Back to the Future Part 2

[small_world]

Perfect time travel films: Primer

[Replies From View]

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.

Well, the logic of 'The Big Bang' was actually perfectly sound, but the thing about Doctor Who is it needs to have a fluid notion of time travel because its 50 year history prevents it from following only one established model.  New production teams and writers approach time travel differently, but despite doing so they should be able to maintain consistency across a single episode or even series, which it generally does.

The problem with the Back to the Future films is they don't even maintain consistency within a single film, let alone the entire trilogy.  I'm surprised when people say it doesn't matter, since it's surely pivotal for any time travel work to have a clear sense of what ordinary cause and effect would be, and also surely the storytelling is harmed when characters are just doing random shit because wahay it's a fantasy film innit.

[Mark Steels Stockbroker]

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.

See also: the Doctor never using the SpaceTime Visualiser, after that story in which it warned him the Daleks were hunting him down.

[Mark Steels Stockbroker]

Perfect time travel films: Primer

Sorry, I don't get that one at all. Just as flawed as BTTF.

[BritishHobo]

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.

I don't really know. I think I made the dated complaint and then got confused and just started listing things I could remember.

[Artemis]

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.

That's interesting, because the commentaries on the blu-ray release are pretty explicit in describing Glover as difficult, and demanding way more money than he was worth as an actor back then. In some ways, his lack of involvement in the second part was disappointing, but it does preserve his performance in the first, which was fantastic.

I actually love Part 2. It's a very different beast and can only be appreciated within the context of the first part, but to me that doesn't detract from it's quality, it only means it's a very well integrated sequel. I can still vaguely remember my awe when they not only revisited but interacted with the first film, which was already a classic for me at that point. I thought it was ambitious, original and incredibly well executed.

Sadly, it's the third chapter that doesn't hold up, for me. At that stage it just becomes a predictable love-in, using well-worn repeats of catchphrases and scenarios around a pretty clunky love story culminating in a sickly cliche.

[Steven]

I remember Crispin Glover touched on some of the stuff during this Opie & Athony interview. But the guy seems full of shit, I recall something about him getting the script changed, Biff was originally going to be a black manservant or something??! And his old-age mask being reappropriated for the 2nd movie which he sued over.

[Replies From View]

I thought he just wasn't involved in the sequels because he was wanting much more money than he was worth and the studio just said no - we'll recast and then kill you then.  Nothing to do with taking a stand against the moral stance of the first film or anything.

I think that it's Bob Gale I remember in an interview saying that between the first film and the sequels there was indeed a shift regarding what Marty's success was, so it became more about his personal and spiritual growth than gaining a truck, but this was nothing to do with Findus Crispin Glover.

[Steven]

Which reminds me that Bob Gale was also interviewed on Opie & Anthony and said similar about Glover wanting more money.

[El Unicornio, mang]

I watched this again the other night. Not as good as I remember, but still better than III, which might as well just be a crappy TV western with no time travel elements. There's a few deleted scenes from part II here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUgYSgiGWQ0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVUtNk_6mpc

Crispin Glover apparently kept making weird suggestions when they were filming the first one, like his hair sticking straight up in the air. They were probably not that bothered about losing him for the next two.

[Replies From View]

I think I've said this in another Back to the Future thread, but I always thought it was a bit risky using matches from 'alternate 1985' to set fire to the Almanac.

Fortunately all that happens is the brand name on the match box changes, but the matches could have been erased from time altogether, you oaf, and then what would you have done?

[Steven]

Fortunately all that happens is the brand name on the match box changes, but the matches could have been erased from time altogether, you oaf, and then what would you have done?

This is what happened when I travelled back in time and left a guy in the lurch with no matches and he was forced to give his name as "John Johnson".

[Gulftastic]

'If my calculations are correct....'

Just on the off chance that they're not, shall we not have the car drive straight at us at 88 MPH during the first ever attempt at time travel?

[BritishHobo]

I remember reading a theory on IMDb years ago that Doc was intentionally planning to kill himself and Marty if it didn't work. He'd tried for decades to get the invention working, and in the meantime lost any kind of credibility, everyone in town thinking he's a fucking crackpot. So he decides he's going to try it out, and if it doesn't actually work, it'll kill him, and take Marty with him.

Lot of furious replies to that one.

[El Unicornio, mang]

I wish they would release more footage of the Eric Stoltz stuff. For those who haven't seen any of it, this video seems to have all the existing photos of him in the role

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcHHZeeWlDU

I guess these photos would have been used for his wallet





Hadn't seen this one before



There's also these brief video snippets

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wudNasQbv0

[Kelvin]

I remember Crispin Glover touched on some of the stuff during this Opie & Athony interview. But the guy seems full of shit, I recall something about him getting the script changed, Biff was originally going to be a black manservant or something??! And his old-age mask being reappropriated for the 2nd movie which he sued over.

It's very possible that Glover himself is full of shit and was only after more money for himself, or whatever.

But I do think the point raised in that interview - that the ending conveys mixed messages about happiness and money going hand in hand - is itself an interesting one.

[Small Man Big Horse]

I actually love Part 2. It's a very different beast and can only be appreciated within the context of the first part, but to me that doesn't detract from it's quality, it only means it's a very well integrated sequel. I can still vaguely remember my awe when they not only revisited but interacted with the first film, which was already a classic for me at that point. I thought it was ambitious, original and incredibly well executed.

Sadly, it's the third chapter that doesn't hold up, for me. At that stage it just becomes a predictable love-in, using well-worn repeats of catchphrases and scenarios around a pretty clunky love story culminating in a sickly cliche.

This is the correct opinion to have, and anyone who disagrees has some kind of faulty brain which needs to be replaced.

