>Linda Hamilton was a way better and more convincing heroine than Claire Danes
Claire Danes played a far more believable character than T2's caricature of a "strong woman", and Claire Danes' character wasn't intended to be a "heroine".
>the only argument i see against T2 is Edward Furlong's acting,
Furlong is a terrible actor, but worse than that, he played one of the most annoying characters in movie history.
>but I usually give children a pass since most can't act
That's absurd. If most children can't act, the solution isn't to give them a pass, it is to stop putting them in movies. This is Cameron's fault. He cast a non-actor kid and wrote an annoying character for him to play.
I'll go ahead and paste a previous post of mine:
T2 has two of the most annoying characters in movie history:
1. John Connor, played by non-actor Edward Furlong, complete with a cracking voice and lesbian haircut (I saw the same haircut last night on Ruby Rose in the movie John Wick: Chapter 2):
http://i.imgur.com/qI0wjEU.png
Not only was it a terrible casting decision, but the character itself is annoying, and he never gets any well-deserved comeuppance for his disrespectful douchebaggery toward his foster parents and the two guys who tried to help him out.
2. Sarah Connor, played by Linda Hamilton, who, despite being a good actor (she was excellent in T1), had to portray a parody of a "strong woman", i.e., a 14-year-old comic book nerd's idea of a "strong woman". Her grabbing the tequila bottle and forcefully taking a swig like she's "one of the guys" in a spaghetti western was embarrassing to watch; cringe-worthy; just to name one of many examples. Her getting into her John Matrix Commando costume is another example. This nutjob cartoon character didn't represent believable character development from the real T1 Sarah Connor in any way, shape, or form. It was a different character with the same name.
reply
share
Tracer (29)
7 years ago
Haha...
1. Claire Danes was not better than Linda Hamilton. Claire Danes was depicted as a heroine. She wasn't a macho heroine like Linda Hamilton's character was in T2, but she was still a heroine with a different story arc. Her acting was bland, she was a character just thrown into the movie because they didn't have the original girl back, and she is not as memorable as Sarah Connor.
I am supposed to care about this random girl? I don't care about her. In T1, you grow to care about Sarah because she is an innocent girl being tracked by this machine and her only protection is this possibly psychotic human from the future. She is pretty vulnerable. In T2, she is now a stronger person who can handle her own. You pretty much care for her because of T1 and you want to see her do some damage.
But this new girl? I am supposed to care because John marries her in the future? From the moment of her first conflict, she has a terminator with her. She is pretty protected and I never felt like she was in danger. She is a reminder that Linda Hamilton as Sarah is just better.
2. Furlong was terrible and yes, I give that a pass. I fully understand that it is hard to get kids to act convincingly. Sure some have done it, but most aren't that great. His voice cracking? Sorry, but that is just puberty and out of his control...so i guess, realistic? You rip on his hairstyle as if kids didn't have hair like that in the early 90s at all...
3. Linda Hamilton made the character fun. It doesn't have to be depicted realistically, just grounded in a plausible reality (as much as it can be in a movie with killer robots). So they made her into a parody of a "strong woman" as you say...the movie is supposed to be fun and entertaining, not a representation of real life.
The fact is that even with the problem of T2, is a generally a more well liked movie that any of the other Terminators. I prefer T1 over them all, but T2 is still one of the greatest action movies
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4054)
7 years ago
>Claire Danes was not better than Linda Hamilton.
She was far better than Linda Hamilton in T2, given that Linda Hamilton sucked in T2. It is impossible to not suck when you're playing an utterly ridiculous character, so it isn't her fault, it's James Cameron's. On the other hand, Danes' character was believable for the most part.
>Claire Danes was depicted as a heroine.
False.
>She wasn't a macho heroine like Linda Hamilton's character was in T2, but she was still a heroine with a different story arc.
She wasn't a heroine at all, and T2's Sarah Connor was an unintentional spoof of a heroine.
>Her acting was bland, she was a character just thrown into the movie because they didn't have the original girl back, and she is not as memorable as Sarah Connor.
Her acting was excellent, especially when she was locked in the back of the truck, thinking she'd been kidnapped.
>I am supposed to care about this random girl? I don't care about her.
It doesn't matter to me what you care or don't care about, nor is it relevant in any way.
>In T1, you grow to care about Sarah because she is an innocent girl being tracked by this machine and her only protection is this possibly psychotic human from the future. She is pretty vulnerable. In T2, she is now a stronger person who can handle her own. You pretty much care for her because of T1 and you want to see her do some damage.
No, in T2 Sarah Connor is a completely different character with the same name.
>But this new girl? I am supposed to care because John marries her in the future? From the moment of her first conflict, she has a terminator with her. She is pretty protected and I never felt like she was in danger. She is a reminder that Linda Hamilton as Sarah is just better.
Why do you think you're "supposed" to do anything?
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4054)
7 years ago
>2. Furlong was terrible and yes, I give that a pass. I fully understand that it is hard to get kids to act convincingly. Sure some have done it, but most aren't that great. His voice
What do think, that there was some law which required Cameron to write a kid into the script? Kids suck in general, and Furlong is as bad as it gets. Cameron should have wrote John Connor as a 16- or 17-year old, and hired someone in his late teens or early 20s to play him; problem solved.
>You rip on his hairstyle as if kids didn't have hair like that in the early 90s at all...
Only dipshits did. The only reason a dipshit character should ever be in a movie is for comic relief. But John Connor wasn't comic relief, he was just annoying.
>3. Linda Hamilton made the character fun. It doesn't have to be depicted realistically, just grounded in a plausible reality (as much as it can be in a movie with killer robots). So they made her into a parody of a "strong woman" as you say...the movie is supposed to be fun and entertaining, not a representation of real life.
No, the character was annoying. Having a sci-fi premise is no excuse for making the non-sci-fi elements (such as ordinary humans) unbelievable, and having believable characters is not even remotely at odds with "fun and entertaining". On the other hand, having unbelievable characters is at odds with "fun and entertaining", because it disrupts "suspension of disbelief", i.e., takes you out of the movie.
>The fact is that even with the problem of T2, is a generally a more well liked movie that any of the other Terminators. I prefer T1 over them all, but T2 is still one of the greatest action movies
Generally liked doesn't mean much, given that the average IQ is 100. The fact that most people like T2 better than T1 is a testament to this. Want further illustration of how vapid people are in general? Look at the list of most-viewed YouTube videos:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_viewed_YouTube_videos
reply
share
GreenGoblinsOck8 (7401)
7 years ago
Shut up Maxim Recoil! Quit trying to force your opinion on everyone! Truth is Cameron had a different vision for T2 than you do! You can hate it all you want but you are the minority and you are not changing my opinion of T2 or anyone else's with your pro Terminator 1 fanboy complaints!
reply
share