I grew up in the 90s, hell the first film I eve saw as a child was Predator. So I understand where you are coming from. Hollywood today seems to really yo much on CGI as a crutch. I personally love films that use CGI in a way that you cant even tell its CGI. They just blend it in casually. And dont get me started on CGI blood, cant stand that stuff, I miss the good old days where they used squibs for everything, including head shoots. But times have changed. Now we have multi billion dollar franchises like Transformers. Nothing bad story and CGI. And Hollywood just keeps on pumping them out for the mindless masses to enjoy. But there is a silver lining. Films that could use CGI back in the day can be re made. Course this could also go very very wrong, as there are plenty of examples out there. But I have hope for the new Dune film coming out. I think it will be a great example of actual sets and CGI blended together.

@AlienFanatic said:

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.

The only practical effect that worked was the playground nuke scene, but the rest were transparently cheap and tacky especially the climax where Arnold jumped off the chemicals truck as it was approaching the steel factory. As I rewatch T2 the more shit and poorly made it looks and it becomes more crap each time I watch it, which I wouldn't mind if it didn't take away from the more pivotal moments, which it does. As for the rest of your CGI snobbery you can shove it up your ass, a film laced with poor practical effects is amateur thank God film making has evolved since Terminator 2. Watch it for nostalgia sakes which is fine but not as a particularly well made professional action movie.

@AlienFanatic said:

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.

And also it's funny you mention character focus on Sarah, John, T1000, T800 because Edward Furlong was a shit actor. And to be honest Linda Hamilton wasn't all that good either. A focus on the family element only works if they're relatable/likeable or I'd at least settle for at least one of them being good at acting with a believable backstory of some kind. Sarah being thrown into the lunatic asylum and John being fostered with no proper explanation as to why she would abandon her future earth saviour son to indulge in her own crazy also ruined the family dynamic you're wanking yourself over. Staying tight on shit actors and poor storytelling isn't my thing.

I agree that CGI is overused, but Terminator 2 doesn't really hold up that well. As Billions said, the acting is not that great, and the action is no longer impressive. Hollywood was always about bigger is better, it used to be that films were jam-packed with explosions and car chases, which I always found just as boring as todays CGI fests in their own way.

The key has always been to use effects well. The Original Terminator movie holds up much better, largely due to Michael Biehn's great acting and the musical score that builds up the tension.

Most of the CGI in Marvel movies is used superbly. There are a few moments where it sticks out like a sore thumb, but those are the exceptions. The worst offender was Black Panther. The CGI fight at the end almost entirely ruined that movie. I think it was due to a restricted budget(they had no idea it was going to make 700m at the US box office). There is a scene in Civil War when they jump down onto the freeway, and it's obvious CGI, as well as when Captain America tackles Black Panther. On the other hand the part where bucky grabs the motorbike looks amazing. The Bucky/steve vs Iron Man fight is a mixture of CGI and practically choreography, and looks great.

Then you have something like Aquaman, which looks more like a cartoon than a live action film. That film bored the shit out of me. It will get numberous sequels thanks to the massive BO returns though. Yay.

I heard someone my age say that they showed a younger person this movie maybe 9 years ago for the first time. The young person was blown away that the movie came out in 1991. They thought that it was more recent, because of the effects and everything. That says a lot I think, for how well most of the elements hold up almost 28 years later.

So basically, I agree completely with the OP's post.

@AlienFanatic said:

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.

Interesting. Notice also that when Sarah Connor chooses to kill Dyson, she too is now wearing sunglasses. Perhaps to show that she too has temporarily become a terminator.

The only reason he used actual stunt men to perform the stunts is that he didn't have the technology to do then digitally. He admits that the stunts were insanely dangerous and that he was lucky that no one was killed. (I note in passing just how common it has become in the last few years for stuntmen to die on movie sets while performing stunts.). He says that if he was to make this movie today there is no way that he would ask a stuntman to perform the kinds of stunts that the movie required, and that he would do them on a green screen.

I'm pretty much with you on this, OP. T2 came out in a different era. The industry has progressed a great deal since then, and progress isn't always a good thing. It'll never go back, though.

As long as there are industries advancing, there will be 'lost technology' when older methods are simply lost when they're no longer used or handed down. I wonder how many special effects men are unable to reproduce the incredible special effects of Carpenter's The Thing, or of Coppola's Dracula. I once asked a filmmaker how he would achieve a certain effect from Tarkovsky's Stalker, and he told me that he honestly had no clue how to approach it without digital effects.

