Inferior to the first film?
-
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. -
crissttigaldames — 10 years ago(January 04, 2016 05:23 AM)
Can't believe anyone would think the third part is better. It doesn't hold a candle to part two. This movie is great, not as great as the first part indeed, but that one is a masterpiece, so no shame in that.
The story is smart and complex but clear, they used the potential of time travel like they didn't in the others, it's fun all along with many hilarious moments, the action scenes are great too.
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.
Yeah, that would have been interesting. The third movie is the one that is lacking imo, even though it's still a fun movie. -
HellboundHero — 10 years ago(January 30, 2016 01:41 PM)
Part II used to be my favorite one, but as I got older I became more aware of how obnoxious and parodic it is. Sure, the first one is a comedy but only because some funny things happen, not because the whole world is some big punchline. The depiction of 1955 is relatively realistic and not a big parody of 1950s stereotypes. Another thing I came to enjoy less is the obsession with reenacting moments from the first movie but in different eras.
BttF 3 is better because it's less of a satire/parody, though it still relies too much on the BttF 1 reference gags. -
!!!deleted!!! (9347176) — 10 years ago(March 08, 2016 11:58 AM)
BTTF2 had its moments, some better than any in BTTF and most of the film was better than BTTF3, altogether.
IMHO the best parts of BTTF2 occur in 1985a. Obviously influenced by the dystopian L.A. in
Blade Runner
, Hell Valley was just fantastic. From the casino built on top of the courthouse to the scene in the cemetery, it's my favorite part of any of the BTTF films. The only aspect of this segment of the film that I don't believe works all that well is Alan Silvestri's scoring. It was a touch too bombastic and melodramatic for my tastes.
I actually wish that more of the film had been spent there, versus in 2015. Especially now that we know that the actual 2015 looked nothing like the version in the film.
-Rod -
pooka5472 — 10 years ago(March 16, 2016 08:55 PM)
I disagree. IMO, 1985A in Part II was just nothing more than a cheap take that against Crispin Glover, all because the producers were too mad at him over his salary demands. I can understand that he was too big for his britches, but please don't take out the anger on the character and ruin it for the fans.
-
!!!deleted!!! (9347176) — 10 years ago(March 18, 2016 10:02 AM)
1985A in Part II was just nothing more than a cheap take that against Crispin Glover
You mean George's murder at the hands of Biff in 1973a? How would that ruin the character for the fans? He didn't stay dead because that timeline was overwritten and replaced, anyway. There are also several versions of the story behind Glover not returning to film BTTF2, both from Glover and from the Bobs. I think that the real cheap shot was hiring a stand-in to film George's scenes in that inversion hover device and in the "back to 1955" sequences at the Enchantment Under the Sea dance.
-Rod -
pooka5472 — 10 years ago(March 18, 2016 04:38 PM)
Apparently you've never heard of the McLeaned trope, in which a character is killed off of a movie or TV show in a brutal fashion when the actor and the producers have vehement disagreements. When that trope happens, it is a cheap take that. Also, unless Glover's claims have been properly corroborated, we can't just accept them as fact.
-
!!!deleted!!! (9347176) — 10 years ago(March 24, 2016 12:21 PM)
Apparently you've never heard of the McLeaned trope
I've heard of the concept and I know this happens in Hollywood but I had no idea that it had a name attributed to it in any way.
In this case, neither party's claims about what happened can be accepted as fact because there is no supporting, legally binding documentation in either case. Zemeckis and Gale say one thing, Glover says another and that's that.
You can certainly choose to interpret the re-casting of George McFly as a cheap shot on Glover by the Bobs but that doesn't make it any more fact than my choosing not to interpret it that way. I'm sure that, had Glover and the Bobs not had a falling out, the script would have been written very differently. Glover is known to be eccentric, both as a filmmaker and as a human being, so what he says should probably be taken with a grain of salt. The Bobs are also protecting their own interests, so their take on the re-casting should also not be considered gospel. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
The fact of the matter is, the fallout happened, George's role was marginalized and Lorraine given more to do, and that's pretty much it.
-Rod -
Monk_Drunk — 10 years ago(March 02, 2016 02:53 AM)
About the premise of Doc coming back for him: I can kind of buy it because they were only supposed to be changing one aspect of the future (his kids not going to jail), whereas if Marty had his way, it would have entailed changing history - as was indeed the case with Biff - and thus the whole future as well.
It's still a weak and very superficial hook, though, especially given that its wrapped up so quickly in the movie. -
edlitz36 — 9 years ago(April 16, 2016 05:12 PM)
Agree with everything you posted. I HATE the BTTF sequels. Baffles my mind how people can rate these films as highly as the near-masterpiece that is the original. Really gotta question their judgment.
Religion should be made fun of. If I believed that stuff, I'd keep it to myself. -Larry David -
Kotter7579 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 10:22 PM)
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
I totally get what you're saying. I think the only thing to remember is that when people first saw part II in 1989, it had been four years since the theatrical release of the first movie. Many people did see the first film on home video in 1986 and after, but for the many people who saw the sequel and maybe hadn't had multiple viewings on VHS, then it was helpful to see a scene like this again. We are spoiled now with constant DVD viewings back to back off all 3 if we want!
You'll kill everyone!
But Ice Cream Cake!
