Happy Back to the Future day!
- Thread starter Candlelight
- Start date
Well to be fair, I've never gotten the sense the writers were trying to predict the actual future with this movie, but just trying to create a future world that would be as fun and crazy and imaginative as possible (and that would serve as a bit of a satire on our culture at the same time). And the generally wacky tone of that section of the movie makes that pretty obvious, I think.
Although I do like Doc's suggestion on Kimmel that we all just happen to be in an "alternate (and much more sucky) 2015."
You are correct. According to what I've read that's exactly what they were going for. I was just trying to address JD's disappointment.
They omitted the Queen Diana visits Washington bit out of the newspaper. In poor taste maybe, but it's been 25 years. Aren't we over it?
If you're referring to Princess Diana's death, it's been 18 years.
Which in itself is AMAZING to think about!
They omitted the Queen Diana visits Washington bit out of the newspaper. In poor taste maybe, but it's been 25 years. Aren't we over it?
If you're referring to Princess Diana's death, it's been 18 years.
Which in itself is AMAZING to think about!
The 2015 newspaper in the movie has a blurb/teaser on the cover about "Queen Diana" visiting the US. (Obviously, she died well before 2015 and even if she were alive wouldn't have been queen today. Not only is Queen Elizabeth still alive, but I don't think Diana ever could have been queen because the succession of the King/Queendom wasn't in her favor.
I was referring to the other poster's statement,
"In poor taste maybe, but it's been 25 years. Aren't we over it?"
I assumed he was stating it's been 25 years since her death. She died in 1997. We've just passed 18 years. I was addressing an incorrect fact.
I was not referencing the headline.
And edited to add: Yes, had Charles and Diana remained married and Charles eventually succeeded to the throne(whether on his mother's death or abdication due to health/age reasons), Diana MOST DEFINITELY would've become queen and styled as such.
"In poor taste maybe, but it's been 25 years. Aren't we over it?"
I assumed he was stating it's been 25 years since her death. She died in 1997. We've just passed 18 years. I was addressing an incorrect fact.
I was not referencing the headline.
And edited to add: Yes, had Charles and Diana remained married and Charles eventually succeeded to the throne(whether on his mother's death or abdication due to health/age reasons), Diana MOST DEFINITELY would've become queen and styled as such.
Last edited:
Ah, okay. As I understood it Charles was not next in line.
As the eldest son, he is the successor.
And PLEASE don't take this the wrong way as it's NOT meant to be personal but sometimes Americans' ignorance of the Royal family blows my mind! I remember an episode of ET years ago and (that bint) Mary Hart was on the QEII and she referred to something about Her Royal Highness, the Queen.
The Queen is referred to as "Her MAJESTY", NOT HRH.
It'd be akin to us referring to Prime Minister Obama.
And, all Americans - Diana has not been "Lady Diana" since mid 1981. After that she was "Princess" Diana. The HRH was removed by the Queen following the divorce but the rumour is, when William becomes king, he's going to reinstate it.
Yes - it's a bit of an interest for me!
And PLEASE don't take this the wrong way as it's NOT meant to be personal but sometimes Americans' ignorance of the Royal family blows my mind! I remember an episode of ET years ago and (that bint) Mary Hart was on the QEII and she referred to something about Her Royal Highness, the Queen.
The Queen is referred to as "Her MAJESTY", NOT HRH.
It'd be akin to us referring to Prime Minister Obama.
And, all Americans - Diana has not been "Lady Diana" since mid 1981. After that she was "Princess" Diana. The HRH was removed by the Queen following the divorce but the rumour is, when William becomes king, he's going to reinstate it.
Yes - it's a bit of an interest for me!
Hey, I'll gladly say I'm ignorant to the Royal Family. Don't care about them a bit. Guess, I just heard some wrong info somewhere regarding who was next in line and didn't care enough to vet the info.
There's been rumors that they'd skip Charles and go straight to William, probably because Charles isn't as popular. Maybe that's what you heard.
I didn't realize there were rules about referring to people as your highness or your majesty until I was watching the drama series The Royals on E! and one the members of their fiction royal family corrected an American after he used the wrong term.As the eldest son, he is the successor.
And PLEASE don't take this the wrong way as it's NOT meant to be personal but sometimes Americans' ignorance of the Royal family blows my mind! I remember an episode of ET years ago and (that bint) Mary Hart was on the QEII and she referred to something about Her Royal Highness, the Queen.
The Queen is referred to as "Her MAJESTY", NOT HRH.
It'd be akin to us referring to Prime Minister Obama.
And, all Americans - Diana has not been "Lady Diana" since mid 1981. After that she was "Princess" Diana. The HRH was removed by the Queen following the divorce but the rumour is, when William becomes king, he's going to reinstate it.
Yes - it's a bit of an interest for me!
As for my disappointment about today's technology, I was just referring to futuristic sci-fi movies and TV shows whose dates have passed in general not just BFF2.
As the eldest son, he is the successor.
And PLEASE don't take this the wrong way as it's NOT meant to be personal but sometimes Americans' ignorance of the Royal family blows my mind! I remember an episode of ET years ago and (that bint) Mary Hart was on the QEII and she referred to something about Her Royal Highness, the Queen.
