DVD Talk
Just Watched "Back to the Future" Trilogy for the First Time Ever.. [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Just Watched "Back to the Future" Trilogy for the First Time Ever..


PacMan2006
01-08-03, 09:39 PM
I know this may belong somewhere else but I think is is okay here, too.

I gotta say, I was impressed. I really enjoyed it. I loved how it felt like one big movie adventure instead of just the original, then sequels totally separate like I expected.

I saw the first film about six months ago and liked it. Today I rented part 2 and 3. I was pretty blown away by 2. It was genius to me. I really liked the overlap of a new movie blended with the original. Great idea. Part 3...to me, definitely not the best but it was still enjoyable due to the original characters.

I just have one question about part 3...why did Marty feel the need in 1955 to go back to get the Doc from 1885 and bring him back to 1985? Since he had the "other" Doc from 1955 (who helped him travel back to the old west), why not just get into the Delorean together and travel back from 1955 to 1985?

Either way, I enjoyed the series and probably will buy it sometime in the future (no pun intended, truly).

Kal-El
01-08-03, 09:50 PM
Well, the 1955 Doc Brown belonged in THAT time period. However, the Doc in 1855 is supposed to be the Doc in 1985. It's one of those time paradox thingies.

karnblack
01-08-03, 09:58 PM
Huh huh...he said pair a Docs...huh huh...

Seantn
01-08-03, 10:18 PM
He WAS going to leave doc in 1855, but then he discovered that only days after writing that letter to Marty, doc was murdered. Marty wanted to prevent docs murder, so that's why he went back in time again.

PacMan2006
01-08-03, 11:39 PM
Hey guys, I don't remember the first film that well. So help me out a little here...

Isn't the 1955 Doc, who helped send Marty back to 1985 in the first movie, the SAME Doc who came back at the end of part 1 and whisked him away to the future and all the craziness that became part II? Therefore, when they eventually traveled back to 1955 (in part II, and both Doc's encountered each other but didn't see each other face to face), isn't the "1955 Doc" truly the 1985 Doc, only right before he traveled BACK to 1985 from 1955?

If so, then I dont understand why the 1955 Doc belonged in 1955. Because, if I remember correctly, the 1955 Doc was originally in 1985 when him and Marty went back in time in the first film.

jaeufraser
01-09-03, 12:07 AM
The 1985 doc was the one at the end of BTTF1 who takes them off to the future. They go through their adventures, then both of them end back up in 1955. From there, 1985 doc gets zapped back to 1885 or something, and marty and 1955 doc are left. They send Marty back, story finishes off in part 3.

LBPound
01-09-03, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by PacMan2006
I was pretty blown away by 2. It was genius to me. I really liked the overlap of a new movie blended with the original. Great idea. Part 3...to me, definitely not the best but it was still enjoyable due to the original characters.

I agree with your assessment entirely. BTTF II is probably the most inspired sequel I've ever seen. To me, it's nearly as good as the original, loses some points to being overly silly with the future stuff, but it's all in good fun. (It ticks me off to think Part II would have been EVEN better if they devoted full energies to editing it instead of editing as a secondary project to filming the inferior Part III).

Seems like they were so clever on the first sequel, that the third film was just a "Let's do a Back to the Future in the Wild Wild West." All the characters and situations will be the same...but it will be a western.

Very few moments of inspiration there, but still highly watchable because of Michael J. Fox (the one playing Marty McFly, anyway) and because the characters are familiar.

Ranger
01-09-03, 02:50 AM
Oh, I'm so confused! :)

Great trilogy, indeed! :up:

UAIOE
01-09-03, 04:16 AM
As i have always said Part 2 + 3 were supposed to be a single movie but had to split up for budget reasons.

So there is BTTF 1

BTTF 2

& BTTF 2 part 2 :D

If i remember correctly the orginal title for BTTF 2 was "Paradox: Back to the Future 2" and it was 2+3 combined.

GuessWho
01-09-03, 08:06 AM
'85 Doc and '85 Marty are the only* time travelers.


'55 Doc never leaves.




*(not counting '85 Einstein, '85 Jennifer and 2015 Biff)

LBPound
01-09-03, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by UAIOE
As i have always said Part 2 + 3 were supposed to be a single movie but had to split up for budget reasons.

So there is BTTF 1

BTTF 2

& BTTF 2 part 2 :D

If i remember correctly the orginal title for BTTF 2 was "Paradox: Back to the Future 2" and it was 2+3 combined.

Yeah, you can see in the Making-of Material, signs on the set for 2 say "Paradox", that was the working title.

And I think it's more like there's BTTF 1, BTTF 2, and BTTF 2 Crapified. :D

LBPound
01-09-03, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by GuessWho
'85 Doc and '85 Marty are the only* time travelers.


'55 Doc never leaves.




*(not counting '85 Einstein, '85 Jennifer and 2015 Biff)

And don't forget Cole:

<img src="http://www.movieweb.com/movie/12monkeys/co5s.jpg">

Groucho
01-09-03, 04:35 PM
My main complaint about the series is that they should have ended Part 2 with Marty stranded in 1955, before he gets the telegram. That would have been one hell of a cliffhanger.

Goat3001
01-09-03, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Groucho
My main complaint about the series is that they should have ended Part 2 with Marty stranded in 1955, before he gets the telegram. That would have been one hell of a cliffhanger.

I was just thinking that :up:

cooper2000
01-09-03, 06:24 PM
Glad you liked the movie. Ive held off on getting the DVDs even though I really really want them due to the framing problem.
I hear in the Special features they finally tell why they replaced the first girl with Elizabeth Shu. Can anyone tell me why?

