Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => E-Board - Movies, Music, TV, Videogames, Comics => Topic started by: JasonH on February 27, 2008, 09:57:19 AM
-
Okay so me and a mate were arguing in work today - he thinks Terminator II is the better movie because of "liquid metal". ::)
I say the first was better - a true classic.
What say you's?
-
Terminator 2 was good. But the original was better - by far!
I found Terminator 2 compensated its action with too much drama/explanation.
-
I would say Terminator 1 more action in it.
-
I by a mile.
-
I love T2 since it was what It was what was out when I was growing up. T1 is awesome but T2 owns big time in my opinion.
-
I love T2 since it was what It was what was out when I was growing up.
What the hell did you just say? ???
-
T2. But I hate the new edition scene where John Conners dad comes back in her dream with his "on you feet soldier". Ahh god its cheesy...
T1 is just too old. I could barley sit through it the other day.
-
t2
-
Part 2
-
2 for me
-
2 holds up much better
T1 had some cool original ideas, but 2 expanded upon the mythology and added some revolutionary effects
I'll side with 2
C
-
I think it depends on whether you prefer to see Arnold as the good guy or the bad guy.
"Hey, buddy. You got a dead cat in there or what?" - Hotel super
"Fuck you, asshole!" - Arnold
-
I think it depends on whether you prefer to see Arnold as the good guy or the bad guy.
"Hey, buddy. You got a dead cat in there or what?" - Hotel super
"Fuck you, asshole!" - Arnold
Yeah thats why i cant decide. T1 Arnie is bad, T2 Arnie is good. Both are great.
Safe to say that T3 was the worst, though i still reckon it was pretty good.
-
What the hell did you just say? ???
haha whoops. I meant to say, I love T2 because that is the terminator that was out when I was growing up.
-
I hated that "You can't run around and kill people" pussy shit... >:( >:( >:(
If i had a Terminator that obeyed my command i would send him killing people 24/7.
-
T1 owns.
-
Terminator 1. T2 was great, but was the beginning of the end of the gritty, action movie. I HATE CGI, give me puppets, real stuntmen, real car crashes, and poor effects any day of the week. Movies like Predator, the Mad Max series, Blade Runner, Death Wish, and others were just so great.
Arnold is just too great as a bad guy. T2 was, IMO, way too slick. Let's not go to T3.
-
I HATE CGI, give me puppets, real stuntmen, real car crashes, and poor effects any day of the week.
Amen to that, brutha!
-
T1 by a mile
anybody that prefers T2 is just an idiot easily wowed by special effects
E
-
T1 by a mile
anybody that prefers T2 is just an idiot easily wowed by special effects
E
Exactly.
-
T1. I liked T3 as well. I can't understand why people were so down on that one, i thought it was good.
-
T1 by a mile
anybody that prefers T2 is just an idiot easily wowed by special effects
E
T2 made over 4 times as much as T1
1 Terminator 2: Judgment Day TriS $204,843,345 2,495 $31,765,506 2,274 7/3/91
2 Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines WB $150,371,112 3,504 $44,041,440 3,504 7/2/03
3 The Terminator Orion $38,371,200 1,112 $4,020,663 1,005 10/26/84
-
The stats show that T2 was more popular, but then again, so was Arnold by this time.
In fact, he was on quite a roll with other HUGE blockbusters.
He was seemingly unstoppable - not even The Last Action Hero could hurt him.
I think that by the time T3 was made his real estate value in the industry was still good, but not as hot as it was in the early 90’s.
-
T2 made over 4 times as much as T1
1 Terminator 2: Judgment Day TriS $204,843,345 2,495 $31,765,506 2,274 7/3/91
2 Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines WB $150,371,112 3,504 $44,041,440 3,504 7/2/03
3 The Terminator Orion $38,371,200 1,112 $4,020,663 1,005 10/26/84
is this seriously your way of arguing that T2 was better, because more people went to see it ???
E
-
is this seriously your way of arguing that T2 was better, because more people went to see it ???
