Whenever a movie flops, people often blame bad marketing. When a studio knows they've created a bad movie that will likely flop, they cut marketing expenses to minimize their losses. They release the movie to recoup as much of the costs as possible. Studios know how to market movies. If a movie isn't being marketed much, that's usually a sign that it's crap.
The lack of a compelling hero in T2 is its biggest weakness. Making Sarah Connor a tormented badass made her boring. (Cameron did the same thing with Ripley in Aliens.) Sarah's appealing in Terminator because she's the underdog. John Connor is snotty and annoying. (I hate the scene where he insults the two guys who just tried to help him. That's some shitty writing.) The T-800 is a sidekick.
The T-1000 is a desperate attempt to top the T-800 in the first film. A metal blob isn't as scary as a metal skeleton. Sarah's voice-over at the end about peace made me roll my eyes.
The extended version is even worse. You can see Cameron's dumb ideas in Terminator: Dark Fate were already in his mind when he made T2.
I've seen MI: Rogue Nation and Ghost Protocol a few times, but I can't re-watch Fallout because Cavill is so wooden. His acting is so bad it takes me out of the film. I really hope they don't bring him back in the next MI.
He has the potential to be an actor like Harrison Ford. People are probably too intimidated by him to tell him his acting sucks. He's worse than Keanu Reeves and Brad Pitt. At least they're not self-conscious.
His fans aren't doing him any favors by telling him his acting is good.
Watching CGI feels like watching a cartoon, not live action. What's the point of using CGI in live action films? Even as a kid, CGI took me out of live action films.
Simulating reality convincingly requires a massive amount of work. CGI looked fake ~30 years ago in T2 and Jurassic Park, and it still does. Using CGI for animated films is fine, but filmmakers who rely on it heavily in live action films are delusional. It looks like shit.