Since when does budget affect the cinematography? Does Transformers 3 have better cinematography than Seven Samurai?
Budget affects everything when Cameron is involved. When you have a low budget (I shouldn’t have to explain this but I will) you don’t have unlimited retakes nor do you have an infinite amount of time to get coverage of everything you need. With the first film, Cameron was working under restraints (plus, he didn’t have that expensive-ass camera he used in T2 – cameras do affect the cinematography [The Shining for instance, just to throw out a random one]…maybe one of the Mubi scholars can be more informative as to what camera it was exactly, I don’t recall) and, with a low budget film you’re more reliant on editing as opposed to having the economical freedom to get 97 angles of Arnold walking down the street or whatever [hyperbole].
And another thing: Adam Greenberg was the cinematographer for both films…so what’s changed? The director’s the same, the cinematographer’s the same…what’s different? Budget.
Transformers has nothing to do with Seven Samurai, so I don’t know what that analogy means.
AND, even ignoring all of that (though that’s a lot to ignore), the story of the first has more of a horror element to it because it’s unfamiliar and all of the characters are displaced (including the Terminator). We’re not watching an action wankfest, we’re watching a thriller that’s much more Dickian than T2 ever wished it could be.
But don’t get me wrong: I don’t regard T2 as a horrible film. Technically (as with most of Cameron’s work) it’s flawless, but Kubrick was technically proficient as well and yet he still managed to infuse a humanity in his work (despite how “clinical” his work often was). With the first Terminator, we get a rare glimpse of Cameron as a ‘working class director’, with T2 we merely see the beginning of the rest of his bloated career. Plus, the original had that wonderful Carpenter-esque score that’s much more “polished” in the sequel, but is that better? The Carpenter aspect is replaced by lame orchestra hits a la 30 Days of Night.
with a low budget film you’re more reliant on editing as opposed to having the economical freedom to get 97 angles of Arnold walking down the street or whatever
You don’t need that many takes if you have a clear idea of what you wanna do.
Of course the equipment will affect the picture quality but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about aesthetically pleasing camera angles and movement. Money doesn’t teach you what a well-framed shot is.
Adam Greenberg was the cinematographer for both films…so what’s changed? The director’s the same, the cinematographer’s the same…what’s different? Budget.
People do learn and grow.
It’s a counter example to your reasoning that higher budget = better cinematography.
I actually think the story in T2 has more interesting elements. Sarah Connor is no longer a damsel in distress, she’s a warrior, one of the most iconic female warriors in cinema history. Also a big part of the film is John Connor having to deal with his responsibility as the future leader of mankind despite being only a little boy. And of course the complicated relationship between the two which is half normal, half military-like. Also the whole killing-machine-turned-protector thing is very interesting because it’s more difficult to protect than to kill.