Support NeoGAF

[Kon Tiki]

I remember the week before T2 was to come out on VHS, someone broadcasted in on a TV station. The TV station was some weird channel on VHF, I think it was channel 13. In fact that channel showed a few new release movies.

 

[darkiguana]

T2>T1>T3, IMO

Although, T2 and T1 are more like 1a and 1b to me. Both of them are fantastic films. T3 was good, but doesn't hold a candle to T1 and T2.

 

[Shinobi]

Star Wars, Jaws, thank-you.

Yep...Jaws literally started the summer movie blockbuster business and was a ridiculous box office behmouth. Then Star Wars took things to even higher levels.

The action movies of the 80's so completely and utterly own the shit we've seen the last ten to fifteen years...it's ridiculous how far things have fallen off.

 

[HokieJoe]

The action movies of the 80's so completely and utterly own the shit we've seen the last ten to fifteen years...it's ridiculous how far things have fallen off.

Maybe it's because the old school blockbusters had to "work" a lot harder for their special effects. FX are much easier to pull off now, thus it's applied much more liberally. Sometimes it's there only to shore up what may be a sketchy movie unfortunately.

 

[Instigator]

Maybe it's because the old school blockbusters had to "work" a lot harder for their special effects. FX are much easier to pull off now, thus it's applied much more liberally. Sometimes it's there only to shore up what may be a sketchy movie unfortunately.

I think it's more than that.

Movies like T2, Robocop and Aliens are not only technically impressive movies (in their time), they were actually fairly smart.

This is the ingredient missing in such later blockbusters such as Independence Day, Armageddon or The Day After Tomorrow. They're really made for the lowest common denominator. Still good for cheap thrills, but it's not much more than that.

 

[HokieJoe]

I think it's more than that.

Movies like T2, Robocop and Aliens are not only technically impressive movies (in their time), they were actually fairly smart.

This is the ingredient missing in such later blockbusters such as Independence Day, Armageddon or The Day After Tomorrow. They're really made for the lowest common denominator. Still good for cheap thrills, but it's not much more than that.

That's basically what I'm saying. They applied FX judiciously to improve the movie, as opposed to FX being the movie with so many of the movie retreads you see now.

 

[Instigator]

That's basically what I'm saying. They applied FX judiciously to improve the movie, as opposed to FX being the movie with so many of the movie retreads you see now.

But I don't mean being smart about using special FX though it is a valid point to make, I'm talking about characters, plot and subtext.

 

[Shinobi]

I say you're both correct, heh.

 

[MattKeil]

Do you honestly think that action movies really need to be full of CG and dumbed down to make good money and appeal to a big enough audience, or are movie producers just treating the general populace like a bunch of retards when something technically simpler but with more depth could succeed?

Of course I don't think they need to be full of CG. However, I'm not the one greenlighting the budgets for the major studios' summer releases. Those guys sure seem to think all the flash is required, full steam ahead and damn the script rewrites.

I sure as fuck know that I'd appreciate seeing more action movies like Aliens and Die Hard made and that I very rarely if ever go see action movies nowadays, and that there must be some people out there who feel the same.

Right there with you. Not sure what it'll take to resurrect those days, though. At a recent Q&A following a screening of Aliens, Stan Winston flatly stated that, were he given the chance to do Aliens all over again with modern equipment, he wouldn't change his methods at all. You can still do great action blockbusters for $20 million or so using in-camera conventional effects and minimal CG work for touch-ups. It's just that nobody does it. Some theorize that the super blockbuster bubble (which began with T2...yes, Jaws and Star Wars began the blockbuster trend, but T2 changed it irrevocably to what it is today) will soon burst, and Hollywood will be forced to cut back on its bombast and rampant spending and directors will have to start doing their slam-bang action extravaganzas in the old school way. I don't know how likely that is, but it'd be nice to see.

 

[Red Scarlet]

What do you guys think about James Cameron's decision to cut out the parts where the T-1000 was 'injured'? If you watch the extended edition you see him having trouble keeping his shape after being shattered by the liquid nitrogen. Cameron took it out to keep the feeling as "helpless" as possible but I personally really like how he gets injured in the extended edition. Maybe it was just me though.

I liked watching those scenes, but I probably wouldn't have enjoyed the end part with those intact the first time I watched the movie; what with the "helpless" even though it's too obvious what is going to happen to the badguy when molten steel/lava come into the storyline..

 

[Shinobi]

Some theorize that the super blockbuster bubble (which began with T2...yes, Jaws and Star Wars began the blockbuster trend, but T2 changed it irrevocably to what it is today) will soon burst, and Hollywood will be forced to cut back on its bombast and rampant spending and directors will have to start doing their slam-bang action extravaganzas in the old school way. I don't know how likely that is, but it'd be nice to see.

Based on declining box office and DVD numbers in the last year, I'd say if the bubble hasn't burst, it's defintely leaking air.