Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 5,559,174
  • Total Topics: 106,348
  • Online Today: 719
  • Online Ever: 3,311
  • (July 08, 2021, 03:14:41 AM)
Users Online
Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 02:28:19 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Back to the Future Part 2

Started by biggytitbo, January 10, 2015, 09:49:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

biggytitbo

I thought with it being 2015 it deserved a rewatch and my view right back from first seeing it when it came out in 1989 hasn't changed - its bloody great isn't it? By far my favourite of the 3 films, those naysayers who complained about it been convoluted and  overcomplicated are describing just why its so good. It's also a massively influential film - hoverboards, wearables, massive voice activated flatscreens tvs, thumbprints, ipads - its got the lot.


And the special effects pre-cgi are amazing, especially the split screen stuff which is as good as it gets. Although one area where it falls down is the ageing makeup which is pretty shit it has to be said.

Johnny Textface

You're wrong, it's pretty awful. The introduction of the 'don't call me chicken' thing is well clunky. Biff became a pretty ridiculous character. Getting the cast to play multiple parts, mjf as his sister or sumit - terrible. It's incredibly dark and bleak in the middle section. The stretching for the Almanac, over and over again, is intolerable. The rules governing what you can and can't do with regards to messing up the timeline is all over the place. It's nowhere near the classic that the original is.

Gulftastic

#2
I enjoy BTTF part 2 (it was the first film I ever saw in a Multiplex), but it can't compare to the first film, which is pretty damn perfect.

popcorn

The original is the best, but the sequel is amazing for its deconstruction of the original film. It's highly ingenious.

As a kid the future stuff was obviously super-exciting, but now I think it's sort of filler, a distraction from the PURITY!! of the main concept: having to do the first film again.

DeadBishop

QuoteThe rules governing what you can and can't do with regards to messing up the timeline is all over the place. It's nowhere near the classic that the original is.

It's been a while admittedly but I seem to recall the internal logic of BTTF2 being fairly consistent (which is all you can ask for of a time travel film, since it's not real) but I could be wrong (as I frequently am)

I like part 2 a lot (especially MJF as his own daughter) but you're clearly deluded biggy if you think it's the best of the 3. Back to the Future has the distinction of being one of the few perfect films ever made, there is literally nothing you could change in that film without making it worse. It even has the superior Jennifer; Elizabeth Shue has all the charisma of her namesake (i.e. a shoe.)

Thomas

Quote from: Gulftastic on January 10, 2015, 10:46:25 PM
I enjoy BTTF part 2 (it was the first film I ever saw in a Multiplex), but it can't compare to the first film, which is pretty dame perfect.

It is, and it's certainly perfect as a standalone film.

I've been wondering lately whether the quality of the two sequels is high enough to warrant Back to the Future being a trilogy, rather than just leaving the first film to be a self-contained fiction, and I'm not sure. I'm not sure.

As for the time travel rules, the first film comes in with whole 'history can be changed' angle - which is fine for a single film, it supports itself for a couple of hours, but then applying it across two more films leads to a great tangle.

DeadBishop

Roll on 1885 so we can discuss part 3 I say.

EDIT: Also Part 1's time travel logic isn't perfect, since Marty manages to change the future drastically while simultaneously allowing for certain key elements (doc and the libyans, where he lives, the existence of him and his siblings) to stay exactly the same. The only real explanation is massive coincidence. Or God, but they're basically the same thing.

Thomas

Quote from: DeadBishop on January 10, 2015, 10:53:53 PM
EDIT: Also Part 1's time travel logic isn't perfect, since Marty manages to change the future drastically while simultaneously allowing for certain key elements (doc and the libyans, where he lives, the existence of him and his siblings) to stay exactly the same. The only real explanation is massive coincidence. Or God, but they're basically the same thing.

The only 'perfect' time travel logic is a self-sustained model, where nothing can be changed and everything happened the way it will always have happened.[nb]need to think fourth dimensionally for that bit.[/nb]

I wonder, for example, where the earlier Marty at the end of the film, speeding around Twin Lone Pine Mall, vanishes off to. I mean, as we saw at the beginning of the film, Marty goes back to 1955, but this time he's coming from the changed version of 1985, where he has a truck and a wealthy family - so is he going back to the altered 1955?

Also, with that 'second' Marty gone, our Marty slips into his life. He doesn't know the new versions of his parents and siblings, he doesn't know he has the truck - his entire life is completely different. He is a stranger in time.

Steven

I also love that George McFly keeps Biff around in the alternate future because y'know he's how George and Lorraine met, during that rape he was attempting in the car. What a romantic meeting story to regail the grandkids, well Uncle Biff here was trying to rape Lorraine in a car and then I showed up and..

Gulftastic

Quote from: Thomas on January 10, 2015, 11:03:51 PM
The only 'perfect' time travel logic is a self-sustained model, where nothing can be changed and everything happened the way it will always have happened.[nb]need to think fourth dimensionally for that bit.[/nb]


I think Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure qualifies, and 12 Monkeys.

Replies From View

I loved the future elements as a kid, but I find them a bit tiresome now.  I agree that the core of the film is reengaging with the events of the first, and once it gets back to the 50s it's exhilarating stuff.

It has far too many flaws, though.  The writers didn't want Jennifer in the car so Doc Brown knocks her unconscious and they dump her in an alleyway.  Our supposed heroes, there. 

Regarding dramatic tension, Doc goes on about how they mustn't see their past selves or something cataclysmic might happen - well we see it with the two Jennifers; they just faint.  That happens and still they try to create tension from the possibility of Marty or Doc coming into direct contact with their past selves.  Things like this, and the fact that there's no distinct sense of when Biff will lock away the Almanac in a safe (compared with the single-chance lightning strike of the first film), just make the second film lack the first's energy or drive.

Something else that's lost from the first film is having the 1955 Doc Brown - who wasn't entirely confident in the same way as his 1985 counterpart - as a main character.  Having the 1985 version as Marty's buddy throughout Part 2 means Marty is relegated to a more passive "passenger" role throughout.

The 2015 section of the film is quite pointless really (beyond setting up the plot of Biff going back with the Almanac).  There was no urgency to rush there right after the events of the first film, and all the stuff that was wrong in the future wasn't ultimately solved by Marty dressing up as his son but by fixing his present-day self (flaws with his temper that didn't even exist until the sequels).  I've said in previous Back to the Future threads that actually the 2015 stuff is pretty much The Ghost of Christmas Future; it's a warning about what might happen, and Marty has to improve himself to prevent it (although he never sees his future family - only Jennifer does).  But it means the 2015 section is pretty weak on rewatches, precisely because you know none of it matters.

Plus, yeah - I never liked the kids in old-age make-up in the first film, but it's worse in the second one because they drag it out a lot more.  The make-up and performances are alienating, and the aged characters are grotesques.  Also Jennifer has become slapstick and goofy compared to the original actress who played her - she's borderline a cartoon character as she looks for somewhere to hide in the future house, for example.  The only characters who feel real in Part 2 are Marty and Doc, but as I said the first thing they do is dump an unconscious girl in an alleyway!

Replies From View

Quote from: Thomas on January 10, 2015, 11:03:51 PM
The only 'perfect' time travel logic is a self-sustained model, where nothing can be changed and everything happened the way it will always have happened.[nb]need to think fourth dimensionally for that bit.[/nb]

I wonder, for example, where the earlier Marty at the end of the film, speeding around Twin Lone Pine Mall, vanishes off to. I mean, as we saw at the beginning of the film, Marty goes back to 1955, but this time he's coming from the changed version of 1985, where he has a truck and a wealthy family - so is he going back to the altered 1955?

Also, with that 'second' Marty gone, our Marty slips into his life. He doesn't know the new versions of his parents and siblings, he doesn't know he has the truck - his entire life is completely different. He is a stranger in time.

One issue with logic in the first film (and which is only complicated by the sequels) is that we see Marty physically fading as his parents threaten not to get together, showing that not only the world around him but he too is changed when the past is altered.

Cut to the end of the film, and the world has changed around him, but he's remained the same.  He's not the offspring of his new and improved parents, but a stranger in this unfamiliar version of 1985.

So it's not very consistent but as you say you can ignore it for the ride when it's just the first film.

Kelvin

I saw an interview with Crispin Glover last year, where he talked about one of the reasons he didn't do the second or third films.

In effect, he thought that the ending of the first film gave very mixed messages to audiences, implying that wealth and success were more important to the family's happiness than a solid relationship built on love, and while I haven't watched the film in over a decade, so can't remember exactly how that scene plays out, I did find his argument pretty compelling. I suppose the counter argument would be that it isn't actually the money that makes them happy, but rather their boosted confidence, which also brings them wealth, but still, I agree with him that the messages are very mixed.

A clip of the interview in question is here:

http://youtu.be/BVNeFlIiceU?t=5m15s

Skip to about 5 minutes and 15 seconds in, if you just want to hear his thoughts on the ending.

BritishHobo

It's easily the worst of the trilogy - the 2015 scenes haven't just dated badly in terms of reality, they're fucking embarrassing through-and-through. Marty's upside-down replacement dad who bears no relation to Crispin Glover whatsoever? Robo-Biff and his wrinkled Biff-Gramps? Stuttering Headroom-esque Ayatollah and Michael Jackson? Get to fuck.

The only highlight is Marty back in 1955 again, and that's because they know what they're doing instead of building some horrid lurid 2015 where all of the characters look like aged puppets being bounced around by a mentally-disturbed puppeteer.

Give me Marty and Doc's relationship straining in the Old West any day.

Sam

Ah, the days when characters talking in excited voices and a bombastic score gave you all the thrills you needed. Jumpers for goal posts...

As a kid I always found the 2015 world in part 2 disturbing and the time travel logic throughout all three films as confusing and therefore also disturbing. I loved them to bits, though. Now an adult, I agree that the first is still a classic with some fun to be had in the messy sequels and that it's by no means a perfect, or even great, trilogy.

BPFHAY

Quote from: BritishHobo on January 11, 2015, 12:01:44 AMStuttering Headroom-esque Ayatollah and Michael Jackson? Get to fuck.
How have those dated badly? They're from Cafe 80s, and are supposed to be exactly like Max Headroom. It's an 80s nostalgia cafe in the future, but actually made in the 80s. It's as accurate as it could possibly be.

Thomas

I don't think BritishHobo was singling them out as 'dated'; rather complaining that they were... rubbish? Get back here, 'Hobo. Explain yourself what you mean.

BPFHAY

BritishHobo is very rude to have let me misread what he wrote.

Replies From View

Quote from: Gulftastic on January 10, 2015, 11:17:33 PM
I think Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure qualifies, and 12 Monkeys.

Correct.  Also the first Terminator film.

Noodle Lizard

If we're talking about logical inconsistencies in BTTF, how about the fact that this guy "Calvin Klein" turns up and has a huge impact on these two kids' lives (including being the object of lust for the girl) before disappearing for no obvious reason.  Would they not have noticed as the years went on that their youngest child looked and sounded exactly like him?

And also, when he's sending himself back to the future, why does he only give himself something like 10 minutes to stop Dr Brown from getting shot?  And surely if he (or one version of him) is going to be sent back into the past anyway then it doesn't matter - it can be done infinite times until he gets it right.  This is a huge problem with almost any time travel story, though, where the writers ignore the internal logic in favour of more drama.

F'rinstance, Harry Potter & The Prisoner Of Azkaban, in which you have Harry and Hermione repeatedly rushing all over the place when using a time travel device.  They literally have all the time in the world at their fingertips, but are somehow still racing to the finish line.  Also, why was that device never used again?  I'm sure it would have been pretty useful in reversing some of the less-pleasant incidents which happen in the later stories (Sirius and Dumbledore's deaths, for instance).

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Kelvin on January 10, 2015, 11:48:21 PM
I saw an interview with Crispin Glover last year, where he talked about one of the reasons he didn't do the second or third films.

In effect, he thought that the ending of the first film gave very mixed messages to audiences, implying that wealth and success were more important to the family's happiness than a solid relationship built on love, and while I haven't watched the film in over a decade, so can't remember exactly how that scene plays out, I did find his argument pretty compelling. I suppose the counter argument would be that it isn't actually the money that makes them happy, but rather their boosted confidence, which also brings them wealth, but still, I agree with him that the messages are very mixed.

He's full of shit.  He's notoriously difficult to work with, I reckon it had far more to do with payment or billing or something.  And if he had a problem with the "mixed messages" of the ending of the first film, then why do the first film at all?  Assuming it was scripted that way.  That interview seems to imply that he managed to get the ending changed, which is a load of shite.  When has a no-name supporting actor ever managed that?

Besides, there really aren't any mixed messages in the ending.  Marty goes back and fixes their marriage from its inception, giving George more confidence and giving Lorraine(?) an actual reason to love him rather than pity.  As a result, their overall quality of life is significantly improved.  The only mixed message is, as Steven pointed out, the fact that they now employ Lorraine's would-be rapist as their handyman.

Old Nehamkin

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on January 11, 2015, 07:00:24 AM
Also, why was that device never used again?  I'm sure it would have been pretty useful in reversing some of the less-pleasant incidents which happen in the later stories (Sirius and Dumbledore's deaths, for instance).

Because of the space-time continuum.