E
No, just showing that by your theory there are a lot of idiots out there. Besides, making a statement like that saying that preferring one movie over another makes you an idiot doesn't make sense. Movies are subjective and just cuz some people prefer one over another doesn't make it a better film. Even if people only like a film for its special effects, so what? Films are meant to entertain people and there are many ways to do it. I guarantee that you and pretty much anyone I know prefers Rambo over My Left Foot, yet that film won the Oscar and Rambo is destined to clean up at the Razzies ;D
-
No, just showing that by your theory there are a lot of idiots out there. Besides, making a statement like that saying that preferring one movie over another makes you an idiot doesn't make sense. Movies are subjective and just cuz some people prefer one over another doesn't make it a better film. Even if people only like a film for its special effects, so what? Films are meant to entertain people and there are many ways to do it. I guarantee that you and pretty much anyone I know prefers Rambo over My Left Foot, yet that film won the Oscar and Rambo is destined to clean up at the Razzies ;D
yes there are a lot of idiots out there
E
-
T1 was good, but T2 was better in my opinion.
-
T1 was good, but T2 was better in my opinion.
how in your opinion was it better, if you don't mind me asking
E
-
Even if people only like a film for its special effects, so what? Films are meant to entertain people and there are many ways to do it. I guarantee that you and pretty much anyone I know prefers Rambo over My Left Foot, yet that film won the Oscar and Rambo is destined to clean up at the Razzies ;D
Very true.
A lot of people claim that Hulk Hogan was a lousy wrestler.
I think he was a phenomenal wrestler.
He put more asses in more seats than anyone else during that time, and that’s how I judge how good a wrestler he is.
Now, replace Hulk Hogan with T2.
Then replace wrestling with movies.
It’s the same thing.
-
how in your opinion was it better, if you don't mind me asking
E
Like Danny said; taste in movies is purely subjective.
If he enjoys it more, then it's better.
You obviously liked the original so, to you, it is better.
-
Very true.
A lot of people claim that Hulk Hogan was a lousy wrestler.
I think he was a phenomenal wrestler.
He put more asses in more seats than anyone else during that time, and that’s how I judge how good a wrestler he is.
Now, replace Hulk Hogan with T2.
Then replace wrestling with movies.
It’s the same thing.
the quality of anything should not be judged by "asses in the seats"
and hulk was a terrible wrestler as far as in ring performance goes
E
-
the quality of anything should not be judged by "asses in the seats"
and hulk was a terrible wrestler as far as in ring performance goes
E
But who determines the quality? If more people pay to see something, that is one way to tell that it was enjoyed by more people. What are you basing the fact that T1 was so much better anyway? Just cuz you said so?
-
the quality of anything should not be judged by "asses in the seats"
and hulk was a terrible wrestler as far as in ring performance goes
E
So would a poor quality product attract the masses?
Quality should be judged on many things.
Asses in seats is just one of them.
You’re still not getting that taste and preference is subjective.
As for the Hulkster…
Wrestling/entertainment is a performance-based business.
Hogan had a great character and great delivery that a lot of people liked.
Not a mat technician by any means, but still a great “performer.”
That’s why for some WrestleManias, he was paid more than everyone else on the roster combined.
-
But who determines the quality? If more people pay to see something, that is one way to tell that it was enjoyed by more people. What are you basing the fact that T1 was so much better anyway? Just cuz you said so?
If he likes it better then it's a better film to him.
So he's right.
But you're also right with your quote above:
1.)The goal of business is to make money.
2.)Movie making is a business.
3.)Success in movies is achieved by attracting viewers.
4.)Viewers have asses.
5.)More viewers = more asses in seats.
6.)More asses in seats = more money = more success for film makers; all because said film makers made a product that many people found some type(s) of quality in.
Hence, asses in seats = a degree of quality
-
So would a poor quality product attract the masses?
Quality should be judged on many things.
Asses in seats is just one of them.
You’re still not getting that taste and preference is subjective.
As for the Hulkster…
Wrestling/entertainment is a performance-based business.
