negative1 said:
just curious, why do you think the second was even necessary?
basically it screwed up a lot of the continuity, subtleties, and plot points
from the first one, and destroyed what the image of the 'terminator' was
down to a wimpy robot that protected john...... no, that one for me wasn't
needed either..
later
-1
Of course no sequel is ever needed, as Terminator was essentially made as a standalone movie, as I think the original is still the best of the 3 movies. But T2 is a damn good sequel, and really doesn't hurt T1, cause Cameron really does a great job with character development in it.
You call Arnold a wimpy robot, but you miss the whole point of the movie: The difference between humans and machines, and what led to this whole war in the first place. John Connor tries to teach Arnold why humans care, why they don't just go around killing people, why they have feelings, etc, and even though Arnold will always be a killing machine, he 'gets' it at the end of the movie by sacrificing himself with the last chip in his head for the benefit of mankind. The whole movie is about 'making your own fate and destiny' and not standing idle as the Linda Hamilton character makes sure there will be no war in the future, as the ending spells that out as her monologue states this is the first time she has hope for the future.
T3 fucks up all of that moral message by saying to the viewer, 'you can't make your own fate' as the war was happening no matter what John Connor and the Claire Danes character did, and that is why that movie is totally irrelevant to me.
The reason I love Cameron's movies is he tries to tell something more then just the average Hollywood story. He tries to give each viewer a moral dilemma that makes you question the characters motives and whether they are doing the right thing? T1 is a classic, T2 is pretty damn good, T3 is like the Prequels.....it doesn't exist.