Terminator 1 vs Terminator 2 discussion

[JDP]

The Terninator and Terminator 2: Judgement Day While browsing the Vudu account for something to watch this morning, and after the recent news of Cameron’s return to the franchise, I decided to watch these two films back-to-back. There’s really nothing new that can be said about these films at this point. Most of us have seen them numerous times and recognize them as some of the all-time best science fiction films. However, one thing that I’ve continued to notice as time goes on is that the original film is not aging well at all. That’s not meant to be detrimental to the film, it’s fantastic, but just from a time period aesthetic, T2 seems to be aging better and having more of a “timeless” quality whereas T1 is very much a film of the eighties. Of course they both show signs of the times they were produced, it just seems to me that T2 has the edge when it comes to that “timelessness” even though it’s now 25-30 years old. The first Terminator movie was a better film than the second one in practically all aspects. As for "aging": the events of the movie are supposed to take place in 1984, the same year it was released, so it cannot really "age" from this point of view. In fact, the more it looks totally "80s", the better! If you tried to "remake" Terminator today, no matter how "80s" you tried to make it look like, it would never beat the original, made in the same time-period the movie is supposed to be taking place in. Just revel in its totally awesome "eightiesness".

[Neil]

The first Terminator movie was a better film than the second one in practically all aspects. As for "aging": the events of the movie are supposed to take place in 1984, the same year it was released, so it cannot really "age" from this point of view. In fact, the more it looks totally "80s", the better! If you tried to "remake" Terminator today, no matter how "80s" you tried to make it look like, it would never beat the original, made in the same time-period the movie is supposed to be taking place in. Just revel in its totally awesome "eightiesness". Can't agree with that. For me, overall, no.2 was better...

[JDP]

Can't agree with that. For me, overall, no.2 was better... The first one was way more believable than the second one. I could more easily believe the first one as being capable of taking place one day in the distant future than the second one. The main culprit for this will always be that "mercury" robot: it totally ruined T2's "street cred".

[bassman]

Can't agree with that. For me, overall, no.2 was better... I love them both, but I agree with you that T2 is the better film on multiple levels. Cameron had more experience and had really honed his craft at that point, whereas the original film shows as his first big solo effort.

[beat_truck]

T2 had more action and fancy special effects/CGI, but I thought the first was a better and more believable movie. Not to mention, the damn kid in the second one just got on my nerves. And personally, I don't give a shit if a movie supposedly "ages". It doesn't make it any less good. It fact, I prefer older, gritter, movies to 99% of the more modern, ultra polished, CGI filled crap fests. But that's just me, though.

[JDP]

I love them both, but I agree with you that T2 is the better film on multiple levels. Cameron had more experience and had really honed his craft at that point, whereas the original film shows as his first big solo effort. It is impossible for me to agree with any of this. In the second movie Cameron was obviously trying to "top" that well-balanced masterpiece of science fiction that was the first Terminator movie. This is a common mistake that many authors/filmmakers make. They think that they will somehow be able to surpass their own masterful creation. Most make the same mistake: they underestimate how well-done their previous work was, and the result of their attempts at "topping" themselves more often than not end up being a disappointment. In the process of attempting to achieve such futility as "topping" the original Terminator film, he introduced this fanciful but very unrealistic antagonist... yes, that hardly-believable-at-all "mercury" robot, which resulted in making the movie more like a fantasy film than a sci-fi one. That shape-shifting "robot" is more at home in fantasy stories where inexplicable "magical/supernatural" elements are intertwined with the story, like Krull or Dracula, for example (both stories have shapeshifters), than in a Terminator movie. There's just no way that I can possibly believe such a thing as somehow being "possible", which pretty much goes against the grain of science fiction story-telling, which, though still fantasy, it tries to stay within the boundaries of "believability". That's quite in contrast with the robot of the first movie, which is 100% believable. Even in our own current days, only 34 years after the first movie, we are already seeing things come to reality that are starting to come closer and closer to that machine (kind of scary when you think about it!) I can believe that one day in the distant future robotics and A.I. will be so advanced that a machine like the one in the first movie will in fact be a fact! I don't see anything like the "mercury" robot of the second movie anywhere in the horizon, though.

