Mad Max: Fury Road VS Terminator 2: Judgement Day

Not really otherwise the whole "I must sacrifice myself to prevent this technology from ever being built" part doesn't make much sense. And the third film explicitly states that the future has changed.

That could be part of the timeline as well.

well it's not if they change the future... which they did.

Which was part of the whole time line.

That makes no sense at all. There can't be two 1997's. The sequels established an alternate timeline, while the original had only one timeline.

This.

Look, I can accept that Terminator 2 might technically be better than Fury Road. What I'm saying is that regardless of how "good" it is, it's kind of grating that it expects viewers to simply ignore or fail to notice HUGE things that were CLEARLY already established. It feels like it's insulting the audience's intelligence. It feels like James King-of-the-World Cameron is sitting there saying, "yeah, it doesn't make sense, but no one will care as long as we blow stuff up really good." And regardless of how "good" the movie is, I can't help but feel like Terminator 2 was sort of given the "Michael Bay" treatment.

And hell, I'm even willing to forgive most of the inconsistencies in Terminator 2. Stuff like a liquid metal Terminator being able to be sent back when it's clearly been established that metal has to be covered with flesh in order to be sent back....that's a fairly unimportant technicality. It doesn't change the overall theme of the movie, it's a logical inconsistency that can be explained away by "I guess they found a way to get liquid metal to mimic flesh". What DOES drastically change the overall theme is making T2 about "no fate but what we make." That's a drastic departure that is FUNDAMENTALLY inconsistent with the world as laid out in the first movie.

Alternate timelines do not belong in a Terminator movie. "No fate but what we make" does not belong in a Terminator movie. That's crowd pleasing "try hard and you'll succeed" stuff that's suitable to an action blockbuster. Meanwhile, one of The Terminator's greatest strengths was how utterly bleak it was. Futility against fate and the ravages of time is INHERENTLY part of Terminator's identity. And to just completely shift gears in the second movie and not even attempt to explain how it is that people are in charge of their own fate, means that Terminator 2 isn't even a Terminator movie. It isn't even trying to make sense. It isn't even trying to stay thematically consistent with the story. And while there's nothing inherently wrong with the story, it looks way too much like the only reason that story was placed into a Terminator movie is because everyone knew that the "Terminator" name would help sell more movie tickets.

T2 and its not even close, and MrGeezer I think you've thought about this way to much, over thought it to the point that you don't know what you're even talking about anymore.

Except that Terminator 3 wasn't willing to commit. Yeah, I really like the ending of that movie when taking it at face value. But that ending is unearned. It's paying lip service to to bleakness of the first movie, while having already directly contradicted that within the same movie. Terminator 3 has the T-X go to assassinate certain people and then actually succeed in assassinating them. It has very clearly shown us that the past can be changed, and then expects viewers to buy the whole concept that "Judgement Day is inevitable." No, it isn't. They just showed history being changed. It all reeks of bullshit. If Judgement Day can be delayed, then YES that shows that time travel shenanigans can have an impact on Judgement Day which means that Judgement Day can be stopped. The dark ending therefore comes off less as an ACTUAL ending and more as just setting up future sequels. T3 didn't earn that ending because the rest of the movie didn't properly set it up. It's the same reason why I hate the ending of The Mist. I don't hate it because it's dark, I hate it because it's forced and contrived and doesn't fit the characters' behaviors and motivations. Bleak is fine, but bleak isn't fine just because it's bleak. Whatever ending one comes up with, it still has to feel EARNED when taken in context with the rest of the movie.

T4? I think my problem with that movie was mostly just that it was sort of dull as ****. I'm sure I probably had other problems with it, I just seriously can't remember much about it. I remember thinking that the opening scene was pretty good, and then I remember the rest of the movie just being a bunch of unmemorable shit.

Never seen Zero Theorem, though. I really should get around to watching it, since I'd consider myself a minor Terry Gilliam "fan". Even in his movies that I didn't like, I've found stuff that was interesting, so I'll be sure to put Zero Theorem on my "to watch" list.

I always had a specific fondness for that scene where Max and Slit are on the hoods of their cars while spitting fuel into their engines.

Again, I maintain that this is why people keep making shitty Terminator movies. James Cameron took the "bigger and badder" formula that he used with Aliens and applied it to The Terminator even though such a formula doesn't work with The Terminator movies. And it still ended up being a good movie SOLELY because James Cameron is talented as **** and can make a good movie even when the material that he's working with is garbage. The problem is that everyone keeps thinking they can make another Terminator 2 by using the same formula that James Cameron used when he made Terminator 2. What they're failing to realize is that James Cameron's approach to Terminator 2 was shit, and the ONLY reason it worked so well is because James Cameron was in charge. Everyone's still trying to take that shitty approach, desperate to get some of that T2 money, while completely failing to realize that it's not gonna work without someone on the same level as James Cameron.

Not gonna work. In terms of actually being good, making a sequel to The Terminator was ALWAYS a bad idea. Terminator 2 worked despite being a bad idea specifically because James Cameron was in charge. But instead of realizing that Cameron's basic concept was ****ed from the beginning and that the movie ended up being good because Cameron was just THAT talented, everyone's still trying to replicate the same ****ed up concept that Cameron introduced while failing to get anyone on Cameron's level to do it.

T2 was a case of a master filmmaker taking a turd and turning it into a jewel. And for some inexplicable reason, no one is willing to admit that James Cameron was working with a turd. So they're taking the same turds that Cameron used and are trying to polish it up just like he did, but it's never gonna work because they no longer have a James Cameron.

Big Tom Hardy fan, but the new Mad Max film was boring.

T2 is much better as an action film, even though I prefer T1 as a film. Arnie is a bad ass in that, in T2 he's a pussy.

Nah he was still badass...

...except for one part

****ing priceless, dude

arnold is such a pussy ... started as pr0n actor and ends as one, being an respected american politician in between goes without saying ...

Both are absolute incredible, and easily in the top 5 action movies of all time. Very hard decision poll.

Ultimately I had to curb my Nostalgia and went with Fury Road, because both Hardy and Theron are considerably better actors than Arnold and Linda.

Arnold's very limited but when put in the proper role he's one of a kind - and sort of perfectly cast.

Not sure I'd agree about Theron/Linda. In the first Terminator she's timid little butterfly, in 2 she looks like she could bite your throat out - that Game Of Thrones girl seemed like she would need help opening a bottle soda.

Khaleesi is super hot, but a crappy actress.

Yeah, that comment about them being better actors is bonkers.

Terminator 2...and I loved Fury Road.