Back to That Future Part III

[St_Eddie]

Those reasons are enough to make me like 2 the most. The first is a better made film definitely but the second goes gonzo with the established ideas and I like that. It announces, "I'm the second film in a trilogy so I can let it all hang out." It's a beautiful freak.

Ah, okay.  I see where you're coming from.  When I was a kid, I certainly thought that Back to the Future II was the best of the bunch because it's easily the most entertaining of the three movies, just in terms of sheer off the wall craziness.  However, nowadays I can't help but notice the huge, gaping narrative problems that it has, both structurally and in terms of coherence.  It is bloody good fun though, there's no denying that.

[Nowhere Man]

They're all fucking great you bunch of squares. Obviously the first is the best and third is the worst but they all hold up as a trilogy.

[greenman]

Good before they get to 1885, less good after.

Yep, watched it for the first time in years last week and I'd forgotten the 1955 segment was that long, Lloyd's obviously much better playing the 1955 Doc and Zemeckis seems much more at home with that 50's mostly night-time setting, much of part 3 ends up looking quite cheap IMHO.

Really the main thing to recommend the 1885 stuff is I'd say Thomas F. Wilson who doesn't just do a lazy old west Biff.

[MojoJojo]

The thing that bothers me about Back to the Future III is that Doc talks about how the time machine must be destroyed because of the dangers of causality.  Then at the end, once it's destroyed, he builds a new one and says "I figured, 'what the heck'!".  It's completely out of character.

He does exactly the same at the end of the first one with the ripped up note doesn't he?

[Jerzy Bondov]

B&T'sBJ

Bill & Ted's Blow Job?

[popcorn]

What bizarro world are you living in?!  Back to the Future II is easily the weakest of the trilogy

It ain't. It just ain't.

BTTF1 is more or less perfect. That's one of those rare things everyone agrees on, like chips being nice.

BTTF2 is a lopsided movie, but the way it takes apart and rebuilds the first one is ingenious. It's a bit of a frankenstein's monster, made of loads of different components slapped together, but I admire its ambition and its playfulness.

BTTF3 is just weird - it's like a spin-off, an episode of a TV series or something. The script lacks polish, like I complained about above, and more than that, it doesn't fit. BTTF1 is about going to the past, BTTF2 is about going to the future, so what's BTTF3? The wild bloody west, for some reason.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

So you're saying BttF3 should have been about going to the present?

[Steven]

What bizarro world are you living in?!  Back to the Future II is easily the weakest of the trilogy; it's a mess, albeit a fun mess with some wonderful ideas and concepts (the hoverboard being chief among them).  The first movie is the best, by quite some margin and the third is good fun, if a bit fluffy (it has a certain 'made for TV' feeling to it).

Wasn't BTTF3 basically cobbled onto the production of BTT2 to save on cost, so essentially it was tacked-on and filmed simutaneously as an afterthought.. using BTT2 to promote it by including the trailer for it at the end? Quite an episodic TV way of writing/filming something. It's a decent enough watch but basically a re-tread of shite we've already seen before but with the added 'danger' of Cowboys & Guns thrown in and a load of in-jokes and call-backs.. Frisbee Pie Company, Buford 'Mad Dog' Tannen, Strickland, Clint Eastwood etc.

[popcorn]

So you're saying BttF3 should have been about going to the present?

If they had to have made it, yes, perhaps it should have been just balancing everything up nicely, just hanging around in the present, enjoying the now, being in the moment. Zen.

[madhair60]

More like Cack to the Pooture Wee

[popcorn]

More like Cack to the Pooture Wee

Don't understand this post, explain please?

[madhair60]

Cack rhymes with Back, Poo rhymes with Fu, the first part of Future, and Wee rhymes with three, as in 3.

[popcorn]

Makes sense, thanks.

[Replies From View]

Lloyd's obviously much better playing the 1955 Doc

Ah, now, here's the thing.  Somewhere between the first film and the third film, the writers forgot that Doc Brown 1955 is not the same character as Doc Brown 1985.  I'm sure of it.

The first film begins with Doc Brown 1985, who has invented the time machine and understands it.  Marty leaves him behind and ends up meeting Doc Brown 1955 who doesn't have the same confidence, can fudge his way around the concepts and details, but can't lead Marty all the way.  Marty returns to 1985 and then Doc Brown 1985 arrives back from a jaunt around the future and the first film ends.

The second film puts Marty alongside Doc Brown 1985, and immediately Marty is in the passenger seat.  Doc Brown has all the answers, provides exposition, and immediately the sense of trepidation is reduced.  The slight difference here is really interesting, and I'm not sure the writers were entirely aware of it.  Doc Brown 1985 peels off his old-age make-up as if the writers see him and his 1955 counterpart as the same character.  This doesn't become fully apparent until the third film, though.

In the third film, we are reunited with Doc Brown 1955.  But check out some telltale lines of dialogue.  Marty is a seasoned time-traveller, while Doc Brown 1955 hasn't even had a trip in the Delorean yet.  Regardless, Doc Brown 1955 is telling Marty he's not thinking fourth-dimensionally.  He's dropping in lines of exposition and explanation that you should get from Doc Brown 1985, not the Doc Brown 1955 of the first film.


Good at noticing things aren't I; yes I am.

[Replies From View]

Back to the Future 3 has a massive flaw which is that all Doc Brown 1955 should need to do to prevent the events in the Wild West is to remember them.

He just needs to remember that in 1985 he is going to be shot by Libyans in that shopping mall car park, and then later, during an adventure in 1885, he is in danger of being shot again by an ancestor of Biff Tannen.

There's no reason for Marty to go back to make the connection between Doc Brown 1955 and his future self.  But for some reason the writers (and viewers of the film) seem to forget this just because Doc Brown 1985 happens to be in the past.

[popcorn]

In the third film, we are reunited with Doc Brown 1955.  But check out some telltale lines of dialogue.  Marty is a seasoned time-traveller, while Doc Brown 1955 hasn't even had a trip in the Delorean yet.  Regardless, Doc Brown 1955 is telling Marty he's not thinking fourth-dimensionally.  He's dropping in lines of exposition and explanation that you should get from Doc Brown 1985, not the Doc Brown 1955 of the first film.

Good at noticing things aren't I; yes I am.

I do indeed think this is quite a good bit of noticement, congrats. If the roles had been reversed as you suggest - with Marty being the experienced time-traveler and the Doc not having the foggiest - this could have made the third film more interesting.

[Bad Ambassador]

Good point, but the reason for Brown pulling off his old-age make-up is so Lloyd wouldn't have to wear it for the rest of the film.

As I recall, the plan was that the studio was going to make a sequel whether Zemeckis and Gale were involved or not, so they came up with a massive story called Paradox which was effectively a first draft of Parts II and III combined into one movie - a major difference was there was no almanac, instead Marty had to go to 1967 and ensure his conception. Yes, I know.

Paradox was obviously far too long, the Bobs said the just the first half on its own could be Back to the Future Part II, and could be ready for release Thanksgiving 1989. An executive misunderstood and thought they were splitting the script into two films to release six months apart, and they went with it.

[Bad Ambassador]

Back to the Future 3 has a massive flaw which is that all Doc Brown 1955 should need to do to prevent the events in the Wild West is to remember them.

He just needs to remember that in 1985 he is going to be shot by Libyans in that shopping mall car park, and then later, during an adventure in 1885, he is in danger of being shot again by an ancestor of Biff Tannen.

There's no reason for Marty to go back to make the connection between Doc Brown 1955 and his future self.  But for some reason the writers (and viewers of the film) seem to forget this just because Doc Brown 1985 happens to be in the past.

You mean that Doc 85 needs to remember what happened to him when he was Doc 55? I think he knows he is in danger of being shot by Tannen anyway, but the specifics aren't known until Marty tells him. Regarding the Libyans, he does know, hence the bullet-proof vest, but he doesn't find out until he reads Marty's letter. Going by movie time travel rules, history isn't changed until the main character has affected the change. Before that it's still the original unaltered timeline in which Doc is shot by Libyans, and later shot by Tannen.