The Queen is referred to as "Her MAJESTY", NOT HRH.
It'd be akin to us referring to Prime Minister Obama.
And, all Americans - Diana has not been "Lady Diana" since mid 1981. After that she was "Princess" Diana. The HRH was removed by the Queen following the divorce but the rumour is, when William becomes king, he's going to reinstate it.
Yes - it's a bit of an interest for me!
Well strictly speaking Charles is next in line to throne because he is the eldest child, being the eldest son doesn't matter now. The rules regading succession were changed recently from gender i.e male priority even if they had one or more elder sisters. To birth order.
Yes - I was referring to the traditional method of choosing heirs.
Edited to add:
I just checked the official order of succession to see if Princess Anne (the Queen's second born child) had been bumped up the list. She had not and was still way down the list, under her brothers and their children.
I then found the following quote which states the new law was not retroactive but started from a specific date (and as a side note, the law was passed in my home city - YAAYYY!!!!!!);
"In October 2011, the heads of government of all 16 realms agreed unanimously at a meeting held in Perth, Australia, to proposed changes to the royal succession laws that would see the order of succession for persons born after 28 October 2011 governed by absolute primogeniture—wherein succession passes to an individual's children according to birth order, regardless of gender—instead of male-preference primogeniture."
Edited to add:
I just checked the official order of succession to see if Princess Anne (the Queen's second born child) had been bumped up the list. She had not and was still way down the list, under her brothers and their children.
I then found the following quote which states the new law was not retroactive but started from a specific date (and as a side note, the law was passed in my home city - YAAYYY!!!!!!);
"In October 2011, the heads of government of all 16 realms agreed unanimously at a meeting held in Perth, Australia, to proposed changes to the royal succession laws that would see the order of succession for persons born after 28 October 2011 governed by absolute primogeniture—wherein succession passes to an individual's children according to birth order, regardless of gender—instead of male-preference primogeniture."
My understanding is that if Charles and Diana had remained married and he ascended to the throne, she would in fact have been Queen - specifically, Queen Consort (a queen who is queen due to marriage) rather than Queen Regnant (a queen who is ruler in her own right, such as Elizabeth II). If I'm wrong, I welcome correction.
That's correct.
I rewatched BttF III for the first time in a long long time today and as I've gotten older, I've warmed up to it but it's still my distant third favorite.
My 11 year old self didn't like Clara because she came between Doc and Marty. Being 36 now, I understand Marty was getting ready to graduate and start a family with Jennifer, so it was inevitable Doc and Marty would go their separate ways. So I don't have a problem with that now.
I still love the way the DeLorean looks with all the 1955 wheels and upgrades attached to it. I especially love the new time travel effects and how it looks like the car is struggling to create the time portal.
My 11 year old self thought the train time machine was badass, my 36 year old self thought it was kinda stupid.
My only major gripe with this movie deals with the time travel effect, where on both occasions of time travel, it starts around 80 miles per hour, where in I and II it doesn't start until the car reaches 88 mph. Again, it could be the results of using 1955 components, so I can overlook it.
Still one of my all time favorite movie trilogies and I'm sad to see October 21, 2015 now being the past instead of a possible future to look forward to
My 11 year old self didn't like Clara because she came between Doc and Marty. Being 36 now, I understand Marty was getting ready to graduate and start a family with Jennifer, so it was inevitable Doc and Marty would go their separate ways. So I don't have a problem with that now.
I still love the way the DeLorean looks with all the 1955 wheels and upgrades attached to it. I especially love the new time travel effects and how it looks like the car is struggling to create the time portal.
My 11 year old self thought the train time machine was badass, my 36 year old self thought it was kinda stupid.
My only major gripe with this movie deals with the time travel effect, where on both occasions of time travel, it starts around 80 miles per hour, where in I and II it doesn't start until the car reaches 88 mph. Again, it could be the results of using 1955 components, so I can overlook it.
Still one of my all time favorite movie trilogies and I'm sad to see October 21, 2015 now being the past instead of a possible future to look forward to
I'd like to hear an explanation as to how that thing can "know" there will be a set of train tracks ready for it to arrive on...
Yeah, I know it can fly and all that, but it wasn't flying when it arrived in 1985.
Unless they were coming from an era where Doc was riding the tracks, rather than flying. I always took that as him traveling the tracks of Hill Valley and showing his kids the history.
This trilogy is one that I had hard pressed to pick a favorite. I enjoy all three, they all have great humor, acting and adventure. It just depends on my mood, but I could sit down and watch any one of them any time.
This trilogy is one that I had hard pressed to pick a favorite. I enjoy all three, they all have great humor, acting and adventure. It just depends on my mood, but I could sit down and watch any one of them any time.
Well, they'd already been there before and had picked up Einstein, so they already knew!
The great thing about Part 3 is something that is lost on a lot of big budget movies now: The big action set piece at the end where everything has to work to get back to the future.. everything was built up so well. Every single shot, every damn frame, helped to tell that story, and there wasn't a wasted frame in that whole scene. Nothing gratuitous. Zemeckis and his team worked hard to create an action scene that is so focused and I think it is lost on the filmmakers today.
Similar threads
