Inferior to the first film?
-
smoko — 10 years ago(May 04, 2015 11:25 PM)
@buddyboy28 Not to mention Lorraine having the hots for Marty - paging Dr. Freud.
The first movie could easily have been a disaster in the wrong hands. You know how Eric Stoltz originally played Marty but was too serious? Imagine a director who was too serious. Forget a family movie - it would've been darker than
Seven
. -
smoko — 10 years ago(May 04, 2015 11:44 PM)
Yes, but it wasn't just Glover's absence alone that hurt Part II, it was also how Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis chose to deal with it, by having George be murdered by Biff in cold blood, and have Biff marry Lorraine later on. It was like Gale and Zemeckis were being too hard on Glover.
George McFly was still in the movie, played by Jeffrey Weissman. Remember how he was floating upside-down because he threw his back out on the golf course?
My point is that I don't think they killed off George McFly because of Glover's absence. If that were so then we wouldn't have seen George McFly in the movie at all. -
TxMike — 11 years ago(March 31, 2015 04:43 PM)
I've always considered the first one best for its overall charm and because it "broke the ground" so to speak, establishing the characters and the method of time travel. In fact I consider the third one to be superior to the second one, it has a lot more likeable human element.
.... TxMike ....
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference. -
TwoThousandOneMark — 10 years ago(April 05, 2015 04:27 PM)
It is inferior, though still very good considering the first film is arguably a masterpiece.
Part II has so many 'stunt' sets & set pieces, that yes it does feel less charmed.
At least the 2015 Clocktower Square & 1955 runamok were terrific, keep its head above water. The alt 1985 was so perverse, it was good they didn't hang around there longer than they did. -
jackrabbit83 — 10 years ago(April 22, 2015 05:03 AM)
It was also inferior to the third movie. Back To The Future Part III was better in my opinion. I really don't like the idea that they went back to 1955. That makes it feel like rehash of the first film. At least Part III went different direction.
-
longcooljolie — 10 years ago(May 04, 2015 05:36 AM)
It was fun to read all the replies to this post.
This was the only one of the three that I did not see in a theater, but did see it the moment it came out on VHS and immediately loved it. The outrageous way they portrayed the future, the alternate 1985 and Marty/Doc having to go back to 1955 were all daring. And even though many fans groaned that the movie ends on a cliffhanger, it made me reallllllly look forward to III, which I also loved.
I agree that the costumes and the look of the future were really gaudy and might have made me dizzy if I had seen it in a theatre (but if it is re-released this year, I am going to see it).
The only thing that rubbed me the wrong way was the plot device where Marty loses control when someone calls him "chicken." That seems at odds to what his character was like in the first one. -
residentevil6901 — 10 years ago(May 04, 2015 08:10 PM)
I think it's just as good as the first movie, all 3 stand alone as a great movie by themselves. That's funny you have only seen the 2nd movie in the trilogy twice, I've watched them all about the same amount of time as it's one long story all 3 put together. I like how all 3 are different then the others, it was nice that they felt like they were trying to do something different with each movie. All 3 felt like they had just as much heart as the others, but I guess that's just me. The first one is more human as he is thrown back in time to his parents high school years and he is stuck their the whole time and has to interact with them. The 2nd and 3rd movies would of felt dumb to me if they would have been just like the 1st one like that. I just watched all 3 movies today and still enjoy each one equally.
May the 4th be with you! -
Makarov-324 — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 01:36 PM)
I easily consider Part 2 to be the best in the trilogy. Although it does take a hit by not having Crispin Glover, it's still the most imaginative one. It's darker, and actually feels like it's about time travel.
It also has the best villain, Biff controlling an entire timeline. The stakes are high so the scenes where Marty is going after the almanac are intense. Mad Dog Tannen in the third one just isn't as interesting.
The parts in 1955 where there are two marties running around evokes a sense of wonder that I don't get with any of the other movies. This is the only movie in the trilogy where they took the risk of possibly confusing viewers. I wish the third movie had continued on this path instead of reverting to the extremely simple plot of being stuck in the past. -
longcooljolie — 10 years ago(May 17, 2015 05:25 AM)
Makarov, I agree about Part 2 being the most exciting and risk-taking. I can still see the shot of one Marty playing Johnny B. Goode and the other Marty crawling along atop the catwalk.
For me the part that made III interesting was that Doc falls in love with a woman that he saved from dying and that they both loved science and science fiction. And Marty ends up switching roles with him about "screwing up the space-time continuum."
So all three are great movies which have lots of fans who re-watch them over and over. It is one of the most beloved movie trilogies of all time. -
SergeantElias — 10 years ago(July 25, 2015 04:59 PM)
Great post Monkeyallen. I think BTTF 2 is a good movie, but the worst of the trilogy. As you pointed out, it's charmless in places and relies too much on references to the first movie. In my opinion this is part of its downfall, as the viewer is constantly reminded how much better the first one was in terms of script, set pieces and general "heart".
I do feel sorry for Robert Zemeckis though, as trying to follow up what is pretty much a perfect movie must have been a massive undertaking. The action set pieces are quite dull in comparison to the first movie, and the end car chase was an anticlimax compared to the amazing multiple cliffhanger ending in the original. I also felt that the movie was far too reliant on the special effects, which were and still are amazing, but special effects alone don't make for a great movie.
Saying that, BTTF2 does get so many things right, and is still very entertaining. But I think Zemeckis missed the point of why the first one was loved so much. As you mentioned, it wasn't just the time travel aspect that appealed, but the heart of the characters and situation. The first movie used the effects of time travel on certain situations in a subtle and entertaining way. With BTTF2 they used it as a main plot point, which was overly convoluted to the point that the characters were downplayed to simplified cartoon characters, simply to forward the story.
The third movie was better in my opinion, because it went back to what made the first movie so great. There was more heart to the story, it wasn't overly complicated, and the ending was close to the original in that it gave us exciting and unpredictable situations. -
Outstandingness — 10 years ago(August 06, 2015 02:58 PM)
agreed on all points. Part 2 was the definition of HOT MESS
I would also add that what was supposed to be the story didn't take shape until halfway through that movie and even then it was a plot hardly worth caring about. It was just crammed with repeated in-jokes and silly gimmicks with makeup and split screen acting. They just keep running around and going all over the place, and I never cared about what was happening. And when they weren't sure what to do, they'd have Marty jump on a skateboard/hoverboard again and hang on to a car.
It was also really strange that they made part II to be some kind flashback/clip show/nostalgia thing. There were almost entire scenes from part 1 inserted into part 2 I guess to remind people how good the first one was. We didn't need to see the entire part where Doc dances in the street after sending Marty back to 1985 (in the end of part 1). Instead we have to see yet again a scene where a character is confused and surprised to see a person from another time. It got old very fast
Part 3 was far better -
Zeppelin75 — 10 years ago(August 09, 2015 07:58 AM)
Yeah I agree, less charm - more darkness.
It all felt more rushed, the pace was really fast straight out the gate. Part I was a romantic comedy with sci-fi thrown in, Part II was more dystopian sci-fi, with no romanticism and some comedy.
I just re-watched part I and II back to back. The first one had me feeling extremely sentimental throughout its entirety; the 2nd one not really at all, unfortunately. -
SergeantElias — 10 years ago(August 12, 2015 01:17 PM)
It definitely felt rushed. I also thought that Part 2 was just an overcomplicated set up for the final part. Which makes me wonder if it would have been better if they made parts 2 and 3 into one 2 hour(ish) movie.
-
Zeppelin75 — 10 years ago(August 12, 2015 07:43 PM)
I actually really like the plot to #2, just the outcome of it wasn't done as well as it could have been.
Something
was missing.
The 1955 setting from the first one were so well done, but the 2015 setting in the 2nd one didn't feel as warm as the settings from the first one. But yeah it was really weird how they introduced new characters and then never used them and stuff, like with his kid, it gave a fake feeling that way for some reason.
I think the 4 year gap could be to blame, just so much changed over that time. If part 2 was filmed right after part one, and released in 1986, then I think it would have had the same overall feel.