Hogan had a great character and great delivery that a lot of people liked.
Not a mat technician by any means, but still a great “performer.”
That’s why for some WrestleManias, he was paid more than everyone else on the roster combined.
yes a poor quality product would attract the masses, the first "saw" movie was good but the sequels were crap and they can make a new one each year that will probably gross more than the original
the asses in the seats argument is beyond stupid, more people possibly saw "I know what you did last summer" in theaters than "psycho", guess that means "psycho" is a worse movie ::)
and yes i am well aware that taste and preference is subjective, most people are morons that will choose special effects over solid acting and storyline :)
yes hulk was a great character but he could never put on a 5 star match like bret hart and shawn michaels did at wrestlemania 12 because he had poor in ring skills
nobody "oohhed and ahhhed" at his matches
E
-
If he likes it better then it's a better film to him.
So he's right.
But you're also right with your quote above:
1.)The goal of business is to make money.
2.)Movie making is a business.
3.)Success in movies is achieved by attracting viewers.
4.)Viewers have asses.
5.)More viewers = more asses in seats.
6.)More asses in seats = more money = more success for film makers; all because said film makers made a product that many people found some type(s) of quality in.
Hence, asses in seats = a degree of quality
a sequel grossing more money than the orginal does not make it a better movie ::)
E
-
yes a poor quality product would attract the masses, the first "saw" movie was good but the sequels were crap and they can make a new one each year that will probably gross more than the original
Maybe you'd better make it your mission to inform the masses that they're wasting their time and money on "crap."
the asses in the seats argument is beyond stupid, more people possibly saw "I know what you did last summer" in theaters than "psycho", guess that means "psycho" is a worse movie ::)
Maybe you'd better make it your mission to inform the masses of their stupidity.
and yes i am well aware that taste and preference is subjective, most people are morons that will choose special effects over solid acting and storyline :)
Maybe you should make it your mission to inform the masses that most of them are morons.
And while you're entitled to your opinion of what is good, if Hollywood catered to your tastes, they might go broke.
yes hulk was a great character but he could never put on a 5 star match like bret hart and shawn michaels did at wrestlemania 12 because he had poor in ring skills
nobody "oohhed and ahhhed" at his matches
Then why weren't Bret and Shawn earning Hulk-sized paychecks?
And why did they never achieve the global fame that Hogan enjoyed?
E
I like this.
It's a good debate.
Let's pick up tomorrow night.
Until then, stay the hell off the Birmingham bridge! :)
-
trust me I tell people all the time that they are stupid and yes i know hollywood shouldn't cater to my tastes, i'm not a simpleton that ignores acting and story and only focuses on special effects like the masses 8)
and again i never said shawn and bret were better characters than hulk, they were better in ring performers and anybody with half a brain will agree with me
that match at wrestlemania 12 lasted over an hour, hogan could never pull that off with his only moves being the big boot and leg drop
oh and floyd mayweather will make more money this wrestlemania than any of the wrestlers, i guess according to you he is a better wrestler than any of them hahaha ::)
E
-
trust me I tell people all the time that they are stupid and yes i know hollywood shouldn't cater to my tastes, i'm not a simpleton that ignores acting and story and only focuses on special effects like the masses 8)
Your arrogant ethnocentricity also agrees with my retort from earlier.
So I like it.
and again i never said shawn and bret were better characters than hulk, they were better in ring performers and anybody with half a brain will agree with me
You still didn't answer my question; only avoided it. In fact you're admitting that Hogan was a better character, and since Hogan made a ton more money and had more fans, then you're also supporting my notion that - through his success - HE was a better performer.
that match at wrestlemania 12 lasted over an hour, hogan could never pull that off with his only moves being the big boot and leg drop
The ring is just one part of the overall performance - and a much smaller part than it was years ago.
You remember Studio Wrestling with Bill Cardille?
Guys like Bruno, Kowolski, and Scicluna were phased out as the “business” passed them by with the ushering in of the “talkers” like Hogan & Piper, who relied on verbiage more than physicality.