[bassman]

Oddly enough, the T-1000 liquid metal terminator was Cameron’s first idea for the Terminator, he was just limited by the technology of the time. It was after he saw the water creature created for the Abyss that he realized he could finally recreate his “dream”, which he claims was the liquid metal figure emerging from flames. It would’ve been a disaster if he’d attenpted that character in 84. To each his own, but I don’t necessarily watch the Terminator films for their believability. After all, they’re time travel films... I decided to brave it out and continue on with the non-Cameron films this morning. Whew....straight off the bat, T3 is cracking the dumb jokes. Cameron had some simple jokes, but this is just cringeworthy. There ARE some decent ideas in the film, such as a Terminator that can control other technology, but for the most part it’s just an exercise in trying to replicate a past success. I was just reading that Cameron told Schwarzenegger to “take the money and run”, and apparently he did, making over thirty million for his participation in T3?? Wow, at least someone got something good out of it...

[MinionZombie]

haha, yeah, T3 is a turd, isn't it? So cringey so often, the director and the writers clearly didn't understand the source material at all - most obviously of all with the Terminators' sudden jump in strength and resilience (something which carried over into the fourth and fifth movies - remember the molten steel that utterly destroyed any trace of the T-1000 and T-800 in T2? But a mere and temporary hindrance in the fourth movie ). Likewise, I'd pick T2 over T1, but that doesn't mean I don't love T1, because I do, but T2 is all-round a better film IMHO. It's so well crafted - even the sound effects play out with the precision of a symphony, interlinking with the score and editing beautifully.

[JDP]

Oddly enough, the T-1000 liquid metal terminator was Cameron’s first idea for the Terminator, he was just limited by the technology of the time. It was after he saw the water creature created for the Abyss that he realized he could finally recreate his “dream”, which he claims was the liquid metal figure emerging from flames. It would’ve been a disaster if he’d attenpted that character in 84. To each his own, but I don’t necessarily watch the Terminator films for their believability. After all, they’re time travel films... The first Terminator movie = a film geared for an adult audience. The second Terminator movie = a film geared for a younger audience. There's just no comparison. The second film is simply an entertaining action romp. The first one is a well-thought, well-crafted and well-balanced landmark sci-fi film.

[Neil]

Knives Out (2019) - Enjoyable murder mystery romp... 7.5/10 The first Terminator movie = a film geared for an adult audience. The second Terminator movie = a film geared for a younger audience. There's just no comparison. The second film is simply an entertaining action romp. The first one is a well-thought, well-crafted and well-balanced landmark sci-fi film. Don't see it as black and white as that. eg: The attack on Dyson's house is hardly what I'd describe as "geared for a younger audience". IMHO, while T2 isn't as adult orientated as T1, I don't think it's a lesser film because of it. I'd suggest in its favour, it's a bigger and stronger story.

[MinionZombie]

Don't see it as black and white as that. eg: The attack on Dyson's house is hardly what I'd describe as "geared for a younger audience". IMHO, while T2 isn't as adult orientated as T1, I don't think it's a lesser film because of it. I'd suggest in its favour, it's a bigger and stronger story. Yeah, I don't really see T1 and T2 as being pitched at different audiences at all, and never have ... plus the fact that if T2 really was being pitched to a younger audience it wouldn't have been R-Rated and featured copious f-bombs. It's just a different size of movie. T1 was JC's big push into the world of directing (not his debut, that was Piranha 2: The Spawning) and was done on a tight budget. T2 comes along after he's gone to great lengths to make not only Aliens, but The Abyss as well. He was never going to make some small, gritty sequel. He's always been about pushing the boundaries, even within the realm of his own ever-expanding budgets.

[JDP]

