View Full Version : Which Terminator film?
Yeah, I didn't include T3.
Vince Young
07-08-2005, 02:06 PM
T2
Arnold sucks as a bad guy.
jackdaniels
07-08-2005, 02:07 PM
I voted T2 because the movie was GREAT.
However, without the fantastic story line in T1, none of the following flicks would have been any good.
I am rapidly losing faith in OOT.
Non_Comformist
07-08-2005, 02:15 PM
stop being retarded people.
the answer is 1.
Soul Daddy
07-08-2005, 02:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
stop being retarded people.
the answer is 1.
[/ QUOTE ]
If unintentional comedy is what you seek.
swede123
07-08-2005, 02:30 PM
I suppose you might argue T1 if only consider the fact that it is the original. T2 had better acting, dialogue, sound and visual effects. True, it did have that annoying kid, but it was still a far better movie. I'm not knocking Terminator in the least, but the sequel was supreme in executing what my idea of an action movie should be.
Swede
[ QUOTE ]
stop being retarded people.
the answer is 1.
[/ QUOTE ]
T2 is at least 30 mins too long for starters.
superleeds
07-08-2005, 02:36 PM
2. Up there with Rocky II and The Godfather II as one of the greatest sequels made
swede123
07-08-2005, 02:37 PM
And Empire Strikes Back.
Swede
samjjones
07-08-2005, 02:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I am rapidly losing faith in OOT.
[/ QUOTE ]
OOT speaks.
Blarg
07-08-2005, 03:38 PM
Terminator 1 isn't anywhere near as good as Terminator 2. Terminator 2 was a revelation when it came out. Good acting, good character development, extremely spectacular and unusually well-integrated special effects, some social commentary to boot. Terminator 1 was...well, it was a B movie that was suprrisingly decent, especially considering Arnold was practically the kiss of death for a movie back then.
Bob Moss
07-08-2005, 03:39 PM
You shouldn't have included the original either.
B
Wes ManTooth
07-08-2005, 03:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I am rapidly losing faith in OOT.
[/ QUOTE ]
wonderwes
07-08-2005, 04:09 PM
T2 was one of the better movies of the 90's. The special effects were out of the box for its time, and it actually had a good written story. T-1 was neat because they showed more scenes of the future L.A..
ptmusic
07-08-2005, 04:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
2. Up there with Rocky II and The Godfather II as one of the greatest sequels made
[/ QUOTE ]
You've got to be kidding about Rocky II being in the same league as Godfather II. It's also WAY below Rocky I, which was a classic.
-ptmusic
RacersEdge
07-08-2005, 05:03 PM
This is the most surprising poll I have seen. I HATED the terminator as a good guy.
GFunk911
07-08-2005, 05:16 PM
I'm really surprised. T1 was good and all, but T2 was just a great action movie. I could watch this movie over and over, I don't think you can say that about T1.
wayabvpar
07-08-2005, 05:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm really surprised. T1 was good and all, but T2 was just a great action movie. I could watch this movie over and over, I don't think you can say that about T1.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can. I have seen T1 probably 100 times, while I have seen T2 like 3 or 4. T1 was more suspense/action/horror (just a great atmospheric feel to it), while T2 is just action and big explosions and whatnot. T2 is a good flick, but T1 is a masterpiece.
Edit- I am willing to bet that the results of the poll are heavily influenced by age. 30+ posters are likely to have seen T1 in the theatre or soon after (when T2 didn't exist), while the younger folks saw T2 first after the huge marketing blitz.
Soul Daddy
07-08-2005, 06:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I am willing to bet that the results of the poll are heavily influenced by age. 30+ posters are likely to have seen T1 in the theatre or soon after (when T2 didn't exist), while the younger folks saw T2 first after the huge marketing blitz.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm old and I voted for T2. OG just doesn't hold up well at all. I agree it has a better story, but it looks so cheesy when I watch it now that it's distracting.
Blarg
07-08-2005, 06:24 PM
The first one is just a good B movie, that's all.
Dynasty
07-08-2005, 07:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This is the most surprising poll I have seen. I HATED the terminator as a good guy.
[/ QUOTE ]
It seems about right to me.
On IMDB
Terminator: 7.9/10
Terminator 2: 8.2
Terminator 3: 6.9
Dynasty
07-08-2005, 07:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
...considering Arnold was practically the kiss of death for a movie back then.
[/ QUOTE ]
Trying hard for worst post of the day?
He had hadly done any films at all. The only films he had a starring role in was the Conan films.
Blarg
07-08-2005, 08:36 PM
No, but I think you are.
Arnold was a pure joke on the screen and everywhere else but the bodybuilding arena. He was such a bad actor that every line was a laugh cue, and not on purpose. Nobody took him seriously at all until the first Terminator, at around which point his film career had been effectively dead. It wasn't until the Terminator that he really found a sustainably marketable image.
Didn't you see and admire him in "Hercules in New York"? I know I did. I felt a deep respect for him from both Conan, and what was it, Red Sonja? too. As did everyone I know. Yes, I've reconsidered now. Arnold really WAS a name that would draw in a crowd and lend something other than a huge, rueful groan to the prospect of seeing a movie.
If you think Arnold's name was a big plus for a movie before Terminator, we're going to have to disagree. Maybe next time without insulting each other.
LargeCents
07-08-2005, 09:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm really surprised. T1 was good and all, but T2 was just a great action movie. I could watch this movie over and over, I don't think you can say that about T1.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can. I have seen T1 probably 100 times, while I have seen T2 like 3 or 4. T1 was more suspense/action/horror (just a great atmospheric feel to it), while T2 is just action and big explosions and whatnot. T2 is a good flick, but T1 is a masterpiece.
Edit- I am willing to bet that the results of the poll are heavily influenced by age. 30+ posters are likely to have seen T1 in the theatre or soon after (when T2 didn't exist), while the younger folks saw T2 first after the huge marketing blitz.
[/ QUOTE ]
I completely agree with this premise. I saw T1 first, and it was incredible. T2 was all lame special effects and fluff. Sure, T1, was on a fraction of the budget, but the story actually held together, as much as a time-travel movie can. T2 was just lame, with two indestructable "terminators" battled back in forth the whole movie. It was like watching pro wrestling. Arnold was much more entertaining as a bad guy. I just don't buy Arnold as a good guy. He's got too many speaking lines as a good guy. This is bad for Arnold. Just give him lines like "I'll be back.", then let him drive a truck through a building. That's classic. T2 is just a parody of the original.
Dynasty
07-08-2005, 10:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If you think Arnold's name was a big plus for a movie before Terminator, we're going to have to disagree.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's a substantial difference between not being a star and being a "kiss of death" as you described in your first post. That was simply a foolish comment.
HopeydaFish
07-08-2005, 11:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose you might argue T1 if only consider the fact that it is the original. T2 had better acting, dialogue, sound and visual effects. True, it did have that annoying kid, but it was still a far better movie. I'm not knocking Terminator in the least, but the sequel was supreme in executing what my idea of an action movie should be.
Swede
[/ QUOTE ]
I enjoyed T1 more than I enjoyed T2, even though T2 was a superior movie in many ways. Part of the reason is that I was 10 years old when I saw T1, so I didn't notice the bad acting and mediocre special effects. I was 20 or so when I saw the second one...and despite the incredible special effects and better acting, that kid was so incredibly annoying that I couldn't bring myself to enjoy any scene that he was in -- which was basically every scene in the movie.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.