Back to the Future Part II

[Sephiroth]

The worst part about 2015 is that they had Michael J Fox play his son AND daughter. What's "worst" about this is that they ONLY did it to show off their fancy new camera that they invented to do it.

A George-Lucas-styled "solution to a question no one asked" if I ever saw one.

They should have had the girl who played Jennifer play the daughter. That'd be ridiculous, but it'd be a BTTF kind of ridiculous that would fit. Not the weirdo "cross-dressing ridiculous" that we ended up with.

A joke a friend of mine came up with was that Marty Jr. and the daughter were both born male twins, and the future is more progressive about the transgendered

 

[Lindley]

This actually makes some sense. They have to leave right then because in 5 minutes Marty is getting into a bad traffic accident that's going to put him in the hospital for a while, and by the time he gets out he won't be a perfect match for his kid anymore.

Well, we saw the (potential) accident in Part 3, so a bit more than 5 minutes. Still, it's an interesting idea.

 

[UssGlenn]

This actually makes some sense. They have to leave right then because in 5 minutes Marty is getting into a bad traffic accident that's going to put him in the hospital for a while, and by the time he gets out he won't be a perfect match for his kid anymore.

Well, we saw the (potential) accident in Part 3, so a bit more than 5 minutes. Still, it's an interesting idea.

It's within the hour at the very least. Marty says they were going to take the new truck for a spin when Doc shows up at the beginning of II, and the return in III is within minutes of the time they left in II, everybody is still at breakfast and Biff's still there. Marty and Jennifer immediately leave and nearly get into the accident.

 

[Trekker4747]

Doc picks Marty up on Saturday morning and returns Marty a full day later on Sunday morning an indeterminate length of time from the accident since Marty has to run home from the Hilldale trainyard, pick up his truck, go wake up Jennifer and then on their way somewhere he runs into Needles near Hilldale.

Now, what's interesting is would Marty have been in that location at that time had he not had to go pick up Jennifer first and if he hadn't all this interuption by Doc?

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

Marty would have been up at the lake with Jennifer if Doc hadn't picked them up.

 

[JoeD80]

I think the 2015 part is pretty fun. I always kind of liked #2, but #3 had more heart. The timeline altering business is kind of wonky, because in the end of #3 Doc finally just says "whatever, we all create our own future anyway!" which kind of made the future part of #2 more pointless.

 

[Lindley]

The Bobs never expected to do a sequel and when they did the sequel they were stuck with the coda at the end of the movie of the cast going to the future.

I think when you plaster a big giant "TO BE CONTINUED" sign at the end of your movie, you're expecting to make a sequel.

The way I hear it, that actually wasn't in the original theatical cut, showing up only in the VHS release.

 

[JoeD80]

^
I just realized that.

 

[Trekker4747]

The way I hear it, that actually wasn't in the original theatical cut, showing up only in the VHS release.

Yup. The DVD restores the theatrical cut of the movie by removing the "TBC" ending.

 

[Gaith]

Doc picks Marty up on Saturday morning and returns Marty a full day later on Sunday morning and indeterminate length of time from the accident since Marty has to run home from the Hilldale trainyard, pick up his truck, go wake up Jennifer and then on their way somewhere he runs into Needles near Hilldale.

Now, what's interesting is would Marty have been in that location at that time had he not had to go pick up Jennifer first and if he hadn't all this interuption by Doc?

No, indeed! I never thought of that. One more reason why Part III just doesn't hold up to I and II.

 

[Canadave]

Doc picks Marty up on Saturday morning and returns Marty a full day later on Sunday morning and indeterminate length of time from the accident since Marty has to run home from the Hilldale trainyard, pick up his truck, go wake up Jennifer and then on their way somewhere he runs into Needles near Hilldale.

Now, what's interesting is would Marty have been in that location at that time had he not had to go pick up Jennifer first and if he hadn't all this interuption by Doc?

No, indeed! I never thought of that. One more reason why Part III just doesn't hold up to I and II.

You think? I actually enjoy III much more than II.

 

[Samurai8472]

The other night, after discovering that a friend of ours had never seen Back to the Future, I marathoned through the entire trilogy with a few friends. And once we reached the end, we were generally in agreement that the first is an undisputed classic, the third is a solid return to form, and the second... ahh, the second.

One thing we found is that it really gets better the further you get into it. Everything in 1955 is gold, as they work their way around the cleverly reshot events of the first movie. But what absolutely does not work is the opening act. In fact, it's so bad that it nearly ruins the entire movie; it's a real slog to get to the good bits.

