Inferior to the first film?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Back to the Future Part II
MonkeyAllen — 11 years ago(March 30, 2015 09:12 AM)
I just watched Part II for the first time since I saw it in theatres back in '89. I've seen the original a bunch of times over the years
There seem to be many people on this board who prefer this film to the original. The main reason seems to be that this film makes more use of time travel - that it is a unique film in that it is actually about (in a fun way) the perils of messing with the time/space continuum. And I agree with that. But I don't think for a second that it makes it a better film.
I was amazed, seeing it after so many years, how utterly
charmless
the whole thing was! The majority of the characters are really unlikable. The main issue, I guess, is the decision to make Biff the central character. I think with an over-the-top character like that, a little goes a long way. In the original, he is a great antagonist and only shows up when he's needed by the plot. In the sequel, he's really the star of the film! And obviously he needs to be deplorable, but all his scenes, particularly in the 2015 (future!) section are just ugly. And his 2015 grandson (Giff?) has to be one of the most annoying characters I've ever seen. Urgh.
But even Marty, as protagonist, is a bit off or something. He doesn't really seem to learn from the almanac mistake - he doesn't seem to see that it was WRONG he just sees that it screwed things up. And he and Doc seem only to be concerned with how it has affected them
directly- they don't seem overly worried about how the world has gone to beep They're more concerned about Marty's dad being dead and Doc being committed. Obviously they're going to be concerned about that stuff, but it comes across as so selfish. Marty doesn't feel as kind hearted as he is in the first film.
And really - even Doc coming back in the first place makes no sense - given the character in the first film. All that craziness because Doc saw that Marty's kid goes to jail in the future?! Since when would Doc use the time machine to fix something like that? How can he lecture Marty on the Almanac when the whole mission they're on is to beep with time for Marty's benefit? It doesn't really make sense.
And it's a bit of a separate point, but the film is also fairly ugly to look at. There's just something about its visual quality that I found unenjoyable it was either really gaudy, like in the 2015 scenes, or dark and grimy like in the alternate 1985 scenes. It just had something garish about it.
But in the end, for me, it lacks any real heart, which the first film has so much of. Clearly the sequel suffers from Crispen Glover's absence The first film used the cool gimmick of time travel to tell a funny and insightful story about human nature. It is observational about how we think about family, how we think about the past, and about how people behave and behaved vs how we think they might have behaved. It's also about love and destiny.
The sequel doesn't feel like it's about human nature at all. It doesn't use the gimmick of time travel to tell a story. It's just about the gimmick itself.
Anyone agree?
- they don't seem overly worried about how the world has gone to beep They're more concerned about Marty's dad being dead and Doc being committed. Obviously they're going to be concerned about that stuff, but it comes across as so selfish. Marty doesn't feel as kind hearted as he is in the first film.
-
Doc_Roliday — 11 years ago(March 31, 2015 03:21 PM)
Good post.
The part about Doc coming back you're refering, I didn't get what you mean, I don't have a problem with the film's look, and I also don't have a problem with Crispin Glover's absence.
But you're right on Biff's being a too central character, I thinks he ends up more hilarious than unlikeable though. He's well played, the cartoonish humour makes you forget how despicable he is and just enjoy the comedy, specially 1955 Biff.
I agree with your points about Marty and Doc being selfish -
buddyboy28 — 11 years ago(March 31, 2015 04:04 PM)
I don't think it is as good as the original (even though I did as a kid) but I still love it.
Yes it's not as charming or doesn't have the heart of the original but it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be a darker movie, and one that not only moves along at a frantic pace but also doesn't even have a real conclusion at the end.
Also
But even Marty as a protagonist is a bit off or something. He doesn't really seem to learn from the almanac mistake - He doesn't seem to see that he was WRONG he just sees it as he screwed things up.
When Doc says "this stays here" Marty agreed and left the almanac in the trash and responded with "I know, I know Doc" because he knew Doc was right. So he realised he was wrong before things had been screwed up. Then in 1985A just as he's feeling guilty, Doc intervenes because instead of dwelling on it they need to fix it. What more do we need from the scene really?
And really - even Doc coming back in the first place makes no sense.
That's what happens when studios demand a sequel. Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale had to conclude that plotline and start a new one. It might make Doc come across a bit hypocritical in the process but considering what they were working with (even having to include Jennifer on the trip) I thought they did great.
But in the end, the film lacks any real heart, which the first film had so much of. Clearly is suffers from Crispin Glover's absence
He wasn't in the third either and that had heart because it went back to one setting and been more character driven.
Fly? Yes. Land? No. -
pooka5472 — 10 years ago(April 15, 2015 05:32 AM)
He wasn't in the third either and that had heart because it went back to one setting and been more character driven.
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. -
buddyboy28 — 10 years ago(April 15, 2015 03:08 PM)
by having George be murdered by Biff in cold blood, have Biff marry Lorraine later on. It was like Gale and Zemeckis were being too hard on Glover.
I don't care why they did it, the concept worked great. It made 1985 much more hellish and made the stakes higher for Marty to get the book back.
Fly? Yes. Land? No. -
buddyboy28 — 10 years ago(April 17, 2015 01:20 PM)
The BTTF movies are supposed to be light and frothy, not dark and gritty. The scene was just too opposite of what BTTF fans were expecting
Hmmm, in the first movie Doc is murdered by terrorists and Biff tries to rape Lorraine. George's death in an alternative reality that you don't even see is worse because?
Fly? Yes. Land? No. -
buddyboy28 — 10 years ago(April 23, 2015 02:48 PM)
What the hell are you going on about?
The timeline was changed because Biff became rich and powerful. He shot George so he could have Lorraine. Regardless of whether George is killed or not, 1985 would still be a s**thole.
And it's beside the point anyway. You said the BTTF movies are supposed to be light and frothy. Light and frothy is how you'd describe something like E.T not BTTF. It was a family movie but one where the main character's best friend is murdered by terrorists in the first act and his mum is molested (nearly raped) by the school bully.
The original has more heart and warmth in it overall but if people were going to the sequel expecting it to be all "light and frothy", they didn't watch the original properly. -
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.