The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Well, not as far as I'm concerned.
What made the first 2 Terminatiors stand out? Arnies muscle? The "robots taking over" plot?
No. The blood and gore.
Because, Terminator 1 and 2 were chocked full of it. Gore, blood, filthy language and very little that could be found funny in these two films. Then comes Terminator 3, with its pathetic attempts at comedy. (Arnie puts on star glasses in one scene). What the hell is this? You can't be a hard man if you wear gay star glasses. You never see Vinnie jones wearing tank tops.
It's these stupid moments of comedy that ruin the dramtic affect of Terminator 3. The first two were gritty films set on low budget, and they were the better off. The 3rd one was some glossy and high budget mess that made fun of all the first two stood for. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this film as it was, it had some nice touches (the physchatrist (sp) from the previous films that ran away when he saw Arnie) but it does not qualify to be in the exclusive group for "real" Terminator films.
Your thoughts on this?
What made the first 2 Terminatiors stand out? Arnies muscle? The "robots taking over" plot?
No. The blood and gore.
Because, Terminator 1 and 2 were chocked full of it. Gore, blood, filthy language and very little that could be found funny in these two films. Then comes Terminator 3, with its pathetic attempts at comedy. (Arnie puts on star glasses in one scene). What the hell is this? You can't be a hard man if you wear gay star glasses. You never see Vinnie jones wearing tank tops.
It's these stupid moments of comedy that ruin the dramtic affect of Terminator 3. The first two were gritty films set on low budget, and they were the better off. The 3rd one was some glossy and high budget mess that made fun of all the first two stood for. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this film as it was, it had some nice touches (the physchatrist (sp) from the previous films that ran away when he saw Arnie) but it does not qualify to be in the exclusive group for "real" Terminator films.
Your thoughts on this?
Page:
Well, not as far as I'm concerned.
What made the first 2 Terminatiors stand out? Arnies muscle? The "robots taking over" plot?
No. The blood and gore.
Because, Terminator 1 and 2 were chocked full of it. Gore, blood, filthy language and very little that could be found funny in these two films. Then comes Terminator 3, with its pathetic attempts at comedy. (Arnie puts on star glasses in one scene). What the hell is this? You can't be a hard man if you wear gay star glasses. You never see Vinnie jones wearing tank tops.
It's these stupid moments of comedy that ruin the dramtic affect of Terminator 3. The first two were gritty films set on low budget, and they were the better off. The 3rd one was some glossy and high budget mess that made fun of all the first two stood for. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this film as it was, it had some nice touches (the physchatrist (sp) from the previous films that ran away when he saw Arnie) but it does not qualify to be in the exclusive group for "real" Terminator films.
Your thoughts on this?
What made the first 2 Terminatiors stand out? Arnies muscle? The "robots taking over" plot?
No. The blood and gore.
Because, Terminator 1 and 2 were chocked full of it. Gore, blood, filthy language and very little that could be found funny in these two films. Then comes Terminator 3, with its pathetic attempts at comedy. (Arnie puts on star glasses in one scene). What the hell is this? You can't be a hard man if you wear gay star glasses. You never see Vinnie jones wearing tank tops.
It's these stupid moments of comedy that ruin the dramtic affect of Terminator 3. The first two were gritty films set on low budget, and they were the better off. The 3rd one was some glossy and high budget mess that made fun of all the first two stood for. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this film as it was, it had some nice touches (the physchatrist (sp) from the previous films that ran away when he saw Arnie) but it does not qualify to be in the exclusive group for "real" Terminator films.
Your thoughts on this?
neither were chock full of gore - I recall the odd 'disturbing' scene, but it certainly was no evil dead flick.
swearing was kept to a minimum also as far as I remember, you want filthy language? watch robocop.
I agree with you it had a different atmosphere, and was comedic at points. although it wasn't as good as T2, T3 was a very good film I thought.
swearing was kept to a minimum also as far as I remember, you want filthy language? watch robocop.
