Wow, Terminator 2 in 3-D Is a Bad Idea

Twenty-six years later, the ultimate action flick is back in multiplexes—but did it need to be baaaaack?
Image may contain Graphics Art Bomb Weapon Weaponry and Dynamite
zohar lazar

Having nearly run out of eye-­rolling Avengers conjoinings and bastardized reboots, Hollywood execs have landed on an even lazier way to sell movie tickets: 3-D releases of beloved classics. The latest victim of this desecration? Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Twenty-six years since Arnold Schwarz­enegger launched his motorcycle off a culvert wall and into our hearts, the ultimate action flick is back in multiplexes, now promising three dimensions of taut Terminator flesh.

But T2 won’t be the good kind of 3-D. That would require specialized cameras that didn’t exist in the ’90s—which James Cameron, of all people, should know, since he had to invent them to make Avatar. (Hasta la vista, integrity.) Yeah, maybe he’ll make that semi look like it’s barreling right at you, man, so shelling out a bajillion bucks a ticket feels less like swallowing a T-1000 blade-arm. But you can’t just grab a Blu-ray, stretch it backward, and call it 3-D. The film needs to be brightly lit so you get enough contrast to give a scene depth. The camera needs to move subtly. Every frame should be packed with visual goodies. T2 has none of that—it’s dark and sparse. That’s precisely why it’s so intense. And why it’ll suck in 3-D. All Cameron can really do is spit-polish the original grimy glory until it looks like your ninth-favorite Marvel flick.

Here’s a better idea: Do less. T2 is perfect just the way it was. The metal-morphing effects still hold up. But a gleaming, retouched version calibrated to the superficial tastes of whipper-Snapchatters? I’d rather get shot in the leg.


This article appears in the August issue. Subscribe now.