Oh, I agree with most of what you are saying, the action set pieces and iconic moments/looks are undeniable. It's the overall writing and acting that get worse with every viewing for me. I understand the father figure idea, but as far as I'm concerned, it still doesn't work, because it's so (true to form for Cameron) heavy handed. I actually like the idea of Arnold's Terminator being the good guy in this one (learn how to subvert expectations RJ!), but did he really have to be good to be the good guy? And we circle back to the father figure idea... IMHO, John could've latched on to the Terminator without it having to become a "nice" Terminator. Actually, it would've made more sense for his character's development into the guy who sends his father back in time to die if his role model had been this cold machine...
I agree with you, the "Uncle Bob" thing doesn't really work on multiple levels.
IMHO, Arnie is a more than capable "movie star", but he's not a particular effective dramatic actor. He's got charm and charisma, but there's quite a bit of nuance required to play a much more complex "Father T-800" role. Furlong is a C list actor. Even as a kid. Casting child actors is incredibly difficult, so it's kind of hard to be too punitive with Cameron on this one. ( You find a Hailee Steinfeld type once in a generation )
To be fair to Cameron, the T2 story is taking the characters where their natural evolution needs to go. Sarah Connor can no longer be a victim. In order for Kyle Reese to be swayed by the older Connor, there has to be something beyond survival and war. In that regard, Reese needs to see actual compassion from Connor. Pieces of humanity that the machines can't take from you. Even in the face of pure annihilation. That really can't come from his mother and maintain a practical story arc for Sarah so it has to come from a surrogate father figure. Given there were still limits from a practical technical standpoint, from that filmmaking era, there was only so much "future war" that could be shown. Also Arnie refused to play a "bad guy" again. And Cameron needed the cash injection to make the films he really wanted to make.
I see it as Cameron made the absolute best out of the circumstances he was in at the time. He could have written some other workarounds, but it would be fair to say that he'd lose narrative cohesion and deviate from where the characters were developed so far and where they needed to be in the future. His wonky dialogue is a bit of his own limits as a writer, but also his desire to build his films for international audiences. ( For example, CSI Miami, when it aired, lots of people in America just laughed at David Caruso making millions by taking his sunglasses on and off, but it was a huge hit OUTSIDE of America, the groan worthy dialogue simply translated better to other markets)
Cameron makes films built for movie stars, and sometimes he lucks out and ends up with a few really outstanding actors as well ( Weaver, Kathy Bates, Winslet, etc, etc)
Where Cameron excels is a type of pure industry "cost certainty". If you give him a little budget, he'll still give you a lot. If you give him a lot of budget, he'll give you even more incredible spectacle. The more resources you give him, the more he raises the bar. He's the tide that lifts all boats. Someone like Renny Harlin, if you give him a little budget, he'll make a sexy looking film from rusted tin cans that is impressive at it's relative scale, but if you give him a big budget, he'll give you the same film. It will just be guaranteed to lose money. Cameron does what few can do in the industry, no matter the expectations, he delivers a "result" no matter what. He's the quarterback that just finds a way to get you into the endzone. Unfortunately it also means he have full creative freedom, which causes some extremes in both the things he does well, and things he does somewhat poorly.
IMHO, someone who was criminally underrated as a surrogate father figure was Cliff Robertson in Raimi's first Spiderman. It's just devastating to watch Uncle Ben die. In a few short scenes, he completely captures the audience and makes them give a damn. You feel the loss. Which is, IMHO, the most critical part of that Spiderman series. If Robertson failed, the entire series would have collapsed under that weight. But he really knocked it out of the park. So you can have a "Uncle Bob" that works. That resonates with the general audience. Even in limited screen time. But you need an actor and not a movie star to do it.
What I do love about T2, despite it's tendency to stall just to make it from set action piece to set action piece, is it did everything it could, with it's limitations and Cameron's limitations, to center around a kind of empathy and duty within John Connor that would make the human race worth saving. From a narrative standpoint, the only way an older John Connor can convince adult Kyle Reese to go on a suicide mission is to be a daily example that survival alone is just not enough. When you break down hope into it's logistical components, the core of it is that humans will absolutely break in half if they have nothing to look forward to in life. This conflict is the basis of Sarah's nihilism and "Uncle Bob" and his final sacrifice.
In T2, I don't believe Cameron made a great film, but I do accept he made an honest one. And it would have been so easy for him to just shovel something forward that lied to the audience instead.
Just some thoughts.
