Daenerys Targaryen to face the Terminator

[Ragnar_Lodbrok]

Eh. I like T1 and Aliens a lot, though I too dislike Titanic and find Avatar interesting only because it's a pretty film. I don't know film well enough on a technical level to criticize it effectively beyond that. I found the story in both T1 and Aliens to be better than simply acceptable, however.
And the means of filming are hardly relevant to its quality. T1 may not hold up visually in comparison to modern CGI and such, but that wasn't available, so why view it as though it was?

 

[Kramodlog]

Perennity. What makes the film relevant today if the plot, acting, dialogues, action and FX are terrible?

 

[Dungeoneer]

I watched Terminator for the first time just a couple years ago. I really enjoyed it. And the truth is, except for the ending it's not an especially FX-reliant film. Yeah, the stop-motion terminator in the factory looked cheesy, but that bit was brief. I would rather see a Lucas-style CGI enhancement then a reboot.

Also, Arnie is now 30 years older than he was in the first film. Does anybody really need to see Grandpa Terminator?!?

Also also, remaking T1 inevitably means they will remake T2. Does anybody really think that THAT is a good idea??

 

[Kramodlog]

Also, Arnie is now 30 years older than he was in the first film. Does anybody really need to see Grandpa Terminator?!?

Maybe he'll play the human who's appearance was used to make the Terminator. A deleted scene from T-3

[video=youtube;kayFrIR-Qfw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kayFrIR-Qfw[/video]

(It is Samuel L. Jackson's voice)

Also also, remaking T1 inevitably means they will remake T2. Does anybody really think that THAT is a good idea??

They plan on a whole new/reboot trilogy, so yeah, T-2 and T-3... If the first film is profitable.

 

[Ragnar_Lodbrok]

Perennity. What makes the film relevant today if the plot, acting, dialogues, action and FX are terrible?

To your opinion. I found the plot enjoyable, the acting and dialogue okay, the action good, and the FX as good as it was getting at the time. Aliens was, from my viewing of it, even better in all of those categories. So, my opinion is at odds with yours. Firmly, at that.

 

[Kramodlog]

To your opinion.

Ain't the majority of comment we make our opinion?

I found the plot enjoyable, the acting and dialogue okay, the action good, and the FX as good as it was getting at the time. Aliens was, from my viewing of it, even better in all of those categories. So, my opinion is at odds with yours. Firmly, at that.

Key phrase. Look at T-2 and you'll see a film that could be showed today and people would think it was made this year.

 

[Dioltach]

For what it's worth, I disliked T2 when it was released. It's little more than a remake of T1 but with special effects. T1 is grittier, edgier, more novel. It doesn't have an annoying adolescent. Personally I watch movies for more than the special effects.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

*sigh*

Everyone keeps telling goldo 'bro, the effects were state of the art at the time' which in no way, shape or form rebuts his criticism that the movie did not age well.

And Avatar? Really? People thought it had a good plot? I'm amazed. Avatar totally nailed the passive 3d effect, though, and nothing has come close to doing it as well since. The plot, though, was 'white cripple saves noble savages' which is most certainly not something anyone should think is even remotely ok. And the political statement - especially at the beginning - was so obvious that it took me right out of all those fancy effects. We get it Cameron, you think Bush is an environment hating warmonger. Jeebus ...

 

[Kramodlog]

For what it's worth, I disliked T2 when it was released. It's little more than a remake of T1 but with special effects. T1 is grittier, edgier, more novel. It doesn't have an annoying adolescent. Personally I watch movies for more than the special effects.

It is so the opposite. Everything is better with T-2, not just the FX. Better acting, better dialogues, better plot, better photography, better pacing, better choreographed action scenes, actually gritty, edgy, superior end...

Damn, I soiled my pants.

 

[Dioltach]

Damn, I soiled my pants.

Yes, we get the picture. You like Terminator 2. Almost every other post in this thread is you arguing that T2 is better than T1. Other people don't agree. That doesn't mean you have to keep repeating your opinion: people's preferences are subjective, and being told again and again that their tastes are wrong isn't going to make them change their mind.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Everyone keeps telling goldo 'bro, the effects were state of the art at the time' which in no way, shape or form rebuts his criticism that the movie did not age well.

Again, I personally like most of the movie contra to his pointed dislikes- acting, plot, etc. 'Bout the only way in which the movie can be said to "not age well" would be in SFX, and, again, I disagree. In that area, the critique misses the nature of SFX- he's criticizing the film on the basis of something that could hardly have been better at the time, INCLUDING some props that were actually used in the subsequent movies he does not judge likewise.

 

[Kramodlog]

Yes, we get the picture. You like Terminator 2. Almost every other post in this thread is you arguing that T2 is better than T1. Other people don't agree. That doesn't mean you have to keep repeating your opinion: people's preferences are subjective, and being told again and again that their tastes are wrong isn't going to make them change their mind.