Old Nehamkin

Seriously though, during the fifth's book climactic battle in the Ministry of Magic all of the Time Turners are knocked off a shelf and get stuck in an eternal falling loop from which they can never be retrieved. So there you go.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Old Nehamkin on January 11, 2015, 07:16:03 AM
Because of the space-time continuum.

They used it at least twice, maybe three times, and Hermione had been using it daily as a way to attend more classes than her schedule would permit with no ill consequence.  There isn't even a lazy explanation for the absence of this most amazing device in later stories, it's just completely forgotten about.

Old Nehamkin

#24
Quote from: Noodle Lizard on January 11, 2015, 07:21:50 AM
There isn't even a lazy explanation for the absence of this most amazing device in later stories, it's just completely forgotten about.

There is a lazy explanation, as detailed in my follow-up post. I don't think they address it in the films, though.

Also, I believe that Harry Potter time travel follows "fixed timeline" rules, so you can't reverse an event after it's actually happened. You can prevent it from happening, but then it'll always not have happened, you know? I just tried to type out a paragraph explaining all of this with reference to the non-death of Hagrid's pet Buckbeak, but it was incoherent at best and the whole thing is doing my head in now. I hate time travel.

Replies From View

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on January 11, 2015, 07:00:24 AM
If we're talking about logical inconsistencies in BTTF, how about the fact that this guy "Calvin Klein" turns up and has a huge impact on these two kids' lives (including being the object of lust for the girl) before disappearing for no obvious reason.  Would they not have noticed as the years went on that their youngest child looked and sounded exactly like him?

And also, when he's sending himself back to the future, why does he only give himself something like 10 minutes to stop Dr Brown from getting shot?  And surely if he (or one version of him) is going to be sent back into the past anyway then it doesn't matter - it can be done infinite times until he gets it right.  This is a huge problem with almost any time travel story, though, where the writers ignore the internal logic in favour of more drama.

He doesn't really have an infinite number of times to get it right - he has one chance because he only goes back once.  Other versions of him - also flung into the 1950s only the once - will be going back from their own version of 1985, which may have already been largely perfect, and are not "building" on something until they get it right.  There's an infinity there, but it's more like the infinite monkeys at typewriters scenario, where there's no sense of an accumulation or progression, but the random nature means every outcome might be reached the once.

As for the "why don't the parents realise their son looks like that Calvin Klein fella," I just put it down to forgetting exactly what that random kid looked like.  Think of anyone you only saw for a handful of days as a teenager, and whom you never took any photos of.  Do you have a perfect memory of them twenty years later?  It's certainly not something to consider a final straw when looking at the various flaws in the logic of these films.

Replies From View

I think a bigger problem emerges in Part 3 when Marty gets to see the 1955 Doc Brown again.  By this point he has already given him a note regarding the shooting in the mall car park, and Doc has yet to read it.

The problem is that the entirety of the 1885 scenario could have been skipped by Doc Brown just going "okay, I'm going to be shot by terrorists in 1985; avoid that, and some time after that I am going to be shot by an ancestor of Biff Tannen in 1885; avoid that."

There's no need for Doc to send Marty back in time to warn his future self about the dangers of the Wild West.  He can just remember!  Just as he can be made aware of the events of Part 2 and avoid those too, for that matter.

biggytitbo

It would have made a great film that, just 2 hours of Christopher Lloyd remembering stuff.

Replies From View

#28
Quote from: biggytitbo on January 11, 2015, 09:59:08 AM
It would have made a great film that, just 2 hours of Christopher Lloyd remembering stuff.

Obviously not what is meant.  When flaws exist like that in films, the skill would be to rework the scripts and storylines so the problems aren't there any more.  Have the 1955 Doc Brown remain unaware of the fate of his future self in 1885, for example.

It's just obvious that by the third film the writers had forgotten that somebody in the past is not necessarily an earlier incarnation of someone.  To warn an earlier version of someone, sure, use the Delorean.  But the third film has a future Doc Brown arbitrarily not remembering what his 1955 self has said and done ("Who dressed you?" "You did Doc" etc), and it's a bit off.

biggytitbo

Illogic in time travel fiction doesn't really bother me as time travel is essentially weird and unknowable - if anything I'd like it to be less logical to reflect that. I know a lot of people were troubled by the time travel logic in the Big Bang (Doctor Who) but the fact it was impossible is what was so great about it. Real time travel would constantly present logical impossibilities and nobody knows what would actually happen. Doctor Who's attitude to time travel generally is correct - just make up the rules as you go along.