DarthMarino
01-10-03, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by cooper2000
Glad you liked the movie. Ive held off on getting the DVDs even though I really really want them due to the framing problem.
I hear in the Special features they finally tell why they replaced the first girl with Elizabeth Shu. Can anyone tell me why?

I believe a member of her family died and she decided to quit acting for a while as she was in no mental shape to do so.

PacMan2006
01-10-03, 04:02 AM
One more thing, anyone know when they plan to fix the framing problem and ship out new batches of DVD's?

UAIOE
01-10-03, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by LBPound
And I think it's more like there's BTTF 1, BTTF 2, and BTTF 2 Crapified. :D

I always found Part 3 to be interesting because the time period they ended up in was one where if the time machine breaks down (or as in the movie, loses its gas) you're pretty much screwed.

Going back 30 years, you still have gasoline, cruder electronics or other cars to canibalize parts from. The only thing that was not avaible in Part 1 for the car was the 1.21 jigowatts.

Part 2 took care of the fission reactor with the Mr. Fusion...so powering the time circuits wasnt a problem....Part three addressed the issue of what happens when the car itself cannot perform its functions.

Its an issue i am glad was brought up in the 3rd movie. What happens when you time travel to a time where you cannot fix your broken machine? It also addressed the fatal flaw of the Delorean...that it was dependent on gasoline to run.

I like Part 3 because Marty trying to get home is a more difficult task to accomplish in the 3rd movie than it is in the 1st.

GuessWho
01-10-03, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by PacMan2006
One more thing, anyone know when they plan to fix the framing problem and ship out new batches of DVD's? Hotline says late-Feb is the expected replacement disc shipping time. No idea when new box sets will be in stores.

peejnyc007
01-10-03, 06:50 PM
Catch phrases & concepts introduced into pop culture in 1985,
as a result of BTTF's popularity at the time:

"Hello.... Anybody home?? Think, McFly!!" :whofart:

"Butt-head" :whofart:

"Heavy...!" -confused-

Calvin Klein underwear :D

and of course,

Huey Lewis and The News. :cool:

peej

DVD DVD DVD
01-11-03, 01:06 PM
Now at the end of Part 3, where did the Doc get the parts from to build his time travel train? He was stuck in 1885 after Marty left.

JimRochester
01-11-03, 01:14 PM
I know allot of people were disappointed with 3. It wasn't as good as the first two but definately brought some more humor back into the mix.

GoldenJCJ
01-12-03, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by DVD DVD DVD
Now at the end of Part 3, where did the Doc get the parts from to build his time travel train? He was stuck in 1885 after Marty left.
My question is why did Doc build the new time machine after he spent the last two movies bitching and moaning about how dangerous time travel was and how he wanted the delorean destroyed.

Jackskeleton
01-12-03, 02:23 AM
I always questioned the title of the first..

Back to the future?

Huh? I must have missed something cause Marty didn't go to the future, he went to the past, and then when they sent him back to his time it was his "PRESENT" so I never saw how "Back to the future" could be the correct phrase. ;)

:p

Then the second, they never went to the future to begin with, so how could they go BACK to it? The third just justifies the theory some more. they went Back to the past.

Most misleading title EVER! i canceled my pre-order... ;)

UAIOE
01-12-03, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by DVD DVD DVD
Now at the end of Part 3, where did the Doc get the parts from to build his time travel train? He was stuck in 1885 after Marty left.


I guess he built some crude time travel circuits with 1890's technology. Maybe he built the time traveling to be pure mechanical?

Yeah i said 1890's technology. Because it would have taken him that long to figure out how to make the damn thing and it also takes into consideration Jules & Verne.

UAIOE
01-12-03, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
I always questioned the title of the first..

Back to the future?

Huh? I must have missed something cause Marty didn't go to the future, he went to the past, and then when they sent him back to his time it was his "PRESENT" so I never saw how "Back to the future" could be the correct phrase. ;)

:p

Then the second, they never went to the future to begin with, so how could they go BACK to it? The third just justifies the theory some more. they went Back to the past.

Most misleading title EVER! i canceled my pre-order... ;)


Worst post ever!!!!


;)

PacMan2006
01-12-03, 02:30 AM
Jack, When he was in the past, he had to go back to the future to get to his present. If he's in the past, that means Marty's present it also technically in the future.

Another thing I want to point out, I thought the special effects and superimposing of two characters who were played by the same actor were implemented REALLY well for a movie that is...what....ten years old, right? I was really surprised that it held up so well.

PacMan2006
05-01-12, 05:00 PM
I wanted to bump this thread to ask a specific question after rewatching these movies for the first time since I created this thread in 2003.

For those old enough to have seen the trilogy in the theaters in the 80s...what was the overall impression of how BTTF2 presented 2015? Did you watch it thinking it was over the top and silly? Did you think a lot of what was on-screen might be possible in the future? Or did you just enjoy the imagination of Zemeckis' 2015, but didn't have a definitive opinion either way?

Also, I've only seen these movies twice each now, but really, really enjoyed them. I was too young to have any memory of these whatsoever (born in 83), but I can tell that this is one trilogy I sort of wish I was old enough to have experienced in the theater. In fact, my nostalgia with BTTF is much more tied to the Universal Studios ride, which I *LOVED* for years without having seen a single frame of BTTF. So I'm sort of experiencing these films in a backwards order, but loving the creativity and energy they had regardless.

And I think the effects still hold up quite well, actually, especially in how the multiple Marty's interacted and with each other.

trespoochies
05-01-12, 05:07 PM
I wanted to bump this thread to ask a specific question after rewatching these movies for the first time since I created this thread in 2003.

For those old enough to have seen the trilogy in the theaters in the 80s...what was the overall impression of how BTTF2 presented 2015? Did you watch it thinking it was over the top and silly? Did you think a lot of what was on-screen might be possible in the future? Or did you just enjoy the imagination of Zemeckis' 2015, but didn't have a definitive opinion either way?


Damn, now that is quite a thread bump.


As a child who grew up in the 80's, I distinctly remember for the most part a lot of what we saw on screen was so damn cool and were just excited that this was what would be coming to us in the future. Fuck you very much Zemeckis. I jest...a little. I was too young to appreciate that it was his vision of the future, from plausible to silly, but now when watching it with my kid (as I first showed her a few weekends ago), I have to really hand it to Speilberg and Zemeckis for giving us what is arguably one of the most iconic film (and sequels to an extent) in Hollywood history.

And your comment about being more tied to the ride than the movies just freaked me out. I totally forgot there was even a ride (never been on it), so for you to be tied to that more than the movies is pretty out there. Maybe in time, you'll be more inclined to be tied to the movies. Especially the first one.

iggystar
05-01-12, 05:14 PM
I was in my late teens during BTTF2. I can't recall how plausible I felt 2015 was presented, but I knew we'd be getting a hoverboard by 2015!

We have three years yet!

Jules Winfield
05-01-12, 06:18 PM
I was ten so the vision of 2015 seemed plausible to me but then I also didn't really give it any thought.

P.S.-I'm dissappointed we're not gonna make it to Jaws 19 by 2015.:(

kgrogers1979
05-01-12, 06:35 PM
Some of the things the movie did get right. The scene where Marty plays the Hogan's Alley arcade game, and some kids laugh and call it a baby's toy because you have to use your hands... well there are video games now that are played without using your hands.

resinrats
05-01-12, 06:55 PM
There are some companies purposly making stuff from BTTF2. The Power Laces have been made & Mattel is putting out a Hoverboard replica.

Crocker Jarmen
05-01-12, 07:09 PM
I was really facsinated by the future stuff in part II. I would have been 10 or 11 back in '89, so 2015 seemed really far in the future. It was significanly further away than I had been alive, so I couldn't even imagine how far it was, it might as well have been 75 years.

I liked that things didn't seem too far out. I thought it was a realistic, reasonable projection :lol: Surely been then there would be hover cars and mechanical clothing and dehydrated food.

I also seem to recall the general feeling when the movie came out was people were disappointed. I remember the audience groaning at the "To Be Continued" at the end and going WTF when the trailer for Part 3 started playing before the end credits. I thought it was fantastic, and for the first time felt smarter then my father who didn't understand the timelines between 2015 and the alternate 1985.

I still love this movie. It really is a special sequel. As well as being funny, inventive and exciting, it is also a wonderful parody of movie serquel. Often a sequel to a popular movie tries to engender good will by winking back to the first one; repeating jokes, brining back characters... and in Part 2 they literally go back to those famous scenes from the first one. Wonderful stuff.

Infact, looking over this thread really makes me want to watch one of these movies again right now.

TheBang
05-01-12, 07:44 PM
Reading this thread made me go back and watch the creepy kid from Part 3:

zq5-6PkVGCg

Greg MacGuffin
05-01-12, 08:04 PM
The only thing that sort of bugs me is how old and decrepit Future Marty and Future Jennifer look. I haven't seen it in a few years, but the last time I watched it I remember thinking they really overdid the old-age makeup.

Michael Corvin
05-01-12, 08:56 PM
^ Maybe but you're taking two 18 year olds and making them 48. I think they did okay.

My Other Self
05-01-12, 09:11 PM
The only thing that sort of bugs me is how old and decrepit Future Marty and Future Jennifer look. I haven't seen it in a few years, but the last time I watched it I remember thinking they really overdid the old-age makeup.They were both 47. They looked right for the age. I always liked the line in the alley after the cops found 1985-Jennifer:

"47?! That's a hell of a good face-lift!"

I didn't "get in to" the BTTF Trilogy until the mid-90s. I got on sort of a kick somehow, and the first thing I got was a BTTF Part II tape at a flea market. I don't remember being particularly wowed, but this was only say 6 or 7 years after BTTF2 was theatrically released. Needless to say I've been a pretty obsessive fan since, but since I wasn't born until 1986 I don't have any first hand memories.

I've always wanted to go to a "Back to Back to Back" screening that pops up from time to time. Last one was in 2006 in LA to benefit MJF's Parkinson's Foundation. That seems like it'd be fun. I did get to see the first one on the big screen twice -- once in a retro screening with an original 1985 print and again during the theatrical re-release in October 2010.

kgrogers1979
05-01-12, 09:54 PM
They were both 47. They looked right for the age.

Its not even close. They look like they are in their late 60s in the movie, not their late 40s.

What they looked like in Back to the Future at age 47:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/8508/backtothefutureiisnap6.png


Michael J Fox in 2011 (age 50):

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/3977/michaeljfox2011.jpg


Elisabeth Shue in 2007 (age 44):

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/1756/shue2007.jpg

My Other Self
05-01-12, 10:03 PM
Its not even close. They look like they are in their late 60s in the movie, not their late 40s.Your attempt to correct me failed. That's Michael J. Fox (who looks like a hard-worked 47-year old) and Lea Thompson, not Elisabeth Shue. :lol:

The character of Marty was in a car accident in 1985 which in no doubt played in to effect on his future self. He wasn't able to continue a music career which, according to Bob Gale, had led the character in to a depression and a rough relationship for him and Jennifer. That, along with working a shitty job, two loser children, and being a wuss his whole life.. has him aged about right.

Look, I'm not going to explain all the ins and outs and all that annoying fanboy shit like you do but stop trying so damn hard to be fucking correct about everything.

kgrogers1979
05-01-12, 10:11 PM
Yeah, I realized it wasn't old Jennifer until I had already posted it, and finding a screenshot of old Jennifer took more work but here it is.

http://www.themakeupgallery.info/images/age/1980s/bttf/jennifer4.jpg


Also, you do realize that Michael J Fox hasn't had a particularly easy life in real life either what with Parkinson's and all that, right? But he still didn't age as poorly as the movie shows. They look like they are in their 60s, not 40s, in the movie.

Drexl
05-01-12, 10:24 PM
Some of the things the movie did get right. The scene where Marty plays the Hogan's Alley arcade game, and some kids laugh and call it a baby's toy because you have to use your hands... well there are video games now that are played without using your hands.

Right, but they were implying that not using your hands would be the normal way games are played. Kinect is still kind of a novelty. At least, I hope we're not headed to a gaming future without any real controllers at all.

My Other Self
05-01-12, 10:28 PM
Also, you do realize that Michael J Fox hasn't had a particularly easy life in real life either what with Parkinson's and all that, right? But he still didn't age as poorly as the movie shows. They look like they are in their 60s, not 40s, in the movie.No, I had absolutely no idea. My mentioning of his Parkinson's Foundation in my initial post that you attempted to correct was in reference to something else. :lol:

kgrogers1979
05-01-12, 11:27 PM
No, I had absolutely no idea. My mentioning of his Parkinson's Foundation in my initial post that you attempted to correct was in reference to something else. :lol:

To be fair, I couldn't get over the absurdity of thinking the make-up looked anything at all like a 47 year old, so I just skimmed the rest of your post and didn't catch it. :lol:

My Other Self
05-01-12, 11:56 PM
To be fair, I couldn't get over the absurdity of thinking the make-up looked anything at all like a 47 year old, so I just skimmed the rest of your post and didn't catch it. :lol:In this case it's left to the eye of the beholder. I know people that have looked much, much worse -- even at 45 -- because of the type of life they lived. Fuck, look at Lindsay Lohan now. She's my age and she looks twice that easy.

They may have stretched the imagination but the reason he looks so old and weathered, besides what Gale said about his life being in shambles, is to give the viewer an indication that he leads a pretty shitty existence. And he does. It all goes back to the notion that your future is what you make of it, so with Jennifer seeing how old and beat they both are (Jennifer alone passes out at how haggard she looks), its motivation for them to change their lives.

We're taking about a film series that's main plot point is time travel and how certain events can change the past and present. I can accept the writers explanation or them looking that weathered.

kgrogers1979
05-02-12, 01:05 AM
Its a common misconception that living a hard life makes you physically age faster. Stress can kill you; it can cause heart attacks and strokes and such, but it doesn't make you age any faster than normal. The whole thing about kids making parents so stressed that they get gray hair is just an old wives tale and nothing more. It's not actually true.

People like Lindsay Lohan that look much older than they should are that way because of drugs. Drugs will seriously fuck you up.

brayzie
05-02-12, 06:50 AM
I saw it on video when I was 6 and thought it was the best movie ever! When I watched it as a rental video and when it said, "to be continued..." I thought that I just had to wait and the rest of the movie would start back up again. When it the tape went to the very end I was pretty perplexed.

Later I saw the sequel in theaters and it was a memorable experience. Seeing the future was fun. I also saw Part 3 in theaters, and while I still liked the characters, I didn't like the western storyline. I preferred the 50s more.

Overall though it's a great movie.

rw2516
05-02-12, 07:04 AM
Saw all three when first released. I was 31 when BTTF2 was released. At the time thought all the future stuff were comedy gags. Let's come up with goofy future stuff that's funny. Still do.

majorjoe23
05-02-12, 08:43 AM
In this case it's left to the eye of the beholder. I know people that have looked much, much worse -- even at 45 -- because of the type of life they lived. Fuck, look at Lindsay Lohan now. She's my age and she looks twice that easy.
.

How easy do you look? :eyebrow:

But thinking people I'm their late 40s don't look like that is silly. I met a guy the other day I would've sworn was 50. Turns out he was 39.

Plus, they'll find out in 2018 that rehydrated Pizza Hut pizzas age you terribly.

Pizza
05-02-12, 08:50 AM
To be fair, I couldn't get over the absurdity of thinking the make-up looked anything at all like a 47 year old, so I just skimmed the rest of your post and didn't catch it. :lol:
Make up does suck. I don't see the big deal in you pointing that out.
I agree that they look way older than 47. That always bothered me too. The only justification I can give it is that it's a comedy and they were trying too hard to distinguish the two Martys. It's because of that sequence that I hate BTTF2. I love 1 and 2.

Meglos
05-02-12, 09:09 AM
The shark still looks fake.

coli
05-02-12, 10:21 AM
27 years since BTTF came out I have yet to meet a person who didn't love the original movie. The sequels are good, but the original is still one of top 5 favorite movies.

kgrogers1979
05-02-12, 11:19 AM
27 years since BTTF came out I have yet to meet a person who didn't love the original movie. The sequels are good, but the original is still one of top 5 favorite movies.

Its sad, but many kids today have never even seen the BTTF trilogy. A BTTF video game was released last year, and I remember many kids asking whether they needed to watch the movies first in order to understand the game.
I was literally :jawdrop:.

Michael Corvin
05-02-12, 11:59 AM
I introduced BTTF to my kids last year. Two girls, 5 & 7. They loved it.

Cardsfan111
05-02-12, 12:02 PM
It's really funny to see this thread discussion because out of the blue my young daughter saw this title on the shelf and asked about it just yesterday. She's never seen it and I smiled when I thought about how fun it would be to introduce it to her.

Michael Corvin
05-02-12, 12:18 PM
It is funny going back and re-watching all the movies I loved as a kid with my kids. Also eye opening how much language was in those films. Most of them are pretty liberal with everything but the F-word. That wouldn't happen nowadays. I don't have an issue with it (I turned out fine), but I'll tell friends what I showed them and they remember the language or this and that and look at me like I'm crazy. I told a female friend about BTTF specifically a few weeks ago and recommended popping it in with her kids 7 & 10. She looked at me like I had two heads because of Doc getting gunned down and the language. :lol:

I can't wait to take my oldest to see the re-issue of Jurassic Park next year. She loves dinos.

Cardsfan111
05-02-12, 12:31 PM
I'll be honest, that's what caused me to hold off on showing my daughter (a couple of years older than your kids) the BTTF films. I can recall there being a little language, but I figured it would probably be even more than I actually remember.

kgrogers1979
05-02-12, 12:42 PM
I just recently re-watched The Goonies, and I was surprised at a few things that went completely over my head as a kid.

Chunk breaking the penis off a statue and saying the mom will be mad because its her favorite piece, and also the pirate named One Eyed Willie which is also slang for penis.

I also remember re-watching Three's Company when it came out on DVD several years back. Wow. I did not get that show at all when I was a kid. The whole thing with a man pretending to be gay so he can live with two women went completely over my head. When I was a kid, I just liked watching Jack Tripper act like a goofball. I'm really surprised my parents let me watch it.

Crocker Jarmen
05-02-12, 01:22 PM
Watched the first BTTF last night and was impressed by every single scene. The level of detail is outstanding; each frame is packed with information, objects, and action in the background.

I was also struck by how the movie has transcended its time period. It dosen't look dated. It now looks like that fact it was filmed in 1985 was an artistic decision.

I'm on the fence about how bad the language is. There is the doc's line "You're gonna see some serious shit", Marty saying "Holy shit!" when the Libian's arrive, "Holy shit!" again when they whip out the rocket launcher, and Biff saying "Shit!" when he smashes into the manuare truck. That dosen't seem that bad to me. Profanity is less offensive when it is used as an expletive.

There is quite a few "goddams" and "Jesus Christs". So if you are one of those religious people, then maybe the lanuage is overly rough for your ears. YMMV.

One thought that occurred to me was how if the movie had been made 15 or so years later, Michael Richards could have done a good job playing the Doc.

One detail I found odd, something I never noticed before; in the beginning of the movie, when Marty and Jennifer are sitting infront of the clock tower, there looks to be something black hanging over the clock face near the 12. Is that Doc's electrical cord from 1955? Still hanging there 30 years later? I was watching on the SD DVD so I can't tell for certain, but it looks like there is something hanging there. So what does that mean? Is it just a continuity error, and intentional in-joke? Story-wise, it doesn't make sense for the cord to be there. It seems to me we are watching Marty going back in time for the first time. Or perhaps this is all part of a loop, Marty doomed to going back over and over, changing the future, sometimes for the better (the version of the family we see at the end) sometimes for the worse (the family we see at the start of the movie), and the filmmakers just choose to show us the section of the time loop that appeared to have a happy ending.

Mabuse
05-02-12, 01:25 PM
The old age makeup may be a little over done, but I would bet that was intentional. The filmmakers knew they were making a pretty convoluted story of multiple timelines and actors playing multiple roles. They probably wanted to make absolute sure the audience understood this was an older Marty from the future. If they only put a couple of wrinkles on him and a bit of grey hair it might confuse the audience.

I saw all three in the theater on original release. I was 11 when I saw Part II and I remember finding the future stuff extravagent and obviously played for laughs. It's as if the 1980's had a dream of what the future would be like. Stuff like Jaws 19 and "Oh look a Dustbuster" and Cubs win World Series were all obvious jokes. Clearly, of all the time periods the heroes visit, the future is treated the most lightly. And the rediculous clothes like two neckties was funny.

Also, I hope that everyone realizes that in that picture above of MJ Fox and L Thompson that's Lea Thompson done up to be THE GRANDMA--the 78 year old Loraine McFly.

Crocker Jarmen
05-02-12, 01:42 PM
Another thing I was wondering about was The Honeymooners episode they were watching. I wasn't quite sure when the show was on, but yes, it aired in 1955, on Saturday night (Marty has gone back and watches it on Saturday, Nov 5th 1955) so it would have been on.

Obviously, they choose the episode where Ralph dresses up as a spaceman to tie into Marty dressing up as one to scare George. But I thought about how awesome it would be if Nov 5th was the night "The Man From Space" originally aired. Would that be an amazing coincidence or did they pick the entire timeline of the movie around The Honeymooners?

Sadly, according to epguides.com , the episode airing on Nov 5th 1955 was "The Sleepwalker". "The Man From Space" aired on Dec 31st 1955. So as well as not being a re-run, I guess the episode that night was actually a "sneak preview".

Cardsfan111
05-02-12, 01:45 PM
Also, I hope that everyone realizes that in that picture above of MJ Fox and L Thompson that's Lea Thompson done up to be THE GRANDMA--the 78 year old Loraine McFly.

