DVD Talk
Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?


PacMan2006
06-21-09, 03:43 PM
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
06-21-09, 03:46 PM
the fact that the movie uses it sparingly and for purposeful effects is what makes the movie hold up for me today.

Rypro 525
06-21-09, 04:12 PM
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
06-21-09, 04:18 PM
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
06-21-09, 05:42 PM
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
06-21-09, 05:50 PM
It's a bit dated, but not terrible. There are some shots that look pretty hokey to me.

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.


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
06-21-09, 06:20 PM
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.

The partially destroyed Arnold in T3 was a terrible effect.

wm lopez
06-21-09, 06:51 PM
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
06-21-09, 06:56 PM
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
06-21-09, 07:30 PM
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
06-21-09, 08:07 PM
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
06-21-09, 08:55 PM
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.

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
06-21-09, 09:19 PM
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
06-21-09, 09:34 PM
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
06-21-09, 09:54 PM
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
06-21-09, 10:03 PM
Plus the T-1000 has an extra arm whilst using the helicopter which many people never noticed.

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
06-21-09, 10:31 PM
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
06-21-09, 11:01 PM
It's all good like a dolphin ride in your dreams!

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tvsquad.com/media/2006/09/dolphin.jpg

Solid Snake
06-21-09, 11:29 PM
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.

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
06-22-09, 12:20 AM
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
06-22-09, 10:03 AM
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
06-22-09, 10:06 AM
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.

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
06-22-09, 10:12 AM
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
06-22-09, 10:57 AM
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
06-22-09, 11:24 AM
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.


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.

Solid Snake
06-22-09, 02:57 PM
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.

*cracks knuckles*
Ok...Reese wasn't 12 in Salvation. If he was...that's the oldest looking 12 yr old I've seen. Probably late teens/early 20s. That's what Reese is in Salvation.

Reese is sent back in time to save Sarah Connor. In that time he impregnates her. Sarah is pregnant w/ John. T2 happens...no big genetics in this thing, we did get a fucking awesome intro about the war though. T3 shouldn't have existed. T4....John currently KNOWS who his father was and that he would have to meet his father. He meets Reese.

NOW....*clears throat* if it has to make sense, which is the way it does to me. The John Connor that sent Reese in T1, we never see him btw, the Connor that sent Kyle back in time...may not have known that sending Kyle back in time would allow him to literally have him send his father to save his mother along with him. OR Maybe Connor changed the future into a different alternate version of it's history. We don't know much about Connor...for all we know he may have had normal parents and when Judgement Day happens Connor somehow became the badass we all knew he'd have to be. Skynet sends a T-800 to kill Sarah, Connor sends Reese, and here we are in T1.

I'd like to think that Connor changed the future by sending Kyle and unknowingly made him his father.

harrydoyle
06-22-09, 03:00 PM
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.

Yes, indeed. That one is especially bad and looks like a kid throwing his toys or something. Someone had to inhale a lot of airplane glue fumes to make the little model they used for that.

Solid Snake
06-22-09, 03:07 PM
Regardless of what you say...it seems fine to considering it's the mid-80s.

CertifiedTHX
06-22-09, 07:42 PM
I think the effects are better and more seamless in T2 than in T3 for instance.

I was watching T3 recently, and I noticed a scene where the makeup was betraying the illusion. When the T-800 is advancing on Connor, having been reprogrammed by the T-X, the movement in his cheeks shows that the exposed endoskeleton is just painted.

Would have been a much better effect had they achieved it like Harvey Dent's burnt face in The Dark Knight. Just in the closeups. They could have given the skin tiny stretching motions as the T-800 moved his jaw; would have made it look as if it was actually covering a metal skull beneath.

--THX

james2025a
06-23-09, 11:05 AM
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.


Actually i watched this a couple of weeks ago and it appears to me that he actually has 4 arms. If you look at the video clip at the link below and look at 2:42-2:44 mins of the video....look at the window/door on the right of the helicopter as he is changing the guns clip and i swear i see a 4th arm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkeL4bT8mjU

Fanboy
06-23-09, 04:28 PM
Regardless of what you say...it seems fine to considering it's the mid-80s.

1991 is mid-80s? Huh, and I thought PacMan2006 had a problem with the concept of time. :nopanic:

chanster
06-23-09, 05:05 PM
1991 is mid-80s? Huh, and I thought PacMan2006 had a problem with the concept of time. :nopanic:

I believe he was talking about Aliens, not T2.

Solid Snake
06-24-09, 12:33 AM
Tis I was. T2 is amazing. It's a film that will be remembered in the genre. It's a classic already. I mean...once you see this...you have a hard time seeing such a huge action film to top it, it's sort of rare.

matrixrok9
06-24-09, 03:53 PM
Tis I was. T2 is amazing. It's a film that will be remembered in the genre. It's a classic already. I mean...once you see this...you have a hard time seeing such a huge action film to top it, it's sort of rare.

So true. When was the last time you cared for a damn robot? Even most movies today that are "character driven" doesn't have the emotional impact T2 had.

I was also excited to see special effects movies after T2, then we got Van Helsing, Star Wars Prequels and I Am Legend, with really lazy special effects.

Solid Snake
06-24-09, 04:51 PM
You brought up a good point. What huge action/sci fi/etc/etc film brought everything that a film needs? I love the Matrix but..even that has it's faults. No huge action film with SFX has ever topped T2 in quality. Yes, I love me some Matrix, Iron Man, TDK, etc...but this film had it made (and boy do I love IM and TDK). It was handled by a man who had TOTAL control of the story he wanted over things and scenarios he created, I'm not saying he had total film control but...he was the owner of the Terminator brand. And his work all led up to T2. Look at his works T1 (classic), Aliens (another classic in the genre), The Abyss (well loved by us..but rarely mentioned by the common public)...it all showed a growing filmmaker and it really really peaked with T2. Yes, True Lies is awesome and Titanic was production wise amazing and troubling (read into it) but..T2 is everything and the kitchen sink. This control as well may be that well Cameron....is a control freak..but a good one.

toddly6666
06-24-09, 07:39 PM
The only funny special effects in T2 are whenever Robert Patrick is shot - look very closely and it looks like he is wearing "shot mark" metal pins that they just stuck on his clothing. For example see the photo below:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/T1000_3.jpg

Keep your eye on those whenever they pop up. They look like pins probably because they are pins!

UAIOE
06-25-09, 04:19 AM
I think part of the reason why T2's CGI still works (aside from being used sparingly) as that it was used to render something (liquid metal) that I don't think can really be done "wrong" with CG. I mean, *actual* liquid metal has a bizarre sheen/look to it that makes it look weird anyway.

I think the problem with modern movies is, they are trying to render things that don't have this natural "weird look" to cancel out the "fake plastic sheen" that CG tends to add to things.