Having said that, I loved BTTF3 as a kid. It's only when I watched it a few years back that I realised how poor it sadly is.

[Replies From View]

A lot of people reckon the third film gets things almost back to the quality of the first, but it doesn't at all.

When Tan Tannen or whatever he's called is taken off to jail, the threat to Doc and Marty is gone, yet they still go galloping to the train as if they must get back to 1985 IMMEDIATELY.  The sequels are full of stuff like that - the tension being ramped up for no reason to make up for the lack of anything like the first film's one-off lightning strike.  See also Doc Brown randomly saying in Part 2 "This is getting too dangerous!  We just abort the mission!"  What - the mission of preventing alternate 1985 from taking place?  All because Doc Brown is wandering vaguely near where his younger self is setting up the lightning conductor?  We know the only danger is that you might faint, but if that's so bad just walk away from that area!!

[Waking Life]

Would the train not have destroyed the Delorean if they hadn't raced after it? I haven't seen it in some time though, so not sure if the car was before or after they change the tracks. They did inexplicably rebuild the time machine from the train afterwards of course, but I don't think even Doc thought that possible.

Old Biff ending up back in the normal 2015 (rather than an alternate one) is the most glaring flaw in the story's logic, but I think the entire trilogy holds up pretty well unless you overthink it. Not many people - even those who love the trilogy - seem to give that Biff point much thought for example. I'm with Biggy in that it's best to just accept it as a fantastical conceit.

Although Looper did really exasperate me.

[BritishHobo]

I BEG TO DIFFER.

[Old Nehamkin]

I BEG TO DIFFER.

Ooooh, check out Mr bigshot "r/movies veteran" over here.

[BritishHobo]

Don't step to me, motherfuckers.

[Replies From View]

Would the train not have destroyed the Delorean if they hadn't raced after it?

No - the train was following its normal track rather than the unfinished one until Marty and Doc arrived, switched it to follow the unfinished track (where the Delorean was waiting), and attached the Delorean to the front of it.  There was no "point of no return" until the train passed a specific landmark at high speed, and basically after the threat of Tan Tannen (YES THAT IS HIS NAME NOW) was dealt with there was no longer any reason to hurriedly get on with their "return to 1985" plan.  Parts 2 and 3 of Back to the Future sorely lack any kind of meaningful deadlines - and it's quite weird, I think, that the writers didn't come up with any.

[weirdbeard]

No - the train was following its normal track rather than the unfinished one until Marty and Doc arrived, switched it to follow the unfinished track (where the Delorean was waiting), and attached the Delorean to the front of it.  There was no "point of no return" until the train passed a specific landmark at high speed, and basically after the threat of Tan Tannen (YES THAT IS HIS NAME NOW) was dealt with there was no longer any reason to hurriedly get on with their "return to 1985" plan.  Parts 2 and 3 of Back to the Future sorely lack any kind of meaningful deadlines - and it's quite weird, I think, that the writers didn't come up with any.

Why would there be any need to stay a minute longer than necessary in 1885? Doc thought Clara hated him so had no reason to stay and there was nothing keeping them there. Everything was in place for them to go back to 1985 there and then so why not do it before something went wrong.

[Blumf]

Been a while since I watched BTTF3, but wasn't there a need to match events of history or something about the teacher dying at specific time/place? That's why they had to rush about.... Maybe....

BTTF films ordered best to worst
Back to the Future
Back to the Future II
Back to the Future III

Which makes a handy mnemonic if you ever forget the order the films were released in.

[Replies From View]

Why would there be any need to stay a minute longer than necessary in 1885? Doc thought Clara hated him so had no reason to stay and there was nothing keeping them there. Everything was in place for them to go back to 1985 there and then so why not do it before something went wrong.

Fine, but there was no rush and all the characters behave as if there is one. 

From the cliffhanger at the end of Part 1 onwards, when Doc says they must rush to sort out some arbitrary future moment when actually Marty could have had a bit of a breather and some time with his girlfriend following all the madness in the 1950s, there's some illusion of urgency when there doesn't need to be.

So actually have some peril and urgency instead.  Don't pretend; just do it.  That's what kind of gets me.

[Thomas]

Replies, you'll be able to correct me if I'm mistaken on this - before Marty goes back to 1885, we see Clara's name on the Doc's tombstone. However, it's only because Marty then travels back to 1885 that Clara survives. The name of the 'Clayton Ravine' - changed to 'Eastwood' - testifies to that.

How, then, is her name on the tombstone? How can she fall into the ravine before arriving at the town, but also be around days later to pay for the Doc's grave?

By the logic of the films, isn't it the 'Erasure Principle' getting a bit ahead of itself?

[Replies From View]

I'd have to watch Part 3 again to remember those details Thomas!

But I'm sure you're right.  It never crossed my mind that Clara would have been the one to necessarily pay for Doc Brown's grave, despite being dead by that point.  Could his grave not have been paid for in some other way?

[Thomas]

Me too, I'm probably getting something wrong. But do look out for it on your next viewing. Do be aware.

Could his grave not have been paid for in some other way?

I've just checked, and the inscription reads 'Erected in eternal memory by his beloved Clara' - and yet, before Marty goes back, she tumbles into the ravine and never even meets the Doc.

I'm sure Steven Moffat will explain it in Series 9.

[BritishHobo]

Is Marty involved in saving her? I thought Doc did so on his own, and so would've done whether or not Marty turned up. The Clayton Ravine story may have already been erased after Doc goes back, we just don't know because it isn't referenced until Marty goes back as well. He just still remembers because ripple effect or something, I don't fucking know.

Even then though, that still only leaves two days or whatever for her to become his 'beloved Clara'.

Thanks, now I'm sat in the library looking up Back to the Future: Part III plot details instead of working.