Now she went from looking bad for someone in their 40s to a lady who doesn't look too bad for pushing 80. :lol:

kgrogers1979
05-02-12, 02:20 PM
Now she went from looking bad for someone in their 40s to a lady who doesn't look too bad for pushing 80. :lol:

I already corrected that in the second post with the actual picture of 47 year old Jennifer.

I still find it funny though that Marty looks the same age as his mom in that other pic. They both look like they are in their 60s. Marty's makeup makes him look too old, and Lorraine's makeup makes her look too young. :lol:

Shannon Nutt
05-02-12, 03:50 PM
My main complaint about the series is that they should have ended Part 2 with Marty stranded in 1955, before he gets the telegram. That would have been one hell of a cliffhanger.

Yes, but it would have meant not having that great line, "There's only one man who can help me now."

The thing that always confused me about Part III, is that once Marty gets to the Old West, everyone seems to forget that there are TWO DeLoreans in 1885. So when the gas tank gets damaged in the one DeLorean, why not just swap it with the one that Doc already buried? But you can drive yourself crazy with all the paradoxes...Bob Gale and Bob Zemeckis pretty much wrote the definitive movies on time travel (at least as far as entertainment value goes).

Trevor
05-02-12, 03:54 PM
So what was up with that creepy kid?

I still haven't watched part 3, iirc. I'll hit it in 2016 for the Leap Day Challenge.

Michael Corvin
05-02-12, 04:15 PM
My main complaint about the series is that they should have ended Part 2 with Marty stranded in 1955, before he gets the telegram. That would have been one hell of a cliffhanger.

Since the trailer for III was attached to part II, not really. :lol:

Speaking of, I remember my theater took the trailer, which was supposed to be at the end and put it at the beginning. :doh:

Crocker Jarmen
05-02-12, 04:16 PM
The thing that always confused me about Part III, is that once Marty gets to the Old West, everyone seems to forget that there are TWO DeLoreans in 1885. So when the gas tank gets damaged in the one DeLorean, why not just swap it with the one that Doc already buried?

Well, if they took parts from the buried DeLorean, then Marty wouldn't be able to drive it back to the old West in 1955.

The thing that bothered me about Part 3 was that Marty seems to have forgotten about the warning letter he wrote Doc brown in the first movie. The original chain of events was 1955 Doc rips up the letter, sends Marty back to time, and in his euphoria decides "What the hell" and picks up the pieces of the letter to tape them back together. In Part 2/3 Doc sends Marty back to time, but then the other Marty shows up and Doc faints, so he dosen't collect the letter pieces and presuambley gets shot by the terrorists in 1985.

foofighters7
05-02-12, 04:18 PM
BTTF was one of, if not the first, films I obsessed over as a kid. BTTF, Indiana Jones trilogy, Star Wars, Psycho a bit later.

I even had the color changing hat from the 2nd movie. Everyone loved that hat. I still have it too!

Dan
05-02-12, 04:45 PM
Elisabeth Shue in 2007 (age 44):

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/1756/shue2007.jpg

:drool:

bunkaroo
05-02-12, 04:46 PM
Well, if they took parts from the buried DeLorean, then Marty wouldn't be able to drive it back to the old West in 1955.

The thing that bothered me about Part 3 was that Marty seems to have forgotten about the warning letter he wrote Doc brown in the first movie. The original chain of events was 1955 Doc rips up the letter, sends Marty back to time, and in his euphoria decides "What the hell" and picks up the pieces of the letter to tape them back together. In Part 2/3 Doc sends Marty back to time, but then the other Marty shows up and Doc faints, so he dosen't collect the letter pieces and presuambley gets shot by the terrorists in 1985.

I suppose the Doc Brown in 1955 would have a better shot at repairing or replacing the fuel line with what's available in 1955 than 1885, but yeah that would still be a big risk.

Mike86
05-02-12, 05:14 PM
Still my absolute favorite franchise of all time. I've loved these movies since the first time my parents showed them to me as a kid (I was probably around 7 or 8). The series is just so well made and I agree with another poster here that they really haven't aged badly at all. Maybe it's partly because there's a lot of scenes that were stylistically chosen to be set in the past but even the scenes in the 80s are fine. Also the chemistry between Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd is just amazing if you ask me. I could never in a million years think of two better people to play those parts. I think my favorite of the trilogy is Part II, although I really do love all three of them. I'd still love to own a DeLorean some day :lol:

Cardsfan111
05-02-12, 05:41 PM
I could never in a million years think of two better people to play those parts.

Yep. That was a pretty good move to put in Fox for Eric Stoltz.

Mabuse
05-02-12, 05:53 PM
The thing that always confused me about Part III, is that once Marty gets to the Old West, everyone seems to forget that there are TWO DeLoreans in 1885. So when the gas tank gets damaged in the one DeLorean, why not just swap it with the one that Doc already buried? But you can drive yourself crazy with all the paradoxes...Bob Gale and Bob Zemeckis pretty much wrote the definitive movies on time travel (at least as far as entertainment value goes).This paradox has been frequently addressed, just go check out the IMDb board for BTTF 3.

But this...

The thing that bothered me about Part 3 was that Marty seems to have forgotten about the warning letter he wrote Doc brown in the first movie. The original chain of events was 1955 Doc rips up the letter, sends Marty back to time, and in his euphoria decides "What the hell" and picks up the pieces of the letter to tape them back together. In Part 2/3 Doc sends Marty back to time, but then the other Marty shows up and Doc faints, so he dosen't collect the letter pieces and presuambley gets shot by the terrorists in 1985....is a new one on me and I don't have an explanation.

mcnabb
05-02-12, 06:27 PM
What was the reason that Marty's girlfriend from the original never appeared in II & III?

