PacMan2006

A lot of people pull out movies from the 80's and early 90's and say that certain films have aged badly, for a variety of different reasons. It seems like most often, though, that reason is due to dated visual effects.

With the new Skynet Blu Ray out, what do people think of this film in regards to its CGI? Once seen as revolutionary, do you all feel it now comes across as significantly "dated?" Or do you think the CGI is still impressive?

Superboy

the fact that the movie uses it sparingly and for purposeful effects is what makes the movie hold up for me today.

Rypro 525

It still holds up by far. i watched a majority of it before terminator salvation (in theaters in line) and most of the effects are still impressive (the metal man coming out of the fire, T-1000 going through the floor ect.

Draven

In general, the effects are more noticeable as "effects" then today's movies of the same caliber, but overall it's still fine.

chris_sc77

I think the effects are better and more seamless in T2 than in T3 for instance.
Same goes for Jurassic Park compared to JPIII
I think it is a same we dont get as much in camera effects and more obvous computer shit nowadays.
Sorry, but i am a sucker for miniatures and animatronic creatures over some digital pixals.
I consider these to be actual artforms and more realistic. When they do the computer shit i dont consider that an art and seems way to easy and amateurish when they move their mouse and click instead of actually creating something real.

fumanstan

It's a bit dated, but not terrible. There are some shots that look pretty hokey to me.


I disagree that Jurassic Park or T2 effects are better then their sequels, at least for the majority of the scenes. I thought T3 used a lot of traditional stunts and actually can't remember anything that stood out that was poor, having watched it a couple months ago. The original Jurassic Park has some really bad CGI by today's standards, such as the pack of dinosaurs running through the field with Dr. Grant and the kids.

Boba Fett

The partially destroyed Arnold in T3 was a terrible effect.

wm lopez

It's dated in that there isn't a shade of green teal through out the movie like all cgi movies of this decade.

PopcornTreeCt

I watched Ghostbusters on Blu-ray last night and though the special effects held up quite well. The ghosts looked like ghosts. The streams could've looked a little better but not a deal breaker.

emachine12

Marcus Wright destroyed does not match T-1000 being shot full of holes. Plus the T-1000 has an extra arm whilst using the helicopter which many people never noticed.

Supergirl: The Movie had better believable flying than the CGI junk of Superman Returns. Hell, My Super Ex-Girlfirend and Underdog had better CGi flying than Superman Returns.

Rockmjd23

T2's CGI holds up because it was used as an effect and not as an entire scene like in todays bad cgi movies. Heck the special effects in Aliens are a million times better than in something like Van Helsing and there's a 20 year difference.

TGM

come now, let's not get crazy.

the practical effects with the aliens themselves are kickass, but the crashing jumpship scene in Aliens is beyond awful.

Solid Snake

Really? I think it looks good even today. Yeah, CGI could make it better but the projection of the model was good too. In fact that's one of my fav scenes in the film.

SethDLH

I don't mind older effects, maybe its just me. A good example is Hellraiser, which is now 22 years old. Many people say it hasn't aged well as far as effects (the cgi, not practical) but I'm not bothered by it at all.

Solid Snake

My fav CGI in T2 is probably when the T-1000 comes down the elevator as blob of liquid metal, reforms and takes chase.

mikehunt

I still kind of remember when I first noticed that, it was while watching on dvd and I had to go back and pause it to confirm

been a while since I've watched T2 so I can't really comment on how the cgi has held up, but I'm guessing it looks better than the claws in wolverine, especially in the farmhouse bathroom scene
those were horrid looking and a huge step back from x1-3

Jason

I think most of it looks great, but the arnie stuntman on the motorcycle jump looks terrible. "Modern" CGI would be able to do a head swap with little effort.

Of course, "modern" CGi would mean they would do a needlessly acrobatic stunt that would be all CG, arnie, motorcycle, and all.

cranberries fan

It's all good like a dolphin ride in your dreams!

Solid Snake

Yeah, it catches my attention every time. Isn't that a mask on the stuntman? I think that's what the making-of doc showed....

chanster

T2 holds up, Aliens holds up. Most of Cameron's work still holds up. T2 holds up because a lot of the effects were not CGI, they used a lot of twins (Hamilton, Guard Guy) etc. God damn I miss those type of movies. Motorcycle stunt guy never really held up, so I am not going to hold it against T2.

The dropship from Aliens never looked that great either, it always looked bad. Thats about 5 minutes of the movie, and not a constant distraction like CGI in today's movies.

PacMan2006

On another note, can someone explain how Kyle Reese can die in the first film and supposedly be a child in the fourth (I never saw the fourth film, but read a quick synopsis)? I know it has to do with shifting time lines and futures, but I'm sure there are people here who know this far better than I.

TGM

Kyle Reese had to be a child at some point in order to grow up to be sent back in time as an adult, right?

PacMan2006

True, but John was born in 1985, I believe. Not sure when T4 takes place...2018? Which would make Connor 33. But Connor is protecting a young Reese, aged 12 or so? Which means he was born around 2006?

And didn't Reese impregnate Sarah in T1, thus Connor being Reese's kid? Not sure how an adult son can protect his child father.

islandclaws

Even though there have been incredible strides made in the field of CGI, the fact remains that there is still plenty of shoddy work on display today, almost 20 years after T2. That being said, I think its effects hold up remarkably well, not only because they are used sparingly and (mostly) well-rendered, but because the film kicks so much ass, too.

dan30oly

I just noticed that a few weeks back watching the movie again before seeing salvation. I think that since it was in HD it was much easier to catch.