Interesting that Cameron did do a bit of George Lucasing on the Blu Ray release and put Arnies face on the 2 obvious stuntment shots in the canal chase. (The jump and when he overtakes the truck) He also digitally fixed the windscreen falling out of the truck when it comes off the bridge, but for some reason left it obviously smashing its front axle.

I'm not sure that the issue is CGI. I think it is more the in the 80s and 90s talented directors, in their peak, like Cameron, got the opportunity to create top quality action films with big budgets; and that in that era, some level of coherence was required in the plot and the audience was credited with being able to follow dialogue for a few minutes without incessant 'action'.

Maybe the likes of Cameron, Verhoeven and Ridley Scott were a rare breed? I think it is highly questionable that the directors who are making generic Marvel action film No. 137 have the skillset to make something to compete with thr great action films of yesteryear.

I doubt a modern day Cameron would be let within a 100 yards of a cast and crew by someone bankrolling a movie. Far better to stick with a director you can control, who will stick to the proven money making formula and/or the overblown and incoherent that is so prevalent in Hollywood. I'm not sure I've even seen a decent action movie released this milllenium, Raid 2 was decent (but obviously isn't Hollywood).

@Fergoose said:

I think it is highly questionable that the directors who are making generic Marvel action film No. 137 have the skillset to make something to compete with thr great action films of yesteryear.

The douchebag is strong with this reply. Such pretentious twattery is a beauty to behold. And also who are you to judge what their skillset is? Are you ever going to amount to something worthy of making a YouTube webisode let alone a Marvel movie? Mouthing off on film forums is one thing but actually being trusted with hundred million dollar movies is quite an opportunity you'll never experience.

@Fergoose said:

I'm not sure that the issue is CGI. I think it is more the in the 80s and 90s talented directors, in their peak, like Cameron, got the opportunity to create top quality action films with big budgets; and that in that era, some level of coherence was required in the plot and the audience was credited with being able to follow dialogue for a few minutes without incessant 'action'.

Maybe the likes of Cameron, Verhoeven and Ridley Scott were a rare breed?

Then explain why none of the directors you mentioned has made a decent movie in more than 20 years? Titanic, Avatar, Showgirls, Prometheus, Exodus: Gods and Kings, all complete crap.

@autoexec.batman said:

@Fergoose said:

I'm not sure that the issue is CGI. I think it is more the in the 80s and 90s talented directors, in their peak, like Cameron, got the opportunity to create top quality action films with big budgets; and that in that era, some level of coherence was required in the plot and the audience was credited with being able to follow dialogue for a few minutes without incessant 'action'.

Maybe the likes of Cameron, Verhoeven and Ridley Scott were a rare breed?

Then explain why none of the directors you mentioned has made a decent movie in more than 20 years? Titanic, Avatar, Showgirls, Prometheus, Exodus: Gods and Kings, all complete crap.

Because talent in all arts typically fades with time. The well often runs dry in music, books and movies. I don't think that is controversial? Same applies to Speilberg, Kurosawa, Lucas etc etc.

@Billions said:

@Fergoose said:

I think it is highly questionable that the directors who are making generic Marvel action film No. 137 have the skillset to make something to compete with thr great action films of yesteryear.

The douchebag is strong with this reply. Such pretentious twattery is a beauty to behold. And also who are you to judge what their skillset is? Are you ever going to amount to something worthy of making a YouTube webisode let alone a Marvel movie? Mouthing off on film forums is one thing but actually being trusted with hundred million dollar movies is quite an opportunity you'll never experience.

Can you point me to where it says only award winning directors can hold valid opinions on films, or where it says TMDB isn't a forum for exchanging views? No? Then I'll have to bow to your superior experience on douchebaggery.

@Fergoose said:

@Billions said:

@Fergoose said:

I think it is highly questionable that the directors who are making generic Marvel action film No. 137 have the skillset to make something to compete with thr great action films of yesteryear.

The douchebag is strong with this reply. Such pretentious twattery is a beauty to behold. And also who are you to judge what their skillset is? Are you ever going to amount to something worthy of making a YouTube webisode let alone a Marvel movie? Mouthing off on film forums is one thing but actually being trusted with hundred million dollar movies is quite an opportunity you'll never experience.

Can you point me to where it says only award winning directors can hold valid opinions on films, or where it says TMDB isn't a forum for exchanging views? No? Then I'll have to bow to your superior experience on douchebaggery.

And I hold the valid opinion that you mocking talented (well more talented than you) men and women in the film industry is funny to me is all.