I wonder what was on the gravestone before Doc decided to put on the vest, because that meant he would live long enough to be killed in 1885.

This is heavy.

[Replies From View]

You mean that Doc 85 needs to remember what happened to him when he was Doc 55? I think he knows he is in danger of being shot by Tannen anyway, but the specifics aren't known until Marty tells him. Regarding the Libyans, he does know, hence the bullet-proof vest, but he doesn't find out until he reads Marty's letter. Going by movie time travel rules, history isn't changed until the main character has affected the change. Before that it's still the original unaltered timeline in which Doc is shot by Libyans, and later shot by Tannen.

The altered timeline occurs when both Marty and Doc Brown 1955 discover the 1885 gravestone of Doc Brown 1985.  That moment is the equivalent of Doc Brown 1955 reading Marty's warning note about the Libyans; in both these instances it should just be a matter of remembering the foreseen event and avoiding it.  Marty going back in time to 1885 is unneeded.  You can tell that the writers forgot that the Doc Brown in 1885 was actually the 1985 Doc Brown because of things like him being surprised by the way his younger self dressed Marty.  They forgot that Doc Brown 1985 being in 1885 didn't make him a younger version.

[Replies From View]

Good point, but the reason for Brown pulling off his old-age make-up is so Lloyd wouldn't have to wear it for the rest of the film.

I know, and I suspect it was also a decision to make Doc Brown 1985 less alienating as a character.  It's one thing for him to have a latex face when he's only the introductory version of the character (then the 1955 version of him takes over as one of the main characters in the film), but in Back to the Future Part 2 almost everyone they meet is a cartoonishly old version in the future, or an arsehole in alternate 1985.  The actress playing Jennifer is being weirdly over the top in her scenes as well, so it's hard to find anyone to identify with.  It's really just Doc and Marty who you care about, so it makes sense for Doc to look as human as possible.

I just drew on the moment of him removing the latex from his face as a symbolic transition of the 1955 and 1985 Doc Browns becoming the same.  I don't mean that was a conscious decision on the part of the writers or actors, but the writing in Part 3 shows that the writers have fused the two versions together.

[Replies From View]

I wonder what was on the gravestone before Doc decided to put on the vest, because that meant he would live long enough to be killed in 1885.

When we leave Doc Brown 1955 towards the end of the first film, he is adamant that he won't be reading Marty's warning note, yet moments later in Part 3 he's fascinated to see spoilers of himself in 1885 and seeks them out.  What changed his attitude¹?  One might argue that the gravestone forced itself upon him, whereupon he thought "fuck it; now I'm in I may as well make the most of it," but as you observed the 1885 gravestone of Doc Brown 1985 shouldn't have existed prior to him reading Marty's warning note.

¹ Correct answer:  the writers forgot that Doc Brown 1955 was meant to have that attitude, because they had been writing the character of Doc Brown 1985 for Part 2.

[popcorn]

I always thought the "old" and "young" Docs were the same, visually. I never noticed a difference. I thought the latex mask thing was a joke.

[Replies From View]

I always thought the "old" and "young" Docs were the same, visually. I never noticed a difference. I thought the latex mask thing was a joke.

The joke is that Marty wouldn't have recognised him without it.

[Bad Ambassador]

When we leave Doc Brown 1955 towards the end of the first film, he is adamant that he won't be reading Marty's warning note, yet moments later in Part 3 he's fascinated to see spoilers of himself in 1885 and seeks them out.  What changed his attitude¹?  One might argue that the gravestone forced itself upon him, whereupon he thought "fuck it; now I'm in I may as well make the most of it," but as you observed the 1885 gravestone of Doc Brown 1985 shouldn't have existed prior to him reading Marty's warning note.

But Marty is there, so he would have to have read the note. Meaning this is a paradox. Marty is there, so Doc has to read the note otherwise Part II can't happen.