I agree with you it had a different atmosphere, and was comedic at points. although it wasn't as good as T2, T3 was a very good film I thought.
The only things that made this film worse then the other two in my mind was the fact that the evil Terminator wasn't scary, and the story wasn't as good.
yeah, say what you will about equal rights, but that girl wasn't anywhere near as scary as the t1000.
Yes. But disturbing scenes made it, like the kerb scene made American History X.
AND: we should have been able to see more of the female terminator (name escapes me). That is our right as cinema goers.
I'm off to watch Enemy at the Gates.
Ciao.
AND: we should have been able to see more of the female terminator (name escapes me). That is our right as cinema goers.
I'm off to watch Enemy at the Gates.
Ciao.
T3's budget wasn't much bigger than T2's.
But, yeah, T3 was crap compared to the first two. But who expected it to live up to them anyway? Nobody, because we're not stupid.
And T3 slashed all over the plot of the first two. John Connor was born BECAUSE the terminator was sent back in time to kill him. It was a paradox. Whatever they did, the future was already written that way. That "there's no fate but what we make for ourselves" rubbish was exactly that - rubbish.
Don't believe me? Reese had that photo of Sarah. It was taken after he died in the past, and she went off to Mexico. Blatantly, had the terminator not been sent back, she would not have been at that exact location to have her photo taken.
Anyway, so in T3... suddenly, what they did in T2 delayed the war. Pft. Why didn't they just set it in 1997, when the war was meant to happen and get a younger actor - boom, no problem.
But, yeah, T3 was crap compared to the first two. But who expected it to live up to them anyway? Nobody, because we're not stupid.
And T3 slashed all over the plot of the first two. John Connor was born BECAUSE the terminator was sent back in time to kill him. It was a paradox. Whatever they did, the future was already written that way. That "there's no fate but what we make for ourselves" rubbish was exactly that - rubbish.
Don't believe me? Reese had that photo of Sarah. It was taken after he died in the past, and she went off to Mexico. Blatantly, had the terminator not been sent back, she would not have been at that exact location to have her photo taken.
Anyway, so in T3... suddenly, what they did in T2 delayed the war. Pft. Why didn't they just set it in 1997, when the war was meant to happen and get a younger actor - boom, no problem.
t2 is perhaps one of the best sci fi films ever made.
and I have the super ultimate mega extra superb directors producers awesome edition.
jealous? It's written all over your face. :D
sadly I don't have the super mega .... etc original terminator on DVD yet.
and I have the super ultimate mega extra superb directors producers awesome edition.
jealous? It's written all over your face. :D
sadly I don't have the super mega .... etc original terminator on DVD yet.
RoJ wrote:
> The first two were gritty films set on low budget, and
> they were the better off.
Maybe the first was at $6.4 million, but considering T2 was the most expensive film ever made when it was released I doubt you can call a $100 million budget in 1991 low cost. The 3 Lord Of The Ring movies are under $100 million each. The Matrix was $63 million, Reloaded $127 million and Revolutions $110 million. So really T2 still cuts it with the big boys when it comes to budget.
> The first two were gritty films set on low budget, and
> they were the better off.
Maybe the first was at $6.4 million, but considering T2 was the most expensive film ever made when it was released I doubt you can call a $100 million budget in 1991 low cost. The 3 Lord Of The Ring movies are under $100 million each. The Matrix was $63 million, Reloaded $127 million and Revolutions $110 million. So really T2 still cuts it with the big boys when it comes to budget.
With all that money and the revolutionary Special FXs we can acheive nowadays they could have at least tried to make the Terminator 3 film more of an 18 film like the others.
Violence wouldn't make the film an 18... in fact T2 under new BBFC codes wouldn't be an 18 anymore.
T3 was more of a parody of the original Terminators, that is true. But it still turned out to be far superior than we expected.
T3 was more of a parody of the original Terminators, that is true. But it still turned out to be far superior than we expected.
Page: