An interesting level of this scene is that it implies neither terminator is able to identify a fabricated voice even though they have a full understanding of each other's design. The T-1000 cannot tell it is talking to a T-800 until it realized it has been tricked and the T-800 cannot tell it is talking to a T-1000 until it tricks the other machine.
Of course, it happens over a pay phone so perhaps with the full vocal range in person it would have been different.
It was the golden age of special effects, when weak computing power had to be supplemented with effects as craft - mechanical and chemical. Those impressive liquid metal bullet holes are NOT computer-generated:
And they used twins as doubles in many cases, instead of CGI. One is the security guard in Sarah Connor's prison (in some shots his twin brother acts like the T-1000), and yet another case is of course with Linda Hamilton and her twin sister.
A fascinating practical effects scene, cut from the theatrical release, is when Sarah is removing a chip from the T-800's head in front of a mirror. Instead of using CGI, there is no mirror but a hole in the wall, where you can see actual Arnie and Linda Hamilton's twin sister acting as the "reflection"; the people closer to the camera are actually a dummy (or a double with heavy prosthetics for the hole in the head) and Linda Hamilton. This means they are sync'ing their movements to simulate a mirror!
(I understand this was done both to avoid showing a camera reflection on the mirror, and also to avoid using a dummy for Arnie's face, which worked in the original Terminator but would have been too noticeable for T-2's era).
Yeah, I just love the ingenuity and sometimes brazenness of 90s effects and stunts. They look way better than today's green screen atrocities.
Just yesterday I learned that in Cliffhanger (also aged amazingly well), they paid one million dollars to a stuntman to actually travel the harness between the two planes while airborne. Not bad for a day's work.
I rewatched it a few months ago. Fully expected the parts where they talk about the tech to be laughably wrong compared to the current state of the art in ML. Nope. Spot on.
(Edit: with artistic license obviously. It was plausible-sounding instead of cringe technobabble).
I'd never use extremes like 'best' or 'worst' to describe any type of creative piece, but I have to say having recently watched the first 2 movies again for the first time in like 20 years: yeah there is something about these movies (and some others from that era) which I'm really missing in releases of the past decade. Only problem being: I don't know if it's merely some nostaligic bias or if they are really just better overall.
No they are just better. I watched them years later and not as a kid and they're just great.
It's about the pacing, pauses and slower character and world building.
Newer movies are built for second screening and maximising action sequences to not bore the audience which kills all atmosphere and sense of time and place - the worst example of this is the new Avatar movie, absolutely horrible in every sense of the word, while the first one was alright as i remember it.
You simply need to "set the stage", explain why this story is important and why the characters deserve sympathy or hate before you start your 3 hour action sequence - this step has been removed for some reason.
Verhovens old movies were the same - there was a nerve, a seriousness, a reflection beneath the action, now it could just have well been created by an alien algorithm without a sense of the actual human experience.
I wonder if it's a ridiculously extrapolated but misunderstood tic-tokification of cinema to please marketing? Because i've seen 20 second tik-toks with more emotion and character introduction than a lot of newer movies.
For a contrasting movie, I thought “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” (2019) was the opposite. The movie spends something like 80% of the time with setup. I loved it, my wife hated it. Looks like it’s 70% on Rotten Tomatoes.
One other difference: sounds & soundtracks. I don't mean the foley work per se, but songs you would want to listen to very often written for the movie.
With the explosion of synthesis software and digital audio workstations its easy for a small team to score a sound track on the cheap.
As with everything tough, there's always a few outliers, like (both) of the Tron: Legacy soundtracks.
Tron: Legacy soundtrack was done by Daft Punk. Not exactly your run of the mill movie studio hack job...
Other interesting soundtracks done by musicians not known for soundtrack work you might find interesting:
Fight Club (Dust Brothers)
Event Horizon (Orbital with London Symphony Orchestra)
Chaos Theory: Splinter Cell 3 (game) (Amon Tobin)
> i've seen 20 second tik-toks with more emotion and character introduction than a lot of newer movies.
Sure but this assumes movies are about characters and emotion. Michael Bay gets a lot of shit, but sometimes you just want to see things explode. Sometimes you just want to see robots fighting for two hours. Sometimes you want to see California swallowed by a tidal wave and the emotional character plot lines get in the way.
I would pay to see a movie called “Two Hours Of Giant Rocks Hitting The Earth: No Characters Edition”, and the fact Michael Bay is rich means a lot of people agree.
>Michael Bay gets a lot of shit, but sometimes you just want to see things explode.
That's the truth right here. I once ran across kung-fu movie called Chocolate (iirc). The premise was an autistic girl who was good at fighting. The entire movie was her walking into a room, kicking major but, then walking into a different room to kick more but.
I appreciate action too but i mean, character or world building is not that hard and doesn't really require that much when a 30 second commercial can give you enough backstory to (unwillingly) empathise with someone.
Theres a difference from both Avatar 1 and quite a few of Michael Bay's older movies - they still have have a story arch.
Just a few minutes of character building and a few intermezzos and these movies would be much, much better in my opinion.
But i also hate too much CGI. I don't know what happened to "well dosed", it makes what's dosed so much more valuable.
Watching the Bayhem piece by Every Frame A Painting gave a ton of great context for Michael Bay’s work. Super interesting, ten minutes long, worth a watch. That channel is full of grade A content.
> a movie called “Two Hours Of Giant Rocks Hitting The Earth: No Characters Edition”
But would you go to see Giant Rocks 2?
> the fact Michael Bay is rich means a lot of people agree
This is the argument often made for Avatar against the "no cultural impact" observation. It still doesn't have any quotable lines or memorable characters.
Huh, I had friends complain that it was overly long and focused a lot on its setup and setting up bits and pieces like the kids' relationships and the new culture.
Interesting, I didn't love the new Avatar but I thought it was much better paced and directed than a Marvel or superhero movie. Shots lingered and showed more emotion than the current crop of action / fantasy movies (Star Wars, Marvel, Transformers).
It's not nostalgia. Movies today are mostly hyper-produced, over focused-grouped, effects driven piles of blandness trying to avoid being offensive or take chances because if every critic 51% likes you, you have a 100% on rotten tomatoes.
Given advances in technology, I'm not so sure it has to be a blockbuster for there to be a comparison. Especially given how formulaic blockbusters can be. (Eg there are 6 Transformers movies, with 2 more in development.) Drive (2011) is an indie movie, costing an estimated $20 million (inflation adjusted) compared to almost $220 for Terminator 2. Everything Everywhere All At Once cost $25 million to make, just over the threshold of "indie".
Comparing computing power is a bit handwavey, but former Pixar employee Chris Good estimated that the SPARCstation 20 render farm cluster that rendered Toy Story had only half the power of the 2014 Apple iPhone 6. https://www.quora.com/How-much-faster-would-it-be-to-render-...
Which is also an excellent counter-example to almost every other action movie which all rely on almost completely CG everything. No that MM:FR didn’t have its share of CG, but the practical effects create an authentic anxiety to much of the action.
EEAO is very unusual; it's an "indie" "arthouse" film that's stuffed full of references to other bits of non-Western cinema, as well as having lots of SFX action sequences. It had a budget of under $15m (per wikipedia), which is much less than the $170m of Top Gun: Maverick. I'm very glad that somehow it got made, but there's a real drive to not make any middle-budget movies like that any more.
> Top Gun: Maverick feels like it could have come out thirty years ago.
I've not seen it, but to what extent is that because it's a remake of a film that came out 30 years ago?
I never liked Top Gun, but when others spoke fondly about it, a Maverick-like movie was what I always wanted. Reasonable character arc, lots of practical effects, good story. It is a script that would have worked in the 80s and fits in that style of concise, well paced action movie, but it’s far superior to the original, imho.
Guardians of the Galaxy (the first one), Thor 3, Boyhood. There are blockbusters of our days that are going to be eternal classics, like the Terminator.
People like to criticize back-references as a cheap way to entertain the audience knowing the referenced works, but I think it's a legitimate feature. A movie or a show doesn't exist in a vacuum; watching a sequel or a work in the same universe, I expect to see both subtle and direct call-backs.