Don't see it as black and white as that. eg: The attack on Dyson's house is hardly what I'd describe as "geared for a younger audience". IMHO, while T2 isn't as adult orientated as T1, I don't think it's a lesser film because of it. I'd suggest in its favour, it's a bigger and stronger story. Movies primarily directed at younger audiences can have plenty of violence in them, so that is not a good way of judging who a given movie is primarily directed to. See, for example, the Scream franchise. Their prime target audience are certainly not people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. but teenagers and "twenty-somethings". And they are plenty violent all right. That doesn't mean that older audiences won't see them or enjoy them either, but they are certainly not made with that demographic primarily in mind. In that regard, there is a huge difference between both Terminator movies. The first movie is a more serious, somber, gritty, pessimistic, dark, mature sci-fi movie, the second one is a more light-hearted, action-oriented movie. Two very different primary audiences in mind here. For example, there is very little "comedy" bits in the first movie, and the little that there is, it is again geared towards a more mature audience. The second movie, on the other hand, has plenty of more light-hearted comedy bits. Again, the fact that T2's main protagonist is a teenager is another tell-tale sign of who this movie is primarily aimed at. On the other hand, the only teenagers in the first Terminator movie are anonymous extras. They do not play any important role whatsoever in the story. It is clearly an adult-oriented movie in every aspect. Regarding the story itself: I find the first movie better than the second one. The second one simply tries to follow up on the story of the first one, as it should be expected. But like all sequels, it simply will never be as original, impacting and ground-breaking as the first. What T2 does have over the first one is a bigger budget, indeed.

[MinionZombie]

Again, the fact that T2's main protagonist is a teenager is another tell-tale sign of who this movie is primarily aimed at. On the other hand, the only teenagers in the first Terminator movie are anonymous extras. They do not play any important role whatsoever in the story. It is clearly an adult-oriented movie in every aspect. It's not as if T2 shoves a kid protagonist in willy nilly - he's there for a very good reason: he's John Connor, future leader of the resistance. Plus, with only 6-7 years passing since the first movie, you couldn't have John Connor be much older than he already was in the movie (about 10-12). But just because T2 has more spectacle, doesn't simply mean it's for a "younger audience". There's fans of that movie who first saw it at all ages, and there's plenty in T2 that has deeper thought going on - we again explore the surrogate parent/family idea that JC explored in Aliens, for instance. T1 was hardly aimed at a middle-aged audience, either. Linda Hamilton was only 27/28 when she made the movie, Michael Biehn was young as well (only about a year older than Hamilton). The music featured in the film, too, skews very much to a younger adult audience (the Tech Noir bar scenes in particular, as well as Sarah's bestie Ginger - two young gals about town, doing menial jobs and hitting the dating scene etc).

[shootemindehead]

The Terminator was very much a harder hitting film than Terminator 2 was. To me it was always more horror orientated (it's basically a slasher film with a robot instead of a psycho) than the soft sci-fi of the second feature. Terminator 2 was always a more noisier, dumbed down, rock and roll movie, full of flash and bang. It even had Guns'N'Roses on the soundtrack. Frankly why it was given an 18's cert in the cinema is beyond me. But it later was reduced to 15 on video. Although the first movie was reduced as well, I still think that the tone of each film is very different indeed and at the time of each release, the films were viewed quite differently. You would have been more likely to find 'The Terminator' in the Horror section of your local video shop, along side 'A Nightmare on Elm Street', etc.

[JDP]

It's not as if T2 shoves a kid protagonist in willy nilly - he's there for a very good reason: he's John Connor, future leader of the resistance. Plus, with only 6-7 years passing since the first movie, you couldn't have John Connor be much older than he already was in the movie (about 10-12). But just because T2 has more spectacle, doesn't simply mean it's for a "younger audience". There's fans of that movie who first saw it at all ages, and there's plenty in T2 that has deeper thought going on - we again explore the surrogate parent/family idea that JC explored in Aliens, for instance. T1 was hardly aimed at a middle-aged audience, either. Linda Hamilton was only 27/28 when she made the movie, Michael Biehn was young as well (only about a year older than Hamilton). The music featured in the film, too, skews very much to a younger adult audience (the Tech Noir bar scenes in particular, as well as Sarah's bestie Ginger - two young gals about town, doing menial jobs and hitting the dating scene etc). I saw both movies at the movie theaters when they were brand new. My impression of both was and has always been quite different. So is the impression of everyone else I know who also saw them back in the days. The first movie is a dark sci-fi horror film all the way through, the second movie is a flashy over-the-top sci-fi action romp. The main protagonists of the first movie are all adults (late 20s and beyond.) Everything about the first movie is more adult-oriented than the second one. There's just no comparison. When I saw T2 I was a bit disappointed precisely because of that (and the hardly believable "mercury" robot), even though I still enjoyed it for what it is. But it just is not in the same league as the first movie. Not even close. The first one is a sci-fi masterpiece, a "benchmark", one of those movies by which others in the genre are judged, like John Carpenter's The Thing or the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Not even James Cameron himself will ever be able to top his own masterpiece.