I really have to wonder what they were thinking. I mean, did Zemeckis and Gale really think that 2015 would be cartoonish and overacted? I'm pretty sure The Jetsons features a better imagining of the future! I guess I can kind of forgive them for the day-glo-ness of it all—they were extrapolating from the 80s, after all—but the acting is so incredibly cornball! Even though the actors are quite believable in every other time period, in the future they all suddenly become zany. I don't understand the logic behind this at all, and it's really a shame that it's such a blemish on an otherwise excellent trilogy.

The 2015 portrayal was supposed to be an upbeat look on the future.

Before that you had bleak outlook of the future from "Blade Runner" and a dystopian society of "Robocop"

I agree that once they hit 1955(the rooftop delorean resque was great!) things picked up.

The whole last half is great

"Only one man can help me!"

Back to the future theme

 

[Gaith]

One more reason why Part III just doesn't hold up to I and II.

You think? I actually enjoy III much more than II.

Yeah, I do. And Dean Ebert agrees:

The Old West of "Back to the Future Part III" might have been interesting if it had been an approximation of the real Old West - the one we saw in "McCabe and Mrs. Miller," say. But this movie's West is unfortunately a sitcom version that looks exactly as if it were built on a back lot somewhere.

...

All of this is sort of fun (the movie did not stint on its budget), but it's somehow too linear. It's as if Robert Zemeckis, who directed, and Bob Gale, who wrote, ran out of time travel plot ideas, and settled into a standard Western universe.

The sitcom stuff in particular really bugs me. Doc fainting after one sip of booze? Actual cavalry chasing Indians, and we're supposed to laugh? Going from the deserts of Utah to Hill Valley in one afternoon? (Indy 3 pulled the same trick, and I hate it both times. Just because you can shoot way out in the desert and pretend it's right next to regular ol' countryside doesn't mean you should.) And that train at the end is not going anywhere near 90.

In retrospect, they might have been best off doing something really wild after recovering Doc - maybe pulling an HG Wells and visiting the far future?

 

[Trekker4747]

It's interesting that Part 3 gets knocked a lot for making the 19th century so unrealistic and too movie like than more historicaly acurate. Ummmm huh?

It's not like the 50s they presented was the most acurate it was more Leave it to Beaver than it was any real take on the real mid-century America.

 

[RandyS]

I love the 2015 stuff because it's so over-the-top! It's some of my favorite stuff from the entire trilogy.

Good. I thought I was the only one.

Personally, II is my favorite of the trilogy.

 

[Gaith]

It's interesting that Part 3 gets knocked a lot for making the 19th century so unrealistic and too movie like than more historicaly acurate. Ummmm huh?

It's not like the 50s they presented was the most acurate it was more Leave it to Beaver than it was any real take on the real mid-century America.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the 1950s were a heck of a lot more like its BttF portrayal than the 1890s, at least the 50s segments had real plot challenges: how do you produce 1.21 jigowatts, and when can the Almanac be safely recovered?

In III, the challenge is, how does one avoid getting murdered by Mad Dog on a specific day? Uh, how about paying him off or just lying low? It's silly and contrived, not up to the ingenious bar set by the first two films.

 

[Jetfire]

^
Where is the fun in that!?

I think I is better than II & III combined but III is way more enjoyable than II on it's own...II for me is like half of I & half of III...by itself it doesn't work for me...I always enjoy watching all three back to back...or I usually don't bother.

 

[Brikar99]

It's interesting that Part 3 gets knocked a lot for making the 19th century so unrealistic and too movie like than more historicaly acurate. Ummmm huh?

It's not like the 50s they presented was the most acurate it was more Leave it to Beaver than it was any real take on the real mid-century America.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the 1950s were a heck of a lot more like its BttF portrayal than the 1890s, at least the 50s segments had real plot challenges: how do you produce 1.21 jigowatts, and when can the Almanac be safely recovered?

In III, the challenge is, how does one avoid getting murdered by Mad Dog on a specific day? Uh, how about paying him off or just lying low? It's silly and contrived, not up to the ingenious bar set by the first two films.

The 50s plot in the first movie also had a lot more charm... here was a kid trying to make sure that his parents fall in love, and trying to figure out how to do so without really understanding the world they grew up in. The plot of the third movie is essentially the "we need to figure out how to get home" part of the first movie but without the "aw, shucks" romantic leads that made the first one so much fun.

It's sort of odd to say, but I think the romantic comedy aspects of the first movie are really what puts it head and shoulders above the other two films.

 

[Gaith]

^
Where is the fun in that!?

Where's the fun in a half-baked plot that insults one's intelligence?

 

[Caligula]

I looked and didn't see these posted before, so:

http://www.11points.com/Movies/11_Predictions_That_Back_to_the_Future_Part_II_Got_Right

http://www.11points.com/Movies/11_Predictions_That_Back_to_the_Future_Part_II_Got_Wrong

Pretty neat, especially the 11 things the movie got right.