You mean like people who keep saying T-1 is awesome?

 

[Ragnar_Lodbrok]

You mean like people who keep saying T-1 is awesome?

No, I'm saying I liked it, and feel it aged okay. T2 is undeniably better. I just don't have a good enough grasp of film technicalities to judge them to any real level. Music's similar. The best explanation for that which comes to mind is that I have no interest in or ability to make films (or songs).

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Again, I personally like most of the movie contra to his pointed dislikes- acting, plot, etc. 'Bout the only way in which the movie can be said to "not age well" would be in SFX, and, again, I disagree. In that area, the critique misses the nature of SFX- he's criticizing the film on the basis of something that could hardly have been better at the time, INCLUDING some props that were actually used in the subsequent movies he does not judge likewise.

I don't think you're understanding the point. Back then the effects could have been the bee's knees. That's got poo all to do with today, though. Hell man, that's the point. The time it was made has nothing to do with how it looks today.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't think you're understanding the point. Back then the effects could have been the bee's knees. That's got poo all to do with today, though. Hell man, that's the point. The time it was made has nothing to do with how it looks today.

I haven't missed the point at all. I said previously that's like criticizing a classic Ford Mustang from the 60s for not being a Pagani Zonda.

If you look at modern music, there were some electric guitar and bass techniques pioneered in the 1960s and 1970s. Some of those pioneering techniques have become the hallmarks of mere competence for guitarists and bass players of this era.

Criticizing those pioneers as being less technically accomplished as those who built upon their work over the subsequent decades is simply unfair.

A cave painting at Lasceaux is not any less amazing because it isn't a photorealistic composition.

If someone were to remake Terminator using the techniques of the 1980's, criticizing the nature of the project's SFX as being dated would be a valid critique.

But looking at the original as it stands, though, and judging it as flawed because a 30 year old film's SFX don't look as good as CGI SFX of the films of the current era...that's just as unfair.

 

[Morrus]

I think T2 has aged worse. The CGI is really ropey by today's standards. It continues to age every year. The model work in T1 aged for a while, but it kinda stopped aging 15 years ago.

T1 is more visceral than T2. And less kiddy - nobody guns down a nightclub full of people in cold blood in T2. And Hamilton's performance is better. I agree T2 is a better movie, but T1 has strengths T2 doesn't. And doesn't have that dodgy CGI.

 

[Kramodlog]

I think T2 has aged worse. The CGI is really ropey by today's standards. It continues to age every year. The model work in T1 aged for a while, but it kinda stopped aging 15 years ago.

The CGI aged rather well and could compete with some films today.

T1 is more visceral than T2. And less kiddy - nobody guns down a nightclub full of people in cold blood in T2. And Hamilton's performance is better. I agree T2 is a better movie, but T1 has strengths T2 doesn't. And doesn't have that dodgy CGI.

Whoa! You're kidding, right? The shootings in T-1 are rather comical and Hamilton's acting was also comical. T-2 is very adult, dark and violent. Hamilton is a tranformed woman. The atmosphere is more oppressive, the sense of being a tracked beast is actually achieved.

 

[Morrus]

The CGI aged rather well and could compete with some films today.

I don't think so. That bit where the T1000 walks out of the flames of the truck looked awful 10 years ago, let alone now. It's pretty dire.

Whoa! You're kidding, right? The shootings in T-1 are rather comical and Hamilton's acting was also comical. T-2 is very adult, dark and violent. Hamilton is a tranformed woman. The atmosphere is more oppressive, the sense of being a tracked beast is actually achieved.

T2 feels like a sterilized Disney flick in comparison. It's far more kiddy.

It's still a better movie, but *that's* not why!

 

[Scorpio616]

T2 feels like a sterilized Disney flick in comparison. It's far more kiddy.

Agreed, had it been made today, the studio would forced a PG-13 onto it.

 

[Kramodlog]

I don't think so. That bit where the T1000 walks out of the flames of the truck looked awful 10 years ago, let alone now. It's pretty dire.

Not has a bad as the Hobbit film when the crew get off the eagles. That was pretty bad CGI.

T2 feels like a sterilized Disney flick in comparison. It's far more kiddy.

Really? I just watched the shooting in the police station. It is pretty tame. No blood or gore, just cops getting shot (jumping back). Nothing special. No tension, no sense of aesthetics, no blood and rather comical. Disposable cops. Having a lot of people getting shot doesn't mean it is more gritty. How it is done is important too.

When the T-1000 kills John's dad with a blade though the head, it is not "kiddy". There is an effort to create an emotional impact on the viewer by surprising him with a rather graphic image that is unveiled gradually. There is a sense of aesthetic and actual blood! There is an emotional impact with just one death.