Back to the Future

[ShyViolet]

OK, this is going to be REALLY controversial around here , but I found this interesting, VERY detailed 3-part review of BTTF part 2 from someone who absolutely HATED IT. (He loves 1 and 3 however)

Now, I think he is overthinking a lot of it and misses a lot of the sheer entertainment value this film had quite a lot of, but I found it (somewhat) thought provoking. (mild language)

part1:



part 2:




part 3:

[Ben]

Wait...so he liked III but can't take II? II lays the groundwork for III!

And then he says it's awful and then starts to actually demonstrate how original it is: no bad robots, colorful future, etc!

He has a problem with Jennifer Parker not doing much in the first one? She does more in the second that she did in the first!!

Problem with Biff? Mild mannered and meek? How about bitter and twister from being mild mannered and meek?

Chicken? He's defending his son!

Marlene? Not breaking Marty Jr out of jail? She's shown to be annoyed when a phone call comes through and it's not for her! This is a hormonal teenager who could very well burst out of character and get upset that her washout parents wouldn't do anything.

The whole first half of BTTF II is to set up the paradox so that Doc can be sent back to 1885.



Gawd, this was hard to sit through. Not only is the argument weak, but his voice d-r-o-n-e-s on and on and on and on and on and...

Sorry Vi...this is one very sad guy's opinion raised on a high, self-important platform. What is he? A film scholar by chance? BTTF II is actually one of the most densely plotted "entertainment" film that's ever been released. It's often been picked up by real scholars who feel that it's actually been given a disservice for being a blockbuster sequel - the quote is usually if what they had done in this film been applied to an art house movie it would be a revered classic.

This guy is so far up his own backside that he's more concerned about putting his lame, very slowly read out, views across rather than digging deeper into the film and working out the reasons behind his arguments.

Sorry...I gave up midway in part 2 because I couldn't take what he was saying seriously. There's nothing to his argument, full stop. When it comes to it, III is the lazier film, with essentially the same plotting as the first film. In trying to find something to complain about, he's simply missed the boat!

[ShyViolet]

Sorry Vi...this is one very sad guy's opinion raised on a high, self-important platform. What is he? A film scholar by chance? BTTF II is actually one of the most densely plotted "entertainment" film that's ever been released. It's often been picked up by real scholars who feel that it's actually been given a disservice for being a blockbuster sequel - the quote is usually if what they had done in this film been applied to an art house movie it would be a revered classic.

Oh it's OK Ben...like I said, I just thought it was kind of INTERESTING, although I also disagreed with many of his points as well. I mostly posted it just to throw something "crazy" in here that I knew would spark discussion. I knew you would react strongly!

Some things I definetely disagreed with:

Biff "proposing" to Lorraine actually deepens his character, doesn't cheapen it....(his argument was basically: "Between groping Lorraine in the cafeteria and then in the car, why would Biff just politely walk up to her and ask her to the dance?) as does his transformation in a possible future to a "super villain"--showing you how things COULD turn out.

In the third part of the review, he emphasizes how "boring" it is to go back to 1955 after "we've already seen it in the first film." Now that's just ridiculous, because going back to the past after we've seen the future and a possible alternate present deepens the plot/characters and is not in any way a "retread" of part 1. (plus, it's wonderfully trippy! )

Like I said, I mostly just posted it for discussion's sake.

[Ben]

I think each and every one of his arguments could be countered. To use your examples, he obviously doesn't think that the characters have much of a life outside the films.

It's clear these are not the first times Biff has hassled Lorraine. And asking politely to the dance is because he knows the strong-arm tactics won't work, so he's trying the other route. He soon loses his cool when she says no!

[ShyViolet]

I actually kind of almost feel sorry for Biff when he tries to go up to her and be all "nice"--at least he's trying (if very unsuccessfully) to be a "gentelman."

[ShyViolet]

I recently got the BTTF set on DVD!! (used) LOVE IT!

I also took another look at part 2 and totally agree that it is VERY underrated. There is a whole lot going on under the surface that many have not noticed. For instance:

The part when BTTF part 2 Marty passes his BTTF part 1 self saying "goodbye" to his parents/teenagers and watches the scene going on from outside the door; you get a sense that he is very much reflecting on what's happened and what he learned from that experience:

Then he's confronted with '55 Biff who, of course, thinks he's the same as the other Marty, just different clothes. You think Marty's going to be smart and walk away from the inevitable fight until Biff calls him "chicken". Marty: "Nobody.... calls me chick--" and then, who is he undone by? His BTTF part 1 self, who leaves the gym and unwittingly knocks him out!

Then, of course, Biff notices that Marty's got the book....Marty was literally undone by "himself". (his own pride)

[Ben]

Yes, its brilliant.

And the "chicken" thing? I very much feel that's a defensive thing that Marty has picked up from seeing how his Dad was originally treated in '55. Since then coming back to the future, Marty's not wanted to even <I>think</I> about being seen to go down that road. He doesn't want to become his father, even though by 2015 that's pretty much what's happened.

Over the course of II and III he finds it's okay to be called "chicken" and still come out on top.

Really, that guy who posted the rebuttals, for all his digging, was only scraping the surface.

[ShyViolet]

Also, he says how he doesn't get how mild-mannered/meek Biff went from meek to bitter....?

Even if you don't figure out that yeah, he could have gotten that way over the years, (and even he SAYS that waxing cars all your life woud do that to you) Zemeckis explains it in the opening shot when middle-aged Biff glilmpses the Delorean taking off in 1985...you already see that some of the bitterness has set in. Then, of course in 2015 he sees it again and remembers.

[ShyViolet]

Also, here's a really cool FAQ from IMDB:

The day Doc goes back to 1885, isn't there 4 Deloreans in the timeline at once?

No, there are only 3. At the point in which we see Old Biff give the Almanac to young Biff, there are only 3 Deloreans, the highest number at a time during any period in the Trilogy.

- Delorean that Marty(1) took to 1955 to escape the Libyans.

- Delorean that Old Biff took to 1955 to give Young Biff the Almanac.

- Delorean that Doc and Marty(2) took to 1955 to Retrieve the Almanac.

The 4th Delorean in question (from 1885 in the mine) does not actually exist in this period and won't until Doc gets struck by lightning at 930 in the evening. When Doc is struck by lightning, the timeline instantaneously changes around Marty, in this new timeline, Western Union comes to deliver the letter at 931 to Marty and the Delorean is now inside the mine.

When Old Biff was in 1955 to give the book to Young Biff, that was in the timeline before Doc was in the past, Doc was not in the early history books and the Delorean certainly was not buried in the mine.

[Ben]

I would still say the fourth DeLorean is there in the mine though, since Biff didn't change the timeline from giving himself the almanac...the changes wouldn't happen for another couple of years...giving Doc enough time to get hit by lightning and zapped back to 1885.

So even when old Biff turns up to see young Biff, the DeLorean is already there and has been since 1885 - as we know, it doesn't matter WHEN in the timeline things happen, it just matters that they DO.

I remember facing those long November - July months between II and III's release trying to figure out how Marty could get back again. When we saw it (with friends) we were both hit with being so dumb and being awestruck at the sheer simplicity and audaciousness of the idea at the same time.

You can pick holes in any major film or series, but BTTF got things pretty darn tight, all things considering.

[ShyViolet]

I remember facing those long November - July months between II and III's release trying to figure out how Marty could get back again. When we saw it (with friends) we were both hit with being so dumb and being awestruck at the sheer simplicity and audaciousness of the idea at the same time.

Yeah, totally! The funny thing is every time I see part III I often forget how he gets back, and then it's like: "Oh, of course, he buried it in the mine! Duh!"

I also love the opening shot of 2: Darkness, then Marty opening the garadge door: very significant, as he is literally facing an unknown future which could go either way. Of course, it "seems" like everything's all right, what with the new car and Marty's parents being in better shape, but as we know, the future is never "set." It's Marty's choices that ultimately shape his destiny.

[Ben]

True, as it is for us all...!

[droosan]

There's a huge fire raging on the Universal Studios back lot right now .. and early word is that the Hill Valley town square -- and the courthouse -- were completely destroyed .. along with most of the New York street set, and the King Kong attraction.

It's true that they are just fake buildings (facades, really) .. and they might even be re-built .. but it's still sad that a real part of motion picture history has been destroyed.

[eddievalient]

Indeed. Even if they rebuild it just the way it was, it will still only be a recreation of the original set. Terrible shame. Didn't this happen to Aardman awhile back? That was a shame too. You just can't replace original stuff.

[droosan]

Ironically, the BTTF III 'western' set in northern California was also destroyed by fire, a while back.

The man who owned the land the set was built on had rented it out for other movie shoots after it was built. The whole property was surrounded by a fence, with a padlocked gate. The county fire department that responded to the fire was not able to gain access to the property (under California law, if a property is on fire, but poses no threat to persons or other properties, the fire department needs permission from the owner to enter fenced-off property). Since the owner was not available, the firemen basically watched as it burned down.

Also ironically, the cause of that fire was a lightning strike.


/SAVE the clock tower!!