I just had a mild panic attack thinking of it. I like time travel but get anxious around its potential problems.
Eric Stoltz made me understand the tragedy of the ending of Back to the Future and the inhumanity of the American Dream
- Thread starter Skipper
- Start date
Probably more like Annorax's weapon.2015 Marty and Jennifer. The way I see it, if the "present" can slowly dissolve when you're in the past, the same goes for the future. Would 2015 have slowly become a new reality if '85 Marty had stayed there?
Maybe!
Since she wasn't a native of that timeline, she wouldn't be affected by further time changes and everything went "back to normal" around her. Restoring the main timeline wouldn't have done anything to harm her existence.
Uh-huh. OK.
Hm. So, if they travel into the future and the time machine is destroyed and their future selves continue to exist then they can assume at some point they'll travel back in time? Nice to have the safety net.
I just can't take the time travel presented in these films all that seriously. It's a fun exercise, but it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense, and trying to force sense upon it will only end in heartache.
2015 Marty and Jennifer. The way I see it, if the "present" can slowly dissolve when you're in the past, the same goes for the future. Would 2015 have slowly become a new reality if '85 Marty had stayed there?
Maybe!
meet
Then sit back and enjoy. (Or not—up to each of you)
Then sit back and enjoy. (Or not—up to each of you)
Please don't get me wrong. My criticism of the time travel mechanics had little to do with why I didn't enjoy BTTF2 as much as BTTF1.Then sit back and enjoy. (Or not—up to each of you)
My issues with #2 had to do with things such as the more oppressive tone. For instance, I did not enjoy the degradations that the character of Lorraine had to suffer, regardless of how logically it followed from the original premises. With respect to the specific scene I mentioned involving Jennifer, the time travel mechanics were not the main issue, but the scene was about sidelining the character as if she were a superfluous element to the story. Recasting the character with Shue only to sideline her, that compounded the issues I had with it. It's a credit to the first film, which is a brilliant film, that I even finished watching the second, because there were several points when I felt like walking out of the theater.
Indeed it is and indeed she was.
The Bobs have gone on record saying that if they knew they'd be making a sequel they never would have "put the girlfriend in the car" at the end of the first movie.
Interesting. Thanks. I think I might have heard that before, and forgotten it. It certainly showed that she was regarded as superfluous.
I re-watched the scene. The thing that immediately catches the eye is that Marty's family is presented as "better" exclusively through the lens of material goods. The house is better furnished. The siblings are better dressed and have jobs that bring them more money. The parents now spend their free time on a hobby that certainly is not within the reach of the poor. The father has a BMW. Marty has a new pickup....and, SCENE.
Basically 10% of the scene time is dedicated to deepening the new versions of characters and their interactions and the rest to making a showcase of their shiny things. Obviously those who have not grown up in a society strongly characterized by materialism and capitalism remain a bit perplexed by the equation (which seems obvious and axiomatic for every American) "Of course they are better people: don't you see all the better things they have compared to before?". Probably the Lutheran ethic that has a similar view on material wealth also has something to do with it, but here we risk going off topic.
Last edited:
It might be a different timeline or something but in the "Biff to the Future" comic, Biff gets shot by Mad Dog Tannen after taking Doc's fridge time machine for a ride.I wish people would stop saying that.
BTTF is NOT saying that wealth brings happiness. Yes, the McFlys ARE richer (not rich, just richER) in the new tiimeline. But that's irrelevant.
The McFlys are happy because they're stronger and more confident. All of them, not just George. And that added strength and confidence is the reason they're better off.
About that bit in BTTF2 when Old Biff is visibly ill as he gets out of the DeLorean: I like the explanation that the reason he's sick and being erased from existence, because Lorraine shot him sometime in the past.
TENNIS?!? I mean, they're not out there playing water polo on jet skis!
BTW, before the time change Marty has a Sony Walkman. And wears Nikes. So George is at least doing OK.
Right. Because they have jobs. Not because they are laying around the house in their fabulous wealth being supported by their now well off family.
Obviously I am quite ignorant of the daily life of the various social classes in the United States of the 80s. If tennis was a pastime commonly practiced even by those who literally did not know how to put food on the table I humbly apologize.
By the way, in virtually every piece of American fiction tennis is always showed as a "riches' pastime". To show that someone is rich (and also a bit snobbish) they always show him coming home with a tennis outfit and a bag with rackets. It is used so much that it is practically a cliché. While the real worker, the blue collar, dedicates himself to proletarian sports like American football or baseball.
Ok, in the end... it was the 80's. And in that time frame, wealth was often seen as a benchmark of success. This was doubly true when you had as little time with the people in question: most of our time in the movie was dpent with Marty and his parents' young versions. BUT, that wasn't the end of it. We also saw that George had confidence in himself, and that he had learned the lesson Marty himself had taught him (if you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything). And, Lorraine was no longer overweight, indicating that she was emotionally healthier than before. The years had treated them both far better, and not just because they had a Beamer and played tennis.
I find it weird that this materialistic ending is still being discussed like it's debatable. Zemeckis and Gale both acknowledged and accepted this as fair and constructive criticism they kept in mind when making the sequels. Why are we still talking about this, when we could talk about Dave McFly going to the office on a Saturday? And his condescending response to Marty's question means that he does so regularly.
Another thing that left me puzzled. Okay, George becomes more assertive by punching Biff ("Remember, kids, violence solves everything!"). But Biff doesn't exactly strike me as the type to take it so easily. He's still a big guy. With a gang. And we've already seen that he's capable of doing terrible things. I find it strange that he didn't decide to make George pay for it.
Most public parks in Phoenix in the 1980's (and before) had tennis courts. My grandfather who would certainly not be considered anything close to "upper middle class" played regularly.If tennis was a pastime commonly practiced even by those who literally did not know how to put food on the table I humbly apologize.
Again, my family could afford to play tennis. We could NOT afford brand name Walkmans. (Don't get me started about shoes.)
Does he go to work on Monday or Tuesday? He's, what, 20? Saturday isn't his day off.
OK, those croissants look damn good.
