Batman-Online.com

figured I'd move the discussion here rather than cloud Catwomans random thread with it.


Pleased to see so many people here fans of my favourite film series. Hard to believe we're approaching 30 years and the future from part II is about to become the present.

Anyone play the video game telltale released in 2011?

Quote from: riddler on Fri, 19 Jul  2013, 00:10
Anyone play the video game telltale released in 2011?

I played the demo of the game. I'm not really a fan of those types of games, so it didn't inspire me to buy the full game.

I have heard from others that enjoyed it though.

Part I 1955 has to be my favorite sequence. Mr Sandman playing as Marty is amazed by how different the town was... that's the stuff dreams are made of.

I picked 1955 too.  That whole section of BTTF is the heart of the franchise for me with Marty watching his parents fall in love, giving George the confidence he lacked in the original timeline and inspiring 'Young Doc' in goal in his goal to create a means of time-travel.

I went with Part II 1955 because we got to revisit 1955, see all the familiar sites but see them from a different angle. The performances between the two movies don't always completely match up but maybe that was unavoidable.

Not sure if this is good or bad but BTTF II sets up Biff as a colder, darker and more evil person. With some exceptions, he was mostly played as a bully in the first one but in Part II, he tried to kill Marty (both in the alternate 1985 and in 1955). And come to think of it, he actually did kill George. Anyway.

BTTF is the greatest trilogy ever (as Star Wars can't properly be considered a trilogy anymore).

I can't decide between BttF and The Godfather as the best trilogy.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 21 Jul  2013, 06:52I can't decide between BttF and The Godfather as the best trilogy.

Um, hello? Anybody home? There are only two Godfather movies. Think, McGrayson, think!

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 21 Jul  2013, 06:39
I went with Part II 1955 because we got to revisit 1955, see all the familiar sites but see them from a different angle. The performances between the two movies don't always completely match up but maybe that was unavoidable.

Not sure if this is good or bad but BTTF II sets up Biff as a colder, darker and more evil person. With some exceptions, he was mostly played as a bully in the first one but in Part II, he tried to kill Marty (both in the alternate 1985 and in 1955). And come to think of it, he actually did kill George. Anyway.

BTTF is the greatest trilogy ever (as Star Wars can't properly be considered a trilogy anymore).

I might have gone for the Indiana Jones series if Lucas and Spielberg hadn't screwed it up with 'KOTCS'... ::)

I prefer the first 'BTTF' to any of the Indy films (BTTF is among my top ten all-time favourite films) but as good as the sequels are they're not of the same quality as the virtually flawless first movie (whereas by contrast I genuinely feel that 'Raiders', 'TOD' and 'TLC' are pretty consistent throughout, unlike most trilogies...*cough* Godfather *cough*).

I agree with colors that Biff is pretty much a comical buffoon for most of the first 'BTTF' but he's still shown to be a pretty nasty piece of work by the time he practically tries to sexually assault Lorraine in the parked car, and the expression on his face as he sets about trying to break George's arm is the look of pure twisted evil.

Biff tries to rape Lorraine and tries to run over Marty in the first film so I wouldn't say he got that much darker in the second film.

I liked how Biff (and even Buford in the 3rd film) is an accurate depiction of a bully; they are all smoke an mirrors, once stood up to, they show they are cowards at heart and they aren't so tough without their gangs.

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 21 Jul  2013, 13:42
Biff tries to rape Lorraine and tries to run over Marty in the first film so I wouldn't say he got that much darker in the second film.

I liked how Biff (and even Buford in the 3rd film) is an accurate depiction of a bully; they are all smoke an mirrors, once stood up to, they show they are cowards at heart and they aren't so tough without their gangs.

You're right about Biff being a potential-rapist in the first film, which is pretty close to being as nasty as you can get, but I think what makes Biff an even darker character in the second film is that he succeeds and is actually the winner for a large portion of the movie.  He kills George McFly, marries Lorraine (and although it's not explicit one can assume it's a pretty abusive relationship especially by the conflicted part-aggressive, part-submissive manner Lorraine acts around Biff) and is pretty much one of the most powerful men in America in the alternative 1985.  The alternative 1985 Biff also comes across as much smarter and shrewder than he does in 1955, even if he's still far from a genius, making him seem an even deadlier presence, one who effectively own the police.