I think we should just acknowledge that you can pull apart logic in time travel films if you want to, and accept that you're not supposed to tug too hard at these particular threads.

Doc stumbles across the grave, researches his fate to try to prevent his own untimely death, and after Marty leaves, decides "in for a penny" and reads the note. A self-fulfilling paradox.

Regarding Doc remembering, we can just put that down to "how time works", and get on with enjoying Western fun.

[St_Eddie]

All this talk of paradox continuity and time related plot-holes hurts my head.

I always thought the "old" and "young" Docs were the same, visually. I never noticed a difference. I thought the latex mask thing was a joke.

Same, mate.  Maybe I'm just not very observant.

[Replies From View]

But Marty is there, so he would have to have read the note. Meaning this is a paradox. Marty is there, so Doc has to read the note otherwise Part II can't happen.

I think we should just acknowledge that you can pull apart logic in time travel films if you want to, and accept that you're not supposed to tug too hard at these particular threads.

Doc stumbles across the grave, researches his fate to try to prevent his own untimely death, and after Marty leaves, decides "in for a penny" and reads the note. A self-fulfilling paradox.

Regarding Doc remembering, we can just put that down to "how time works", and get on with enjoying Western fun.

Oh, I totally agree; I enjoy the ride despite the flaws in time travel logic and the broader plot holes.  I only bother to pick it apart because it manages to hold together so well.

[Replies From View]

As a kid I loved Part 2 the most, but I think it suffers more than the others from rewatches.

The "something" that "had to be done" about Marty's kids feels contrived to explain the cliffhanger of Part 1 (which it was - because the cliffhanger was only meant to be a joke ending when that was a stand-alone film), and lacks urgency.  Even now I can't remember what that mission was, and that's the problem - it feels unimportant.  Even while Marty's Fucked Future plays out before cartoonified Jennifer's eyes it's hard to get invested when you've seen the trilogy before; this is because none of this stuff is going to be solved by what Marty does to stop his son getting beaten up.  It's going to be solved by Marty changing his ways, Scrooge-style, so he no longer loses his temper when people do a chicken noise at him.  At the end of Part 3 he avoids the car crash and realises not to be a cunt, and this renders all the 2015 stuff irrelevant.

Still great stuff; just harder to invest in Doc's anxieties around saving Marty's kids in 2015 when you know that they're fiddling around with the finer details of characters who won't end up existing.


The 1955 stuff in Part 2 is super though.

[Twed]

In the third film, we are reunited with Doc Brown 1955.  But check out some telltale lines of dialogue.  Marty is a seasoned time-traveller, while Doc Brown 1955 hasn't even had a trip in the Delorean yet.  Regardless, Doc Brown 1955 is telling Marty he's not thinking fourth-dimensionally.  He's dropping in lines of exposition and explanation that you should get from Doc Brown 1985, not the Doc Brown 1955 of the first film.

Maybe other lines of dialogue support this theory, but I don't think a scientifically-minded guy who later invented time travel would be out of character thinking fourth-dimensionally at any point in his life.

[Radar]

I always thought there was a bit of a loophole in BTTF III. So Doc buries the Delorean in the old mine for 1955 Doc and Marty to find. Marty travels back in time to 1885, but damages the gas tank. They need fuel to get up to 88. BUT - when Marty goes back to 1885 there are now 2 Deloreans there. The one with the broken gas tank, and the one with gas in it, buried in the mine. All they needed to do was syphon the fuel out from the old Delorean. Problem solved.

[Replies From View]

I always thought there was a bit of a loophole in BTTF III. So Doc buries the Delorean in the old mine for 1955 Doc and Marty to find. Marty travels back in time to 1885, but damages the gas tank. They need fuel to get up to 88. BUT - when Marty goes back to 1885 there are now 2 Deloreans there. The one with the broken gas tank, and the one with gas in it, buried in the mine. All they needed to do was syphon the fuel out from the old Delorean. Problem solved.

Maybe the one in the mine didn't have petrol in the tank.  In any case they didn't want to disturb it in case meddling stopped Marty going back to 1885.