I liked the nostalgic aesthetic and references of stranger things, it never felt gratuitous. Top gun had a lot of shot for shot callbacks and filler scenes/shots that could have been edited down/out to make for a tighter movie. It's like they couldn't decide if they wanted it to be a sequel or a remake, so they said "why not both?"
Having just re watched Gremlins with teenage children (for their first time), there is definitely something about that era of movies.
Dodgy animatronics were first scoffed at, and then forgotten pretty quickly as everyone just got into the pure enjoyment of that movie.
This is a nigh on 40 year old film, with a lot of target references, yet it still hits the mark..
That said, rewatched transformers too, purely for the joy of the initial transformation (childhood toys coming to life..), and thoroughly enjoyed it (though it's already feeling a bit dated).
I just watched Gremlins with my kids during the holidays. My older teen had to look away and hated it (they can’t do horror films), my other teen was abhorred by all the death, and my pre-teen had the full range of emotions from cracking up often and jumping at the surprises.
With that said, I was surprised to see how decisive, resourceful, and adaptable the mother was. Hears a noise in the attic, grabs a knife. Gets attacked, puts creature in nearest blender/microwave and hits switch. Hears another noise, grabs two knives because one wasn’t enough last time.
IIRC, I remember from discussions with other scriptwriters that BTF was rejected SO many times (and he redrafted it each time, afterwards) that the version that got filmed was like v12 of the story. Very, very tight and plotted.
> That said, rewatched transformers too, purely for the joy of the initial transformation
Aside from the voice acting, there's nothing redeeming about those movies and felt like someone just pissed on my childhood. Any aspect of the cartoons or toys that inspired joy and wonder was lost in translation.
The initial transformations were spoiled by trailers and also just disappointing in general. The transformations are largely incomprehensible and they might as well have used Star Trek transporter FX or a flash of light to transform them.
Count me in in saying that there is something about these older movies that eclipses almost all "entertainment" these days. It is mostly the storytelling ranging from "the message" to the dialogue. None of it resonates with me.
For me Pixar movies are great in this respect. Storytelling is there front and center. There is a book (Creativity Inc iirc?) that talks about Pixar history and their process, pretty incredible how many hits they were able to produce during their era and how consistent they were. Not sure if they produced anything lately though?
> Not sure if they produced anything lately though?
Recently-ish: Coco, Soul, and Inside Out are among my favorite Pixar movies and all compete with the golden-era Pixar classics in terms of being memorable and story-first.
The Disney acquisition seems to have crushed some Pixar magic. You can no longer assume every Pixar movie to be gold, but they can still turn out top-quality content.
That’s true of many Denis Villeneuve movies, though. There are always going to be directors that produce quality, regardless of current trends, however, these are the exception (and unfortunately, not always reliably consistent).
Sure, but the movies they’re being compared to were also the exceptions of their day. We remember them precisely because they were good, but tons of dross was also being released at the same time.
The market economics were also vastly different at the time, streaming really has changed the industry, and the quality of tv shows has improved dramatically.
My point was you chose a movie from a director known for stunning movies. That has nothing to do with the time period the movie was made. Stanley Kubrick, Terry Gilliam, Darren Aranofsky, and many others consistently make movies that would be considered beautiful regardless of when they were released.
For me a big part of it is due the slow pace. Today's slow movies are filmed in a way that make them feel more fast paced than action movies from the 80s/90s
Watch Jurassic park and Jurassic world back to back, or The mummy vs the remake with Tom Cruise, too many cameras, too many view points, too many cuts
Way too far in the opposite direction IMO. I did love the series (well, right up until the last two episodes, when it was clear they ran out of money to actually conclude things properly) but it was as slow as molasses.
As someone who LOVES the books (the frank herbert ones at least). I thought the movie was great. They captured the tone very well, casting was good. Even the dialogue created just for the movie that Duke Leto and Paul have about Desert power was very Dune. It also helped make clear that the Atriedes aren't "good guys" right off the bat.
My only real complaint was that the time between them landing and the Harkonnen's invading was too short and didn't cover all the intrigue/politics occuring on Arrakis before the invasion.
