Not as good as Part 1

"ALL THE T2 FANS ARE LITTLE SHIT NES FANS WHO LOOK UP TO EDWARD FURLONG"

You "almost" got that right, CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK. Add the word "almost" or "nearly" before the word "all," change "T2 fans" to "people who like T2 better than T1," change "are" to "were," and change "NES fans" to "NES Kids," and then it will be right.

I suggest you enroll in a remedial reading class, and also, buy a new keyboard. The one you have is stuck in caps lock mode.

"DISMISS AWAY,YOU ARE PAINTING YOURSELF IGNORANT JUST FINE SOLO."

Your non sequitur is dismissed, and since you have no arguments, your concession is noted.

"Disagree. The morphing effect blew people’s minds at the time of T2."

I saw T2 on opening day in 1991 when I was 16. The CGI was impressive from a technical perspective, but it didn't look real. When you see, for example, the T1000 in the form of a featureless metal man, or when he's morphing into the helicopter or down through the ceiling of the elevator, etc., that in no way looks like real metal, or a real object of any kind. Compare it to the real metal that they used for the pieces on the steel mill floor after he was shattered and they melted; huge difference.

"Thanks to T1, Aliens, and even The Abyss, T2 had the advantage of having a much bigger budget and advances in CGI so of course it would look better."

The T2 special effects look great except for most of the CGI. It is jarring and out of place, because it doesn't look real. When he walked through the jail bars in the mental hospital, that bit of CGI looked okay, but only because it wasn't a case of them creating an object with it.

"As for the movie, Linda Hamilton was way to manly and not believable. And I didn’t care for the John Conner character. Always found him to be annoying."

Linda Hamilton was great in T1, entirely believable. In T2 Cameron turned her into a caricature of a "strong woman," she was like a female version of John Matrix from Commando; not even remotely believable and almost as annoying as Edward Furlong's John Connor. She was even worse in Terminator: Dark Fate though. She was like a female version of the intentionally over-the-top, satirical Jack Slater character from Last Action Hero.

T2 had a lot of potential. If Sarah had believable character development from her character in T1; if John Connor had been about 16 and played by an actual actor instead of some shithead kid off the street, and if Arnold's Terminator hadn't acted like he was John Connor's pet, it would have been awesome. Arnold's Terminator in T3 was done a lot better; he didn't kowtow to John Connor or anyone else. He was an asshole, just as you'd expect a cold, calculating machine to be.

Linda Hamilton was not too manly, I disagree. What she was was supposed to be almost pretending to be divorced from emotion and more machine like (or more like Kyle was) and it was supposed to be because she was mentally overwhelmed by the situation. Here response was to 'act like a soldier'.

But this is contrasted by her motherly instincts that show through at certain key moments; like when she does not kill Dyson in from of his kids. I thought they balanced the idea of a strong woman while keeping the feminine characteristics alive in the character perfectly.

"The effect, both CGI and practical in T2 are better than T1"

There is no CGI in T1, so how can the CGI in T2 be better than the [non-existent] CGI in T1?

"If you think cinematography is nebulous you don't understand what it is."

You have that backwards. Anyone who says that cinematography isn't nebulous doesn't understand what it is. It is defined simply as "the art or science of motion-picture photography."

"It is about angles, lighting, shooting and framing a sequence. All of this is important to how the actual picture will look."

Of course cinematography is important to how the picture will look. However, to say that one movie has "better cinematography" than another, you have to be able to quantify it. Which angle is best? It depends. Which type and amount of lighting is best? It depends. Which type of framing is best? It depends. Not only are all those things dependent on what you're trying to capture/express in any given shot, but the answer to the question of which is best for any given scenario is always an opinion, not a fact. It's a nebulous term if used in the context of placing a value on it (such as "better") like you did. There are an infinite number of variables in cinematography and no concrete value metric for any of them.

"I am not scene the blu ray release of T1 or T2, I would have to take a look to compare them. But even if the picture quality of T1 blu ray is better than T2; that has nothing to do with cinematography."

Yes, it does. The selection of the type of film used for any given scene, the amount of lighting, the type of lens, and the degree of focus all fall under the broad category of cinematography, and they are what primarily determines picture quality. Also, Cameron made a stupid decision to shoot T2 on Super 35 with a spherical lens, and cropping it to 2.35:1, which results in a lower resolution than T1 had, which was shot on 35mm with a spherical lens but only cropped to 1.85:1. Had he used an anamorphic lens like most people who shoot 2.35:1 movies do, it would have had more resolution than T1 (due to not being cropped at all, i.e., using the entire 35mm frame for picture information instead of a lot of it being cropped away). Selection of film and lenses is an aspect of cinematography and the selection made in T2 resulted in lower resolution than T1.

"The manner in which you dismiss it suggest strongly you just don't understand what it is."

^^^ Comical Irony Alert.

"An example of good cinematography is the scene when the Terminator jumps the Harley into the reservoir. The angles that it was shot at and the frame changes and timing of the transitions from frame to frame are all aspects of cinematography and T2 had many examples that were absolutely terrific such as this one."

That scene was ruined by it blatantly being a stunt double, so it doesn't matter how good you think the cinematography is, because seeing an obvious stunt double takes you out of the movie, i.e., it interrupts suspension of disbelief. Also, there's nothing to support the idea that the cinematography of that scene was anything special, aside from you liking the way it looked, which is merely an opinion. You can see comparable cinematography in most any episode of The Dukes of Hazzard, by the way.