TomOpus
05-02-12, 06:52 PM
What was the reason that Marty's girlfriend from the original never appeared in II & III?Her mom came down with cancer so she had to turn both movies since they were filmed back-to-back.

mh4268
05-02-12, 06:53 PM
What was the reason that Marty's girlfriend from the original never appeared in II & III?

Her mom got cancer so she declined the role to be with her. Just watched an interesting clip with her, she got the part, but then had a commitment to a tv show that was picked up, so her part got recast while Eric Stolz was playing Marty. Eight weeks later when they dropped Stolz for Fox, she was available so they dropped her replacement and took her back. I never knew that.

mh4268
05-02-12, 06:54 PM
Her mom came down with cancer so she had to turn both movies since they were filmed back-to-back.
Damn, beat me to it!

Michael Corvin
05-02-12, 07:41 PM
Well, if they took parts from the buried DeLorean, then Marty wouldn't be able to drive it back to the old West in 1955.

The thing that bothered me about Part 3 was that Marty seems to have forgotten about the warning letter he wrote Doc brown in the first movie. The original chain of events was 1955 Doc rips up the letter, sends Marty back to time, and in his euphoria decides "What the hell" and picks up the pieces of the letter to tape them back together. In Part 2/3 Doc sends Marty back to time, but then the other Marty shows up and Doc faints, so he dosen't collect the letter pieces and presuambley gets shot by the terrorists in 1985.

Didn't he put the pieces in his pocket? I can't believe and can't remember. If so, why is this a paradox? He awakes from passing out in the street, helps Marty go to 1885 then finds said letter in his pocket later, events play out as normal.

Even if he did toss it in the air, Doc had a lot of cleaning up to do regardless so he could have still picked up the letter pieces in the process.

Pizza
05-02-12, 08:53 PM
The old age makeup may be a little over done, but I would bet that was intentional. The filmmakers knew they were making a pretty convoluted story of multiple timelines and actors playing multiple roles. They probably wanted to make absolute sure the audience understood this was an older Marty from the future. If they only put a couple of wrinkles on him and a bit of grey hair it might confuse the audience.
I'm sure that's it. And it's a popcorn flick so I understand them erring on the side of more than less. I've always appreciated playing things a little more subtle.

The shark still looks fake.
I actually agree with you. Often I feel folks can't suspend belief enough to enjoy a movie. Still, for whatever the reason, I can't stand the look of this make-up job and it always pulls me out of the movie, so much so I hate the flick. And I absolutely love 1 & 3. I feel the same way about all of Zemeckis' animated films too. Hate the look. Hate the flicks.

And, I think the shark in Jaws looks awesome.

GuessWho
05-02-12, 11:06 PM
In three years, a Marty McFly in a remake can go back the BTTF-standard 30 years and cause a mishap that stops the original BTTF from filming.

My Other Self
05-02-12, 11:45 PM
Still, for whatever the reason, I can't stand the look of this make-up job and it always pulls me out of the movie, so much so I hate the flick. And I absolutely love 1 & 3.Makeup in a 15 minute scene makes you hate en entire film?

And you're going to compare BTTF Part II to one of his CGI/live action movies like Polar Express, Beowulf, or A Christmas Carol, based off of the fact that one is makeup and the other three are computer generated films.

I'm not going to knock your tastes, you can hate whatever you want, but to discount a film in a series (since you "absolutely love 1 & 3) because of some makeup is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on these forums.

I don't care if it's Back to the Future or fucking Avatar. That's just very poor logic.

resinrats
05-03-12, 12:11 AM
The thing that always confused me about Part III, is that once Marty gets to the Old West, everyone seems to forget that there are TWO DeLoreans in 1885. So when the gas tank gets damaged in the one DeLorean, why not just swap it with the one that Doc already buried? But you can drive yourself crazy with all the paradoxes...Bob Gale and Bob Zemeckis pretty much wrote the definitive movies on time travel (at least as far as entertainment value goes).

The rip in the gas tank/line wasn't the problem. It was the gasoline that they couldn't get. Doc had to have fixed the gas tank before they tried putting whiskey in it.

As for why not digging up the DeLorean in the mine. Doc was smart enough to know you don't leave gas in a car that will be sitting there for 70 years. He probably drained it of all fluids that could have caused damage sitting all those years. As for what he did with the gas. Well he probably used it up living in 1885 before Marty got there.

resinrats
05-03-12, 12:14 AM
One detail I found odd, something I never noticed before; in the beginning of the movie, when Marty and Jennifer are sitting infront of the clock tower, there looks to be something black hanging over the clock face near the 12. Is that Doc's electrical cord from 1955? Still hanging there 30 years later? I was watching on the SD DVD so I can't tell for certain, but it looks like there is something hanging there. So what does that mean? Is it just a continuity error, and intentional in-joke? Story-wise, it doesn't make sense for the cord to be there. It seems to me we are watching Marty going back in time for the first time. Or perhaps this is all part of a loop, Marty doomed to going back over and over, changing the future, sometimes for the better (the version of the family we see at the end) sometimes for the worse (the family we see at the start of the movie), and the filmmakers just choose to show us the section of the time loop that appeared to have a happy ending.
I'd say continuity error. Considering the mall went from Twin Pines to Lone Pines due to Marty running over the pine in 1955, the timeline hadn't shifted yet so Doc's cord wouldn't have ever been there. They must have filmed the 1985 scenes after the clocktower scenes and someone hadn't taken the cord down.

davidh777
05-03-12, 12:36 AM
Her mom got cancer so she declined to be with her.

