MovieChat Forums > Special and Visual Effects > Terminator 2 vs. Terminator 3

Terminator 2 vs. Terminator 3

posted 16 years ago by MikeArrow1020
3 replies | jump to latest

I was watching the T3 dvd a few days ago, right after Terminator 2. I realized that every second shot in T3 had some kind of effect done to it.

Whether it was background replacement, digital stunt doubles, CGI terminators, or whatever.

It got me to thinking how much better the effects in Terminator 2 were, simply because each effect that was done, was done for a specific purpose, and strived to be painstakingly photo realistic. There was a level on unreality in T3 that no amount of bloom or lens flare could replace.

Look at say, this: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1685690624/tt0181852

vs. this: http://dc-mrg.english.ucsb.edu/WarnerTeach/E192/Images/Terminator2.mor ph.gif

Miles of difference, and not in a good way.

"I'm Jules Winnfield, I'm here to talk to you about the briefcase initiative"

[–] videojohn 16 years ago

Dear Mike;

Yeah; it (T-3) was 'overkill' with CGI.
T-2 is my favorite one of the three.
There's a T-4 in the works too.

I think the Writers should avoid this a
litle in the future. Perhaps spending
some effort on the 'time travel' portion
and the car stunts for safety.

Happy trails to all...

[–] MikeArrow1020 16 years ago

Good point. There's mile of different in both intention and application.

"I'm Jules Winnfield, I'm here to talk to you about the briefcase initiative"

[–] austenohhfuhsho 16 years ago

I agree with you about T3. I think it's a great movie, and I enjoyed it thoroughly, but it seems they used CGI whenever they could, where as in T2 there was only CGI when they needed to put it in (or felt it needed it, or was an unrealistic part that wouldn't look normal without CGI), which made the movie seem a lot more realistic to me as a whole. I still enjoyed both, but I enjoyed T2 better.