Because of all the mass surveillance…

  • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 day ago

    I thought the second was not as good as the first

    That is a pretty rare take! Most consider it one of the examples where a sequel is better than the original (and T2 is considered one of the best action movies of all time).

    • LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      It depends, Terminator was a very unique story and more of a horror/slasher movie than an action movie. I prefer the first one, but I didn’t always.

      Terminator 2 is a fun action movie with heart. It’s a very good movie, but it copies a lot from the original. That being said, it really pushes the boundaries of animation tech at the time, to the point where almost all the VFX still hold up.

      I also really enjoy The Sarah Connor Chronicals, because it goes pretty deep into an interesting time travel war that was set up by T2. Those three IPs are all very different from each other, and are all great stories. Everything else is basically a money grab.

      • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I don’t agree they were a money grab. A money grab in my opinion is something, usually crappy, made based off the popularity of the first edition. T2 spent a lot of money making a great sequel. You can tell the writers/directors/actors/staff cared about the project.

        A money grab would be 8 American pie “sequels” riding on the coat tails of a popular teen movie at the time.

        Maybe Terminator 3 onward can be considered cash grabs, but definitely not T2 in my opinion, there is a reason it’s one of the few sequels considered equal or better than the original.

        Reread your comment. Yes, those 3 are solid, rest are money grabs.