That sounded harsh when I read it quickly :sad:

devilshalo
05-03-12, 01:37 AM
<div><iframe frameborder="0" width="576" height="324" src="http://d.yimg.com/nl/omg/site/player.html#repeat=0&browseCarouselUI=hide&shareUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fomg.yahoo.com%2Fyo-show%2Fwhat-marty-mcfly-s-girlfriend-is-up-to-in-the-future-29153742.html&startScreenCarouselUI=hide&vid=29153742"></iframe></div>

zekeburger1979
05-03-12, 02:06 AM
The thing that bothered me about Part 3 was that Marty seems to have forgotten about the warning letter he wrote Doc brown in the first movie. The original chain of events was 1955 Doc rips up the letter, sends Marty back to time, and in his euphoria decides "What the hell" and picks up the pieces of the letter to tape them back together. In Part 2/3 Doc sends Marty back to time, but then the other Marty shows up and Doc faints, so he dosen't collect the letter pieces and presuambley gets shot by the terrorists in 1985.

Just after the storm snaps the tree branch off and knocks the wire to the ground, there is a shot where you see Doc with the pieces of the letter in his hands and he puts the pieces in his pocket before he and Marty go repair the snapped wire.

Crocker Jarmen
05-03-12, 02:30 AM
Just after the storm snaps the tree branch off and knocks the wire to the ground, there is a shot where you see Doc with the pieces of the letter in his hands and he puts the pieces in his pocket before he and Marty go repair the snapped wire.

Whew! Now I can get to sleep.

mh4268
05-03-12, 09:08 AM
That sounded harsh when I read it quickly :sad:

Wow, that does sound horrible! :sad: I clarified my post.

Pizza
05-03-12, 01:09 PM
Makeup in a 15 minute scene makes you hate en entire film?

And you're going to compare BTTF Part II to one of his CGI/live action movies like Polar Express, Beowulf, or A Christmas Carol, based off of the fact that one is makeup and the other three are computer generated films.

I'm not going to knock your tastes, you can hate whatever you want, but to discount a film in a series (since you "absolutely love 1 & 3) because of some makeup is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on these forums.

I don't care if it's Back to the Future or fucking Avatar. That's just very poor logic.
You insult/attack me because I think differently than you about a film? Very nice. And, yes I absolutely love 1 & 3 and positively hate 2. And my reaction to a film isn't poor logic. It's my reaction.

Supermallet
05-03-12, 01:24 PM
Mod Note: Let's remember to keep this civil. Opinions will differ on everything. There is no need to belittle members for expressing themselves.

PacMan2006
05-03-12, 03:43 PM
One detail I found odd, something I never noticed before; in the beginning of the movie, when Marty and Jennifer are sitting infront of the clock tower, there looks to be something black hanging over the clock face near the 12. Is that Doc's electrical cord from 1955? Still hanging there 30 years later? I was watching on the SD DVD so I can't tell for certain, but it looks like there is something hanging there. So what does that mean?

Not sure if your question was answered, but having just watched the movies on Blu, I'm almost positive that black mark you're seeing is a burn mark on the clock caused by the lightning strike that occurred with Doc & Marty in 1955.

riotinmyskull
10-22-12, 06:25 AM
http://i.imgur.com/lndNc.jpg

PenguinJoe
10-22-12, 07:53 AM
I always wondered how Biff knew how to operate the time machine. Marty had to get Doc to help him operate it but suddenly Biff knows how to use something that complex. Then I remember oh yea it's just a movie.

rennervision
10-22-12, 10:44 PM
I always wondered how Biff knew how to operate the time machine. Marty had to get Doc to help him operate it but suddenly Biff knows how to use something that complex. Then I remember oh yea it's just a movie.

I hear this question a lot, but no one ever seems to mention that the reason Biff knew how to operate the time machine is because he actually SAW Doc and Marty operate the time machine in 1985. He saw the DeLorean fly, reach a fast speed, and then disappear. So he may not have known exactly the car had to reach 88 mph, but he figured he just needed to keep accelerating.

As for setting the time coordinates and turning on the time circuits, that doesn't seem like it would have taken too long to figure out in a time machine. But even if it did... he was in a time machine. He could have spent a week trying to figure it out. It doesn't matter because once he learned how to do it, he could return at a point just a few minutes after he stole it in the first place.

PenguinJoe
10-23-12, 01:19 AM
I call bullshit on that because by the time Biff got to the time machine it was flying.

GoldenJCJ
10-23-12, 04:14 PM
^ But the flying capabilities were just added on by Doc. The car was still able to drive so old Biff could have just driven it.

UAIOE
10-23-12, 11:00 PM
I always wondered how seeing disappearing, flying car could make middle aged Biff suddenly return to his "old self" after being George McFly's bitch for 30 years.

resinrats
10-24-12, 12:55 AM
Maybe it triggered memories and made him think how that kid in 1955 looks just like Marty does now (1985). He was top dog until Marty showed up in '55.

UAIOE
10-24-12, 08:11 PM
I can't recall the faces of people I saw all 4 years of high school, and that was 14 years ago. Biff can recall the face of some "butthead" he knew for a single week, 30 years before?

Forget luckiest man alive, him and Marilu Henner need to write books about Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory.

wlj
10-30-12, 03:40 PM
http://i.imgur.com/lndNc.jpg



this guy has all of that figured out, but he can't figure out how to spell DeLorean correctly.

rennervision
10-31-12, 11:47 PM
this guy has all of that figured out, but he can't figure out how to spell DeLorean correctly.

Except I don't understand how Marty missing the lightning strike (at least in part 1, before he returned again to 1955) would create a paradox.