Vince Sr. nurtured this trend and that’s how he put all of the 26 other territories out of business.
Fit Finlay is a far better mat worker than Hulk Hogan, who can’t work a lick in the ring. Finlay only possesses one part of the performance. Hogan only has one part as well, but his part – today – carries more importance.
Ask Vince McMahon who he thinks is the better performer. He’ll tell you Hogan - the guy drawing him more money.
That makes Hogan a better performer.
oh and floyd mayweather will make more money this wrestlemania than any of the wrestlers, i guess according to you he is a better wrestler than any of them hahaha ::)
That’s far weaker and much stupider than the "asses in seat argument argument."
Why?
Because it’s non-sequitur and taken completely out of context.
That means you’re desperate and out of valid arguments my friend.
This debate is over. ;)
E
-
No one can read that dark green withblack font you idiot.
Why not change the font or just make it italics?
-
Your arrogant ethnocentricity also agrees with my retort from earlier.
So I like it.
you call it arrogance, i call it stating facts 8)
You still didn't answer my question; only avoided it. In fact you're admitting that Hogan was a better character, and since Hogan made a ton more money and had more fans, then you're also supporting my notion that - through his success - HE was a better performer.
i get the impression you don't know the difference between in ring performance and playing to the crowd and fit finlay and those other guys you listed were not on the same level as bret and shawn, nobody talks about any of their matches today ::)
That’s far weaker and much stupider than the "asses in seat argument argument."
Why?
Because it’s non-sequitur and taken completely out of context.
That means you’re desperate and out of valid arguments my friend.
This debate is over.
it's weak in your mind only because it hurts your lame argument, your argument this whole time has been about money and floyd will make far more than any other wrestler and according to you that defines "greatness" ::)
regarding floyd did you know that oscar made more money on their fight even though he lost? with your logic oscar is the better fighter hahahaha :D floyd put on a better fight which makes him a BETTER PERFORMER but with your logic oscar is a better performer because he made more money on the fight by being more well known ::)
and this debate is only over because you are out of responses :P
and i agree if you are going to respond again quit using the stupid green font
E
-
T1 was better. T2 was exellent movie too tough.
T1 had a darker feel to it.
In T2 I found it funny that the Terminator had to obey John. The future John Connor might be great resistance leader but the young John in T2 is just an arrogant brat! What a wise move to give a terminator in a hands of someone like him!!
Future Jonh should've sent Terminator to spank his young ass for his own good!
Comparing special effects is kind of lame. Did a remake of the Planet of the apes have better effects that the original. Yes it did. The effect industry changed sooo much in a short period of time. T1 looked good and fabulous when it came out, so did T2.
Must say that T2 at least had a lot more that just the effects. Not so with many many other movies now in the era of CGI.
I think that the Blade Runner, effect wise, is a pinnacle of pre CGI movies
-
T1 was better. T2 was exellent movie too tough.
T1 had a darker feel to it.
In T2 I found it funny that the Terminator had to obey John. The future John Connor might be great resistance leader but the young John in T2 is just an arrogant brat! What a wise move to give a terminator in a hands of someone like him!!
Future Jonh should've sent Terminator to spank his young ass for his own good!
Comparing special effects is kind of lame. Did a remake of the Planet of the apes have better effects that the original. Yes it did. The effect industry changed sooo much in a short period of time. T1 looked good and fabulous when it came out, so did T2.
Must say that T2 at least had a lot more that just the effects. Not so with many many other movies now in the era of CGI.
I think that the Blade Runner, effect wise, is a pinnacle of pre CGI movies
Good post - I liked T2 but it certianly did have a bit of a camp feel about it which in places made Arnold's character look a bit daft. T1 was definitely darker and more serious. I guess that's why I preferred Batman Begins (for example) over the previous Batman films.
-
LOL, this shit was cutting edge at the time here. I still enjoy the effects though.
-
TII was a good follow up but T1 is a classic.
Doom approves.