Back to the Future Part 2

[Replies From View]

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

That's not too odd for people who haven't experienced other romance in their lives.




(PROBABLY.)

[Thomas]

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.

Oh yes, good point, Marty is remembering the name of the ravine from his long-gone, original version of 1985. Just a tiny glimpse into his life as the loneliest man in all of time and space.

I wonder how disjointed his relationship with Jennifer is by the end of the trilogy. I'd imagine they have fairly different memories of each other.

[BritishHobo]

I reckon Marty barely gives a fuck. He doesn't even notice that she changes into a completely different person when he comes back from 1955, he's too obsessed with that shitting truck.

Probably one for the 'Obvious things you've just realised', but it was only recently that I realised her utterly pointless presence in the second film is because they'd written themselves into a corner with their cliffhanger, which wasn't actually intended to set up a sequel. One of the many daft things about the trilogy is Doc happily bringing Jennifer along and then almost immediately knocking her out because 'she shouldn't know too much about her own future'. This is right before he happily allows Marty to traipse all over the bloody show.

[Replies From View]

I reckon Marty barely gives a fuck. He doesn't even notice that she changes into a completely different person when he comes back from 1955, he's too obsessed with that shitting truck.

Of course she doesn't change until the Part 2 remake of the Part 1 cliffhanger.  It's a very odd situation really, when you attempt to resolve it in-universe.

Probably one for the 'Obvious things you've just realised', but it was only recently that I realised her utterly pointless presence in the second film is because they'd written themselves into a corner with their cliffhanger, which wasn't actually intended to set up a sequel. One of the many daft things about the trilogy is Doc happily bringing Jennifer along and then almost immediately knocking her out because 'she shouldn't know too much about her own future'. This is right before he happily allows Marty to traipse all over the bloody show.

Yeah - I mentioned this on the first page of this thread.  In Part 2 of Back to the Future we're given a load of croaking fake old people and an overly goofy, cartoony version of Jennifer; only Doc and Marty resemble real people, and we're supposed to be rooting for them but the very first thing they do is dump an unconscious female in an unattended alleyway, say she'll be fine and just leave her there.

Bob Gale and Robert Zumeckis didn't want the girl in the car, but they should still have found a better way of working with the corner they had written themselves into.  It's not only Jennifer's presence that isn't properly incorporated into the sequels; everything about the future environment and "something's wrong with your kids" was enormously contrived and was ultimately undone not by Marty's actions in 2015 but by his Scrooge redemption stuff.

[BritishHobo]

In all honesty I very likely read that, forgot I'd done so, and then repeated it like Vince in Fifteen Storeys High telling the womble story, thinking it was my own observation.

[Replies From View]

Some side-by-side comparisons:

The cliffhanger of Part 1 played alongside the opening of Part 2:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htyYy9ML5rk

The Enchantment Under the Sea scene - Part 1 alongside Part 2:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD63ChsBakw

Twin Pines Mall (opening of Part 1) vs Lone Pines Mall (end of Part 1):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfLPiMPAReU

[Thomas]

I still think she should've said 'you're acting like you haven't seen me in years.'

I like the way George's approach to the car and confrontation with Biff is framed in the second film, through the window over Marty's shoulder.

[Replies From View]

I still think she should've said 'you're acting like you haven't seen me in years.'

I like the way George's approach to the car and confrontation with Biff is framed in the second film, through the window over Marty's shoulder.

Yes, and the way that Marty gets to see his Dad punch Biff out the second time round, as the first time he was locked in the boot of the car and arrived too late.  There's something strangely cathartic about seeing Marty witness it for himself in the second film.

[QDRPHNC]

third one is best becuae of that little kid playing with his nuts at the end hahahaa class

[BPFHAY]

It would be okay if he wasn't just pointing at them, confidently and knowingly.

[Replies From View]

It was to indicate that they had been to the future where the children still had testicles.

[Steven]

I think the kid was just indicating to his mother or handler on set that he needed to go to the bathroom during probably the millionth take with Christopher Lloyd prattling on. Maybe Detective Titbo can investigate this kid's crotch more studiously and get to the bottom of it.

[Replies From View]

Nah; it would have been carefully scripted.  I'm sure you can picture it written down, and that proves it was.

BOY CALMLY INDICATES GENITAL

Like that.

[BPFHAY]

If you watch the director's cut you can see the full shot, where he starts calmly pointing and then gets more and more worked up, eventually screaming "SCOOP OUT THEIR CONTENTS LIKE WHEN YOU NEUTER A DOG". I think they should have left it in the theatrical cut, because it clears up a few plot holes.

[great_badir]

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.

Admittedly I've not seen or heard any interviews with him for a LONG time, but it's really REALLY weird seeing and hearing him...not be weird.


On the subject of both Glover and BTTF 2, I swear that Glover appeared on Going Live (or some kiddies morning show) to promote it just before or whilst it was in UK cinemas.  Everyone tells me I'm wrong and that I imagined it, but when I eventually saw the film I clearly remember thinking "that's not the same guy - so why was he (Glover) on Going Live?". 

Did I imagine that, or did it actually happen?

[DukeDeMondo]

Everyone tells me I'm wrong and that I imagined it, but when I eventually saw the film I clearly remember thinking "that's not the same guy - so why was he (Glover) on Going Live?". 

Did I imagine that, or did it actually happen?

There's only one way to find out!

[BPFHAY]

That or a rubbish flying train.

[great_badir]

That or a rubbish flying train.

Oi!

I like part 3...

[Old Nehamkin]

I like it as well but the flying train bit is well rubbish. It would've been a much better and more poignant ending if they'd had Doc just stay in the old west forever while Marty moves on with his life.

[BPFHAY]

Agreed. The timetrain can exist too, but it doesn't need to fucking fly, especially after it caused all that fuss by materialising on the rails.

[madhair60]

I like Part 4 the best.

Wait... oh shit... what year is this?

[BPFHAY]

1900 or 2000 plus or minus some multiple of 15.

1000A + 15B, them's the BTTF co-efficients. The script fills itself out from that point.

[Replies From View]

The time train is okay - I like it as a joke on which to end the trilogy, just as the ending of the first film with the Delorean flying was initially supposed to be only a joke.

[BPFHAY]

If they wanted to put a joke in they should have made it one of those Little Tikes cars.

[Mark Steels Stockbroker]

The train was the first ever example of Steampunk.

[Replies From View]

The train was the first ever example of Steampunk.

No, Duke Ellington was.

[Steven]

Deleted scene. Oof..

And WTF.

[Noodle Lizard]

Deleted scene. Oof..

Haha!  Fucking Christ.  Forgetting all the dodgy implications, that's just an astonishingly poor gag delivered astonishingly poorly.

[El Unicornio, mang]

I really wish I hadn't read the replies to the top comment on that vid

[greenman]

The train was the first ever example of Steampunk.

Miyazaki's Castle In The Sky.

As far as Part II's version of 2015 not being that realist I feel that's part of the charm, a reflection more of the era it was made.