2004 - 09:39 AM
But occasionally both movies come on television and I watch Terminator on one night and Terminator 2 the next - and when I watch them like that, Terminator 2 is not very enjoyable. It feels like someone is making a mockery of the wonderful film I saw the night before.
Also, as I am myself an amateur writer, I take plot and consistency very seriously. I spend a lot of time checking my own work to make sure there are no holes in it and that the different parts don't contradict each other. And I do not think it is unreasonable of me to expect that other writers should do the same.
I wish they'd gone to the trouble to work out how they would overcome the parametres set up by the first film. If they worked out a convincing explanation for how two more terminators were able to travel back in time, the movie would have been a lot better for it.
Lastly, the plot holes in Terminator 2, while they do not hamper my enjoyment of the film, are still enormous plot holes!
Nit-picking is a term for picking on tiny little details, not great big ones.
That's why I objected to you using that term. I've got a very valid argument here. You may not like it - but it's completely true. Accusing me of nit-picking is not a defense.
Anyway, I never said the film was not enjoyable. Perhaps everyone would have been happier if I had titled this "Technical Inconsistencies" instead of "Grill a Movie"... but I wanted a good debate.
If anyone wants to post counter-arguments against the points I raised, please do. This is what good lively debates are about.
*I guess I only have myself to blame for what's occurred under this topic... as I deliberately chose Terminator 2 to get a bit more of a debate happening.
If you're worried, I mean no offence to anybody.
* except Civilian Number Two