In the movie it came off as: Okay Leto you get Arrakis now LOL JK WE'RE INVADING IMMEDIATELY. But that being said, I understand there are length constraints and I think the movie was already about 2.5 hours so I can forgive them
I read the books back in the 90s, but I don't remember it being obvious the atradies were bad. The seemed pretty egalitarian other than the main family. But I may have missed it. The harkonens are just horrific though. Am I remembering wrong from someone who has read more recently.
I'm fine with how they did it in the movie I just never really jive with shows where everyone sucks.
The Atreides are still agents of a foreign empire occupying and exploiting Arrakis. They impose the Imperial hierarchy and law on the unwilling populace, by force, if necessary, and they extract the resources. They do try to treat their subjects well within the boundaries permitted by the system, unlike Harkonnens; it's just that the system itself is inherently oppressive, so the best they can do is being "good feudals". Paul even spells it out at one point:
“You sense that Arrakis could be a paradise,” Kynes said. “Yet, as you see, the Imperium sends here only its trained hatchetmen, its seekers after the spice!”
Paul held up his thumb with its ducal signet. “Do you see this ring?”
“Yes.”
“Do you know its significance?”
Jessica turned sharply to stare at her son.
“Your father lies dead in the ruins of Arrakeen,” Kynes said. “You are technically the Duke.”
“I’m a soldier of the Imperium,” Paul said, “technically a hatchetman.”
Kynes’ face darkened. “Even with the Emperor’s Sardaukar standing over your father’s body?”
“The Sardaukar are one thing, the legal source of my authority is another,” Paul said.
The Dune was a complete waste of time. I have no idea if its adapted from a book or something but I just couldnt understand the story, just that the spice should flow.
Had my daughter watch aliens for Halloween cause she was suggesting shit scary movies like the witch. She's 22. Gosh is that movie excellent. The best was the 3 endings where she relaxed and I was like excellent. Esp the spaceship fight. You thought this was over, no the most tense parts of the movie are yet to come.
And it's not just "badass - it has a solid emotional core that drives the character.
The director's cut makes it even more clear - Ripley lost her baby while she was in cryosleep, which gives her character's desperation to save Newt even more urgency.
_ALL_ of his 80s and 90s movies hold up. He was a master storyteller that understood the tools, the craft, how to get the best out of the people working for him, and most importantly the story and characters.
For whatever reason, he through out story and pushing people to their limits for technology and spectacle. It makes me sad to think that the last movies we’ll see from Jim Cameron are likely all in the Avatar universe, written by committee and acted in front of green screens.
While I share that sentiment, I also appreciate that his current movies are at least his singular vision. Not a lot of original IP currently where the director gets control over the end product.
Obviously it’s all a matter of taste but there are people (myself included) that think practical effects complemented with CGI is still the right way to do action.
Top Gun Maverick would be a data point that a lot of people agree. No matter how good the CGI, actors con a sound stage in front of a green screen just behave differently than actors or stunt people actually doing action stuff.
Well, to be fair, if you filmed yourself in a car, with a windshield-attached camera, driving over rough terrain, and then stabilized the footage, it would also look like you and other passengers lurching around - though perhaps in a more synchronized fashion.
In that footage you'd be at least moving in similar directions, in st they're all over the place, it's just way more obvious when there's no camera shake.
Your experience is subjective and unique to you and so is for everyone else. That's why there's no point to use some objective metric to rate entertainment anyways.
I don't generally like modern movies or TV as well, and I feel some what entitled to that opinion.
A lot of the jokes making T-800 talk like a 90s skater punk are pretty cringey today. I still have fond memories but my kids thought it was pretty dumb.
I agree. Now that I'm older, I've seen kids 30 years younger than me try to get their parents to use modern popular slang, and it feels super cringey.
James Cameron would have been 36 when he was making Terminator 2, and he's a polymath with an eye for detail, so I'm sure he deliberately went for that layered meaning.
>An interesting level of this scene is that it implies neither terminator is able to identify a fabricated voice even though they have a full understanding of each other's design. The T-1000 cannot tell it is talking to a T-800 until it realized it has been tricked and the T-800 cannot tell it is talking to a T-1000 until it tricks the other machine.
What made it even more amazing was that the T-800 ran on a 6502 processor.
Of course, it happens over a pay phone so perhaps with the full vocal range in person it would have been different.