Originally Posted by hypercube
Editing in an efficient and effective way can always make your effects easier to manage, same with the duration of the shots. I think there's a tendency to want to do longer shots now because it is "easier" (relatively) to do so, and you couldn't in the past. Nowadays you can really showcase and linger on something cool if you want to, and have the edits be more about the pacing and mood rather than cutting away to hide a dodgy effect.
Definitely can agree with that.
It's just that, it wasn't just about "making it easier via the edit". In a modern version, you could do, for example, an over-the-shoulder shot of T-800 and when it fires the shotgun you have multiple shreds and squibs going off in "one shot" on the T-1000 (because this time he's in frame and running towards them).
Like you said, longer, more continuous shots.
But one of the reasons the edit in T2 for that shotgun-and-squibs sequence was so good was the opposing angles made it seem like they were "trading" (like boxers). One on the left, one on the right, then back to the guy on the left, then back to the guy on the right.
Now, only James Cameron would know whether that edit was a result of him trying to make the FX more feasible, or whether he did want it to look like a back-and-forth trade.... I guess you can argue it was both.
I do agree also though that there were usually some things that one wished they lingered on longer back in the day - but you knew they couldn't because it was just not too good.
I think a strong vision, and today's budget/technology balance should actually allow to do certain editing decisions by choice (rather than out of necessity to hide an effect as it was in the old days).