English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

was it due to the theme and budget of the movie or due to Arnie?

2007-03-04 05:32:52 · 5 answers · asked by Digit Lee 1 in Entertainment & Music Movies

or was it the ultimate sacrifice of Arnie that made the movie invincible?

2007-03-04 05:52:19 · update #1

5 answers

For me, it was because I enjoyed the first one tremendously. Never saw Michael Biehn or Linda Hamilton before. Their acting was very convincing and their screen chemistry was fantastic. Then there's Schwartzenegger.

This was a perfect role for him. (As was Conan The Barbarian). The special effects were pretty good for the day, the background music was haunting, the "Punk/Post-Punk" and "Techno" songs were pretty fresh in '84. And James Cameron put in plenty of action.

Then the minor details. I really liked when the Terminator came up to the Punks and demanded that they give him their clothes. Did you notice Bill Paxton there? I think he had the spike-hair-do. I started noticing these actors in a lot of the movies I liked back then. Such as Paxton in "Weird Science", especially when he got transformed into a pile of fly-eating excrement.

Then Paxton and Beihn were in "Aliens" together, along with Lance Hendrickson who was also in "Terminator". Then they were in "Tombstone" which was great. Didn't like "Navy Seals" that much, but they were in that, too.

So, it was exciting to see the story continuing. I just wished they would have made the prequel (which would be a sequel, chronologically-speaking, but would have happened before to make the first one possible.... Time loop, gotta love it.)

2007-03-04 07:25:36 · answer #1 · answered by ron w 4 · 0 0

I think it was just marketed well.

You wouldn't think a sequel coming along so long after the original would fare well, but in may ways I think the technology of the movie, Arnold's presence, the storyline and even finding that kid Eddie Furlong at a mall to play a young John was just great marketing.....everybody seemed to know about the intricacies of this production. It did very well on the talk shows when actors would make the rounds too.

2007-03-04 05:40:31 · answer #2 · answered by KT Richter 3 · 1 0

Probably Arnie, he was pretty famous back then. Also I think people were very into sci-fi during the 80s, so coupled with a good casting and script, it made it!

I liked that movie very much myself!

2007-03-04 06:09:43 · answer #3 · answered by sugarscamp 5 · 0 0

It was plain and simply just a VERY GOOD SCRIPT & STORY! That's why peeps can watch it over and over again. The first one was soooo famous that peeps just cringed at the thought of a sequel being made that would suck. Alas, it didn't suck and was 'argualbly' better than the first. The script was just as strong. Sure, it had 'groundbreaking' special effects but without the story it wouldn't have done as well.

2007-03-04 06:04:45 · answer #4 · answered by Army Of Machines (Wi-Semper-Fi)! 7 · 0 0

to respond to many questions you merely opt for to look to the previous. Ask someone you may understand who grew up contained in the 60's. Superheros became very known in the course of the mid to overdue 60's, fairly ask your self characters. i think the reason become that a lot of people were dropping a unique sense of accurate and incorrect. Many concepts of what become moral or moral that were the proper status quo become being challenged. replace is inevitable yet uncomfortable on many ranges. Oddly adequate we set up icons to help set up a sense of stability via giving us or re-installation what we may be able to settle for as accurate/incorrect, solid/evil, moral/immoral. That has been my handle this. How do you sense about this?

2016-11-27 21:00:22 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers