Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

Community
Search
Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-21-09 | 02:43 PM
  #1  
PacMan2006's Avatar
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,507
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

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?
Old 06-21-09 | 02:46 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 7,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: So Cal
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

the fact that the movie uses it sparingly and for purposeful effects is what makes the movie hold up for me today.
Old 06-21-09 | 03:12 PM
  #3  
Rypro 525's Avatar
DVD Talk Hero
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 28,263
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
From: a frikin hellhole
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

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.
Old 06-21-09 | 03:18 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 47,631
Received 2,268 Likes on 1,407 Posts
From: Rosemount, MN
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

In general, the effects are more noticeable as "effects" then today's movies of the same caliber, but overall it's still fine.
Old 06-21-09 | 04:42 PM
  #5  
Banned
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Bellefontaine, Ohio
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

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.
Old 06-21-09 | 04:50 PM
  #6  
fumanstan's Avatar
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 55,349
Received 27 Likes on 15 Posts
From: Irvine, CA
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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.
Old 06-21-09 | 05:20 PM
  #7  
Boba Fett's Avatar
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,481
Received 114 Likes on 84 Posts
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

Originally Posted by 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.
The partially destroyed Arnold in T3 was a terrible effect.
Old 06-21-09 | 05:51 PM
  #8  
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

It's dated in that there isn't a shade of green teal through out the movie like all cgi movies of this decade.
Old 06-21-09 | 05:56 PM
  #9  
PopcornTreeCt's Avatar
DVD Talk Hero
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,913
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

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.
Old 06-21-09 | 06:30 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,175
Received 93 Likes on 65 Posts
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

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.
Old 06-21-09 | 07:07 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,000
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
From: MA
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

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.
Old 06-21-09 | 07:55 PM
  #12  
TGM's Avatar
TGM
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,090
Received 472 Likes on 294 Posts
From: Massachusetts
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Old 06-21-09 | 08:19 PM
  #13  
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
From: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

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.
Old 06-21-09 | 08:34 PM
  #14  
SethDLH's Avatar
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,729
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
From: Maryland
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

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.
Old 06-21-09 | 08:54 PM
  #15  
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
From: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

My fav CGI in T2 is probably when the T-1000 comes down the elevator as blob of liquid metal, reforms and takes chase.
Old 06-21-09 | 09:03 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 29,850
Received 23 Likes on 16 Posts
From: Bartertown due to it having a better economy than where I really live.
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

Originally Posted by emachine12
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

Last edited by mikehunt; 06-22-09 at 06:59 PM.
Old 06-21-09 | 09:31 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 20,179
Received 341 Likes on 217 Posts
From: behind the eight ball
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

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.
Old 06-21-09 | 10:01 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: West Richland,WA
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

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

Old 06-21-09 | 10:29 PM
  #19  
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
From: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

Originally Posted by 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.
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....
Old 06-21-09 | 11:20 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Chicago, IL
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

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.
Old 06-22-09 | 09:03 AM
  #21  
PacMan2006's Avatar
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,507
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

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.
Old 06-22-09 | 09:06 AM
  #22  
TGM's Avatar
TGM
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,090
Received 472 Likes on 294 Posts
From: Massachusetts
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

Originally Posted by 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.
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?
Old 06-22-09 | 09:12 AM
  #23  
PacMan2006's Avatar
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,507
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

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.
Old 06-22-09 | 09:57 AM
  #24  
islandclaws's Avatar
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,084
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
From: Behind the Orange Curtain
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

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.
Old 06-22-09 | 10:24 AM
  #25  
dan30oly's Avatar
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,750
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: Terminator 2 (1991) CGI...Still Holds Up in 2009?

Originally Posted by 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.
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.


Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.