In fact the alternative 1985 Hill Valley reminds me in some ways of the Gotham of Batman Returns.  Admittedly, on a superficial level the Gotham of Returns is a much cleaner, aesthetically pleasing and generally more prosperous environment than the low-rent Las Vegas and bikers' paradise of 'Hell Valley' but both fictional cities are effectively owned by vulgar, avaricious 'self-made' multi-millionaires who are practically 'above the law'.  Old Biff handing the Sports Almanac to his dumber, younger self kind of reminds me of Max Shreck plotting to build a power-plant (much like Biff's waste-disposal plant, an environmental disaster for the city it is based in) for his own dim-witted son and heir, in order to preserve his legacy and ensure he, or in Max's case, his son, is set up for life.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 21 Jul  2013, 14:18

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 21 Jul  2013, 13:42
Biff tries to rape Lorraine and tries to run over Marty in the first film so I wouldn't say he got that much darker in the second film.

I liked how Biff (and even Buford in the 3rd film) is an accurate depiction of a bully; they are all smoke an mirrors, once stood up to, they show they are cowards at heart and they aren't so tough without their gangs.

You're right about Biff being a potential-rapist in the first film, which is pretty close to being as nasty as you can get, but I think what makes Biff an even darker character in the second film is that he succeeds and is actually the winner for a large portion of the movie.  He kills George McFly, marries Lorraine (and although it's not explicit one can assume it's a pretty abusive relationship especially by the conflicted part-aggressive, part-submissive manner Lorraine acts around Biff) and is pretty much one of the most powerful men in America in the alternative 1985.  The alternative 1985 Biff also comes across as much smarter and shrewder than he does in 1955, even if he's still far from a genius, making him seem an even deadlier presence, one who effectively own the police.

In fact the alternative 1985 Hill Valley reminds me in some ways of the Gotham of Batman Returns.  Admittedly, on a superficial level the Gotham of Returns is a much cleaner, aesthetically pleasing and generally more prosperous environment than the low-rent Las Vegas and bikers' paradise of 'Hell Valley' but both fictional cities are effectively owned by vulgar, avaricious 'self-made' multi-millionaires who are practically 'above the law'.  Old Biff handing the Sports Almanac to his dumber, younger self kind of reminds me of Max Shreck plotting to build a power-plant (much like Biff's waste-disposal plant, an environmental disaster for the city it is based in) for his own dim-witted son and heir, in order to preserve his legacy and ensure he, or in Max's case, his son, is set up for life.

I think Biff does get smarter in the second (good) and third (Biffhoric) timelines mainly because he's forced to think for himself more. In the original he has his gang to do his dirty work and George to do his brainwork for him. Once George stands up to him, he no longer has George in his pocket and his intimidating bully presence evaporates. In the good timeline he does seem to be doing okay being an auto detailer; now that being said we do see him doing it in 2015 (when he'd be 78), although we don't know if he's only doing it for Griff. This future Biff does seem the smartest one we see, possibly due to age but it seems clear he didnt get what he wanted out of life. He's still envious of George but seems to take pleasure in Marty's life going down the toilet.

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 21 Jul  2013, 13:42Biff tries to rape Lorraine and tries to run over Marty in the first film so I wouldn't say he got that much darker in the second film.

I liked how Biff (and even Buford in the 3rd film) is an accurate depiction of a bully; they are all smoke an mirrors, once stood up to, they show they are cowards at heart and they aren't so tough without their gangs.

Everything Biff is in the alternate 1985 is built on murder and likely a lot of domestic abuse. He confesses to bribery, conspiracy and murder. Meanwhile, except for two scenes, he's mostly just a bully in the first BTTF. It's a lot more prominent in Part II.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 21 Jul  2013, 19:57

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 21 Jul  2013, 13:42Biff tries to rape Lorraine and tries to run over Marty in the first film so I wouldn't say he got that much darker in the second film.

I liked how Biff (and even Buford in the 3rd film) is an accurate depiction of a bully; they are all smoke an mirrors, once stood up to, they show they are cowards at heart and they aren't so tough without their gangs.

Everything Biff is in the alternate 1985 is built on murder and likely a lot of domestic abuse. He confesses to bribery, conspiracy and murder. Meanwhile, except for two scenes, he's mostly just a bully in the first BTTF. It's a lot more prominent in Part II.

He has more resources in the second film. Enough to actually get away with murder. Perhaps he thought about offing George in the first film, two good reasons why he wouldnt would be the consequences or the fact that he had George in his pocket.

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 21 Jul  2013, 20:33

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 21 Jul  2013, 19:57

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 21 Jul  2013, 13:42Biff tries to rape Lorraine and tries to run over Marty in the first film so I wouldn't say he got that much darker in the second film.

I liked how Biff (and even Buford in the 3rd film) is an accurate depiction of a bully; they are all smoke an mirrors, once stood up to, they show they are cowards at heart and they aren't so tough without their gangs.

Everything Biff is in the alternate 1985 is built on murder and likely a lot of domestic abuse. He confesses to bribery, conspiracy and murder. Meanwhile, except for two scenes, he's mostly just a bully in the first BTTF. It's a lot more prominent in Part II.

He has more resources in the second film. Enough to actually get away with murder. Perhaps he thought about offing George in the first film, two good reasons why he wouldnt would be the consequences or the fact that he had George in his pocket.

Like you say, even in the standard 1985 Biff seems to have about average intelligence.  Perhaps he couldn't stay a dummy for the rest of his life.  In his case, Biff's stupidity circa 1955 was probably as much to do with youth-related arrogance and fecklessness rather than any genuine IQ deficiency.  He's clearly no academic and presumably had no interest in study but when he puts his mind to it he can be fairly crafty as he proved to be by 1985 and certainly by 2015.  However, he's clearly at his nastiness when he has all the resources he's amassed from using the Sports Almanac at his disposal.

shameless plug here but I started cos playing as marty mcfly

https://www.facebook.com/kitchenermartymcfly?fref=ts

And I just watched the trilogy again and I'm glad they ended it where they did. I know some fans have been asking for a Part IV, but there's really no need for Marty and Doc to have more adventures. If they want to, they can watch the animated series, in which Biff has an ancestor in every time period and country, or the game, in which a relative of Strickland's tries to take over the city. Yeah, I'm glad there were no more movies  ;D

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 10 Jul  2015, 14:04
And I just watched the trilogy again and I'm glad they ended it where they did. I know some fans have been asking for a Part IV, but there's really no need for Marty and Doc to have more adventures. If they want to, they can watch the animated series, in which Biff has an ancestor in every time period and country, or the game, in which a relative of Strickland's tries to take over the city. Yeah, I'm glad there were no more movies  ;D

there's another comic book series coming. The saturday morning cartoon was a saturday morning cartoon. I mean there's even a Tannensaurus from the dinasour age so obviously the movies never would have been so silly. There is also the ride and the aformentioned game. None are official canon but if I had to choose, i'd pick the game; it picks the next logical time period; between 1885 and 1955 (1931 to be exact) and introduces us to Biff and George's parents as well as a young Emmett Brown.

You're right about the cartoon, and I did like it as a kid so I'm not against it being silly, but it wasn't that good compared to the movies, and the show was supposed to take place after the events in the films, even if it's not canon.

I've read about the game and it seems like it used the same formula as the movies: time travel by a character unwillingly affects history, the future is changed for the worse, and the characters have to fix it. As much as I loved this setting in the movies, I don't think that using it again in another medium really adds anything. Just my opinion.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 10 Jul  2015, 14:04
And I just watched the trilogy again and I'm glad they ended it where they did. I know some fans have been asking for a Part IV, but there's really no need for Marty and Doc to have more adventures. If they want to, they can watch the animated series, in which Biff has an ancestor in every time period and country, or the game, in which a relative of Strickland's tries to take over the city. Yeah, I'm glad there were no more movies  ;D

If this story is true, they almost got their wish.....  ::)

http://moviehole.net/201592719back-to-the-future-4-9-other-sequels-that-never-happened

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 11 Jul  2015, 02:39
You're right about the cartoon, and I did like it as a kid so I'm not against it being silly, but it wasn't that good compared to the movies, and the show was supposed to take place after the events in the films, even if it's not canon.

I've read about the game and it seems like it used the same formula as the movies: time travel by a character unwillingly affects history, the future is changed for the worse, and the characters have to fix it. As much as I loved this setting in the movies, I don't think that using it again in another medium really adds anything. Just my opinion.

I don't think the game would have worked overly well as a film as it mostly rehashes elements from all 3 films but it does bridge the story; most of it takes place in the 1930's where we meet Biff and georges parents. George's father is similar to him but slightly less wimpy and Biff's father is kind of a hybrid of Biff and Buford; he's a gangster so more dangerous than Biff but less than Buford (he kills people but not out in the open). One interesting thing is that the 1931 version of Doc is the same age as Marty so it is neat to see them interact. The events of the pass mess up the future (twice actually) and we get two alternate timelines.

The two creators Zemeckis and Gale had shirts with a 'no IV" logo produced. It seems Gale has been lukewarm to the idea of a sequel but not without Zemeckis or Fox. Zemeckis has never seemed to have any interest. I am glad it never happened. And FYI Zemeckis and Gale hold creative licensing so no sequel, remake or reboot can happen without them signing off.

(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11062086_10153636350021079_8899519280300748206_n.jpg?oh=f67797ee20369791dbd8ff62925caaeb&oe=5664F67F)

I'd say Spielberg made the greatest trilogy of all time, but then he had to spoil it all in 2008... :-X

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue,  8 Sep  2015, 12:03
I'd say Spielberg made the greatest trilogy of all time, but then he had to spoil it all in 2008... :-X

I can't comment on that yet, but I'll get back to you once I watch all of that franchise.  :)

The films by Lucas and Jackson later had prequels made so those aren't trilogies anymore. BTTF FTW!

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue,  8 Sep  2015, 12:03I'd say Spielberg made the greatest trilogy of all time, but then he had to spoil it all in 2008... :-X

Indiana Jones was never a trilogy, before or after 2008.

Indiana Jones wasn't an official trilogy, I agree, but had it stayed as three films one might have been able to count it as an unofficial one.  I don't believe that a trilogy necessarily requires a narrative thread throughout all three movies.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue,  8 Sep  2015, 18:55
Indiana Jones wasn't an official trilogy, I agree, but had it stayed as three films one might have been able to count it as an unofficial one.  I don't believe that a trilogy necessarily requires a narrative thread throughout all three movies.

But then every set of three movies is a trilogy, even if they are not connected and there are more films after the three? I'm not sure I agree with that. Would you say that any three James Bond films form a trilogy? Or Star Trek films?  :-\

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue,  8 Sep  2015, 19:07But then every set of three movies is a trilogy, even if they are not connected and there are more films after the three? I'm not sure I agree with that. Would you say that any three James Bond films form a trilogy? Or Star Trek films?  :-\

I take your point, in which case I suppose BTTF is one of the all-time best trilogies.

As for Star Trek, there is some argument that Star Trek II to IV is part of a trilogy as they all follow-on from each other as part of an on-going self-contained narrative.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue,  8 Sep  2015, 19:51
I take your point, in which case I suppose BTTF is one of the all-time best trilogies.

As for Star Trek, there is some argument that Star Trek II to IV is part of a trilogy as they all follow-on from each other as part of an on-going self-contained narrative.

I would say that the fourth Star Trek film marks a change in tone and it's a different adventure from the Genesis story, but I know other Trek fans consider them a trilogy.

Back to the Future really is great, and every movie is different even if they are closely tied. I'd say the first is the best overall , with the second being more entertaining and the third being more heartfelt.

All three BTTF films are superb, but the reason I was inclined to place Indiana Jones, assuming it had been a proper trilogy, and Star Wars: Episodes IV to VI ahead is that the quality of these Indiana Jones and Star Wars 'trilogies' is reasonably consistent throughout, whereas Back to the Future Part 1, one of the best films ever made IMHO, is clearly head and shoulders above its, admittedly enjoyable, sequels.

I really like Star Wars IV-VI but I can't really compare them to Back to the Future or its sequels. I simply enjoy the latter films on another level. I respect your opinion and I don't mind if you like Star Wars more.  :)

I have not seen any of the Indiana Jones films entirely, but when I do I'll get back here with my own opinion on them.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue,  8 Sep  2015, 22:20
I really like Star Wars IV-VI but I can't really compare them to Back to the Future or its sequels. I simply enjoy the latter films on another level. I respect your opinion and I don't mind if you like Star Wars more.  :)

I have not seen any of the Indiana Jones films entirely, but when I do I'll get back here with my own opinion on them.

The first Back to the Future is my favourite film out of all the trilogies we've mentioned.

But The Empire Strikes Back and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade are not far behind.

I can watch Back to the Future on its own and think it's the best, but even if I watch the other two I don't feel that they're really far from the original in quality, they're still very good.

I loved The Empire Strikes Back, for me it was even better than the film that started it all, Star Wars (1977). By comparison, Return of the Jedi wasn't quite at that height, but it was still quite good and a fitting end.

Dude, I totally get that but at the same time there's a friggin' honesty to Jedi that grabs me every time. I love the entire original trilogy for different reasons but, man, Jedi really was something else.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  9 Sep  2015, 03:56
Dude, I totally get that but at the same time there's a friggin' honesty to Jedi that grabs me every time. I love the entire original trilogy for different reasons but, man, Jedi really was something else.

I know what you mean, really. There are are fans who aren't fond of it, but I still think it's much better than third films in other series, and certainly not inferior. Except that I prefer "Empire" over it and "A New Hope" remains more special because it was the very first and I still remember how amazed I was.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed,  9 Sep  2015, 06:04I know what you mean, really. There are are fans who aren't fond of it, but I still think it's much better than third films in other series, and certainly not inferior. Except that I prefer "Empire" over it and "A New Hope" remains more special because it was the very first and I still remember how amazed I was.

Maybe I'm too nitpicky but I love the entire unaltered trilogy for different reasons.

For Star Wars (I have no idea what "A New Hope" or "Episode IV" mean because the movie is called just plain Star Wars, people!) there's this almost manic energy to it. It's everybody going along with this insane idea of using impossible technology to tell an impractical story on a shoestring budget and only two minutes to make the movie. It's insanity from beginning to end, the imagination drips off the screen and I just eat it up with a spoon. I just admire the BALLS of making that film, you know?

Empire is the character piece. The rebels won a short term victory but then they all had to get slapped down by the Empire in their own ways. By the end of the film, it would be fair to say that most of the good guys either have faced or are facing their worst nightmares. There's no big, climactic battle at the end to tidy everything up. They get the tar beaten out of them and then... that's it.

Jedi gets criticized but this is Lucas reversing and undoing all the mishaps, setbacks, shortcomings and defeats the Rebels suffered in Empire. What went wrong for the heroes in Empire gets set right in Jedi. And this doesn't come back defeating or destroying what lies in their path. It comes only from accepting what's happened and working to build a better tomorrow. And that can only be done with true unity of purpose and purity of heart. If the previous films (and to arguably even a bigger degree the prequels) teach nothing else, it's that it isn't enough to do the right thing. One must be possessed of the right reasons for doing it. THAT is why the Emperor ultimately lost. He wanted peace but not for the betterment of the galaxy; it's for his own sense of conquest.

Freaking amazing, I love the Star Wars trilogy.

And yes, I love Back to the Future too. I love the entire trilogy. If I have one gripe about it, it's how the legacy aspect ultimately watered down Biff as the villain in the third movie. He's replaced kind of generically with the Tannen family in BTTF III. That begins somewhat in BTTF II but really goes into overdrive with BTTF III.

In BTTF, he was deranged and when you set him off, there's no telling what he might do. But in BTTF II, he was a KILLER. He was totally scary by the time Doc rescued Marty from getting run over in the tunnel. And you kind of lose that once you get into BTTF III.

I do find it interesting that apparently nobody's arguing that Nolan's trilogy is the best of all time. :)

My favorite trilogy is Indiana Jones. Those are three of my favorite movies ever and were a huge part of my childhood.

As for the fourth movie, well, I prefer to be positive.  :-\

Great post, thecolorsblend! Some complain about having Biff turn from school bully to genuine villain in Part II but I really liked it. The actor Tom Wilson was great fun as all versions of Biff and the other Tannens, Griff in 2015 and Buford in 1885.

I know that the original name is Star Wars (1977), but I used A New Hope just to avoid confusion since the whole franchise is also called Star Wars. Like the original Star Trek show is just named "Star Trek", but it became known retroactively as "The Original Series" or just TOS.  :)

And I am glad that nobody mentioned the "Star Wars" films from 1999-2005, not as the best trilogy of course, but at all.  ;D

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 11 Sep  2015, 07:39
Great post, thecolorsblend! Some complain about having Biff turn from school bully to genuine villain in Part II but I really liked it. The actor Tom Wilson was great fun as all versions of Biff and the other Tannens, Griff in 2015 and Buford in 1885.

The Alternate 1985 Biff is an example of what happens when someone who is already a bully is given access to unlimited power and resources; he becomes a complete monster, although don't forget that the original 1985 Biff tried to sexually assault Lorraine.  :-\  And the worst part is Marty kind of put her in that position...

I think that even the "new" 1985 Biff wasn't different. He was subservient to George McFly and acted nice because George proved he was the better man and stood up to him. But he could still be mean to those weaker than him, which is actually what a bully does.

To Tom Wilson's credit, I never hated Biff as much as I would hate a similar character with those traits, because he played him as a comical villain for the most part.

Marty had a pretty dumb plan to begin with, but through a series of events that weren't controlled by him, he made his father stand up to the bully for real.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 11 Sep  2015, 11:21
I think that even the "new" 1985 Biff wasn't different. He was subservient to George McFly and acted nice because George proved he was the better man and stood up to him. But he could still be mean to those weaker than him, which is actually what a bully does.

To Tom Wilson's credit, I never hated Biff as much as I would hate a similar character with those traits, because he played him as a comical villain for the most part.

Marty had a pretty dumb plan to begin with, but through a series of events that weren't controlled by him, he made his father stand up to the bully for real.

I don't think Marty's plan was that dumb.  But he was desperate and had to come up with something, otherwise he'd cease to exist.

I only blame Marty because he interfered with his parents' lives in the first place.  If he was thinking rationally he wouldn't have tried to rescue his father from getting knocked over by Mr Baines' car because he would have known that everything would have worked out.  :-\

But I agree with you about Biff.  It's hard to hate him, at least in his 1955 guise, because he acts like such a buffoon.  But I think by 1985 he's become a lot more nasty, bitter and even slightly smarter, and when he gets his hands on the Sports Almanac he really turns into a particularly nasty piece of work.

Yes, but I consider that Marty just saw his friend killed and himself transported to 1955 after running from terrorists and then he met his young father. I don't think it even occurred to him that it was his grandfather in the car. He thought his father could be harmed or killed and he immediately pushed him. I don't blame him for that.

And yes, the plan was desperate, but if Biff had not arrived before George, then George wouldn't have been put in the situation to save Lorraine because Marty could not even fake the assault and she felt strange kissing him. Even if Biff's actions are still despicable, in the modified 1955 it was his intervention in that night of the dance that made George stand up to him.

you can't really blame Marty for being 'dumb'. He just hasn't figured out yet that he's in the past and can change the future. It was a knee jerk reaction, he saw his father about to get hit by a car and didn't realize it was his fate.

The second film heavily focused on Biff. There wasn't anything left to do with Biff in the third. We've seen him at 3 different stages of his life. I do think the third film is the weakest of the three but the lack of Biff is not one of them. Lorraine is a great character but she's barely featured as well.

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 12 Sep  2015, 13:44
you can't really blame Marty for being 'dumb'. He just hasn't figured out yet that he's in the past and can change the future. It was a knee jerk reaction, he saw his father about to get hit by a car and didn't realize it was his fate.

The second film heavily focused on Biff. There wasn't anything left to do with Biff in the third. We've seen him at 3 different stages of his life. I do think the third film is the weakest of the three but the lack of Biff is not one of them. Lorraine is a great character but she's barely featured as well.

I think George and Lorraine were explored well in the first film. The second was about Biff and future Marty and the third about Marty and Doc. That's how I see it.   :)

I think the first film was ultimately about George McFly and his arc from a loser to a someone with self-confidence and belief, thanks ironically to his son's encouragement.  The second film was a bit like an extended "Outer Limits" episode with a 'what if' alternate 1985 premise.  And the third film was more about Doc Brown finding a kindred spirit in Clara.

That's why I think the first and third films were ultimately more heartfelt while the second one had quite cartoonish elements in 2015 and even in the alternate 1985 ruled by Biff.

But I don't dislike Part II, it was entertaining and thrilling too and the stakes were high, Marty and Doc had to repair the damage once again but this time everyone was in danger because of Biff's corrupt empire.

Many fans complain that it was lazy for them to revisit 1955, but I say it was great film magic. On the Part II audio commentary , Bob Gale and Neil Canton said that they felt like they were in 1985 shooting the first film again and the small actors like the Starlighters were delighted to come back.

going back to 1955 wasn't as lazy as some may think; they required heavy attention to detail to maintain continuity. It was groundbreaking in the sense that no sequel had ever done that before. That being said it did allow them to cut corners as the original idea had them go to the 60's and no old west segment. Part of the reason they chose to go back to the 50's instead was to avoid building ANOTHER set (as one of the themes in the series was to have marty wander the hill valley square and clock tower at each time period he visited)

It seems like they split the themes of the first film into the sequels; the sci-fi and action 'exciting' elements were used in the second film. The heart was in the third; there weren't many relationships developed in the second film, partially because they didn't stay in any place for long; they spent 3 hours in 2015, 7 hours in 1985 (with marty sleeping for part of it) and roughly 16 hours in 1955 but with Marty locked in a garage for many of it. The first and third films spanned about a week for Marty.

Edd the creators did confirm what you just said; the parents were the focus of the first film, Biff the second, Doc in the third. So if people want to criticize the third film for the lack of focus on Biff (which i find kind of silly, it's a time travel film, the only way they could do that was revisit a time they'd already been or bring Biff back with them), both sequels 'failed' to focus on George and Lorraine.

I agree, riddler. And some complain that they chose the Old West for the third film. But if they had chosen any other period, people would still complain for various reasons. I thought it was a good time period to use since Hill Valley is located in California. And while I'm not a huge fan of the Western genre, the third film definitely had heart and provided great conclusions for both Marty and Doc.  :)

I totally agree riddler.  It was a stroke of genius to set part of BTTF2 in 1955, increasing the tension by potentially having Marty upset the space-time continuum by crossing paths with an earlier version of himself.  Moreover, it adds to the fun by playing on the audience's pre-knowledge of the events of November 12 1955.  It also demonstrates the filmmakers' brilliance in so intricately setting up the conclusion of BTTF2 to play out against the backdrop to the conclusion of the first film (it's a masterstroke to have Marty get a chance to listen to himself playing 'Johnny B Goode' live on stage).

I can't really think of a better setting in the 3rd film. Going to the future again would have been tough as they already did it so they would have had to be further inventive. The 2015 they had was of course a series of predictions so going to a different point in the future would have been a prediction based on a prediction. They could have perhaps used the initial idea they had for the 2nd film and set the 3rd one in 1967 but that was a little too similar to the first film.

They explored the cause and effects of time travel in the first two films so they dialed that back in the third film; (trivia; the only noticable change to the timeline from the third film was the ravine being named Eastwood ravine). They went far enough back that they didn't have to worry too heavily about the ripple effect. None of the characters shown in the old west appeared earlier in the series except in photographs/video. Fans of western films tend to consider the 3rd film to be their favourite of the series.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 11 Sep  2015, 07:39Great post, thecolorsblend! Some complain about having Biff turn from school bully to genuine villain in Part II but I really liked it. The actor Tom Wilson was great fun as all versions of Biff and the other Tannens, Griff in 2015 and Buford in 1885.

In the original Biff was already a bully. We later see that he was willing to rape Lorraine and kill Marty. I don't see how his subsequent development changed much of what we already knew about him.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 11 Sep  2015, 07:39And I am glad that nobody mentioned the "Star Wars" films from 1999-2005, not as the best trilogy of course, but at all.  ;D

The older I get, the more I realize that the prequels are better left to your imagination. If you must have something, watch the trailers and listen to the film scores. Get a flavor of what might have been and the scores are phenomenal. Anything more than that and you're just begging to be disappointed.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 11 Sep  2015, 11:21To Tom Wilson's credit, I never hated Biff as much as I would hate a similar character with those traits, because he played him as a comical villain for the most part.

I never truly appreciated Wilson's performance until the trilogy came out on DVD in 2003. Hell, I don't think I really appreciated the entire trilogy until then. But in my defense, I saw the original BTTF a billion times then saw BTTF III in theaters and later saw BTTF II on video. So the totality of the trilogy eluded me.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 11 Sep  2015, 11:43I only blame Marty because he interfered with his parents' lives in the first place.  If he was thinking rationally he wouldn't have tried to rescue his father from getting knocked over by Mr Baines' car because he would have known that everything would have worked out.  :-\

It was a reflex. He saved George without giving it a thought. That story works out so beautifully for me because it totally changes the George/Lorraine dynamic. She originally fell in love with him out of pity. The Florence Nightingale effect. But thanks to Marty's interference, she comes to love George based on respect, admiration and gratitude. That affected both George and Lorraine for the better.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 11 Sep  2015, 11:43But I agree with you about Biff.  It's hard to hate him, at least in his 1955 guise, because he acts like such a buffoon.  But I think by 1985 he's become a lot more nasty, bitter and even slightly smarter, and when he gets his hands on the Sports Almanac he really turns into a particularly nasty piece of work.

I love those alternate 1985 scenes. They drive home the point that Biff loved Lorraine as much as he was capable of loving anybody but he was still a bitter, ruthless monster who destroys everything he touches. He murders George, ships most of Lorraine's kids off to boarding schools and transforms Lorraine into a broken down alcoholic with serious body image issues. Even the guy's "love" is toxic, in short.

Great films. Best trilogy ever.

Happy Back to the Future day!  :)

Now, I've got to finish my dehydrated pizza, put on my self-lacing sneakers, and get in my flying car so I can catch the next showing of 'Jaws 19' at the local Holomax theatre.  ;D

Lithium mode on!


And Johnny, don't forget to wear your two ties to work.  ;)

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 21 Oct  2015, 11:41


Lithium mode on!


And Johnny, don't forget to wear your two ties to work.  ;)

;D

I was going to work, but I just received this fax  :(:

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.liveauctiongroup.net%2Fi%2F9646%2F10499861_1.jpg%3Fv%3D8CE714124B67990&hash=3764f1fd047ac26b1ad943dc40c8e3939b71acd5)

It will be erased. Your future is whatever you make it, so make it a good one!  ;)  :)

happy back to the future day everyone!

Happy Back to the Future Day!

Where are the flying cars? I want a flying car!

I also want a holodeck and a food replicator. Oh wait...wrong future.  :-[

Between a hoverboard and the transporter beam though, I would still pick the latter.

Four to beam up, Mr. Joker!  :)

But I want to see Jaws 19. And maybe Rocky XX too, while we're at it.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 21 Oct  2015, 20:31
Between a hoverboard and the transporter beam though, I would still pick the latter.

Four to beam up, Mr. Joker!  :)

But I want to see Jaws 19. And maybe Rocky XX too, while we're at it.

Sadly, Max Spielberg's 'Jaws 19' hasn't been getting very good reviews.  :(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR-JqhT7Z1A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR-JqhT7Z1A)

;)

I wish I could go back to pre-production time, and tell them to stop it.  ;)

This is something Back to the Future II got right. Seemingly endless movie sequels and the return of 3-D.

I'm more interested in seeing the extremely distant future. Like Dune's year 10,192 and The Time Machine's 802,701. I don't expect to see what we see in the movies. I just mean I think it would be interesting to see those years in the real world. The very distant future.

I would not mind seeing the past too, if I had a time machine. But be real careful not to interfere.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 21 Oct  2015, 22:17
I wish I could go back to pre-production time, and tell them to stop it.  ;)

I wish I could go back in time and bet on the Cubbies.

Anyone got a copy of Grays Sporting Almanac? 
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rvlf.fr%2FIMG%2Fjpg%2Fsportsalmanac.jpg&hash=d816bcc98c7f6a17f5bb326d62231f4d1ba8b282)

That way I can go back in time and put money on that popular sport, 'Slamball'.  ;D

Watch out for Thumb Bandits, though!  :-\  ;D

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 21 Oct  2015, 22:30
Watch out for Thumb Bandits, though!  :-\  ;D

Good point, but at least we don't have to use our hands anymore to play video games, right?

Right, and we can order a Pepsi Perfect AND hear recommendations from video waiters  ;D

In Back to the Future II didn't they arrive in 2015 at 4:29 PM? I'm in California and the same time zone as fictional Hill Valley would be and it's about to be that time.  ;D

JokerMeThis, it should not be very hard to spot a DeLorean near you, let alone a flying one.  ;D

Quote from: JokerMeThis on Wed, 21 Oct  2015, 23:26
In Back to the Future II didn't they arrive in 2015 at 4:29 PM? I'm in California and the same time zone as fictional Hill Valley would be and it's about to be that time.  ;D

Is it raining in California today (funnily enough the weather in the UK was quite similar to how it was in BTTF2 today)?

QuoteIs it raining in California today (funnily enough the weather in the UK was quite similar to how it was in BTTF2 today)?

It's sunny and clear here in my part of San Diego county. California is a big place though. It alone might even be bigger than the UK. I'm not sure.

Had a good time going to a retro-movie screening of Back to the Future Part II on 10/21/2015. It was the 2nd retro-movie I've been to that had a sold out crowd. The 1st was JAWS. Which I saw for the first time this past July in a theater setting. In trying to be in keeping with the theme of the night, and since I don't have a BTTF shirt (unlike the friends I went with), I ended up wearing a JAWS shirt that night, due solely to the "JAWS 19" scene.  ;)  :-[

Crowd was definitely into it. Some cheering when Doc Brown told Marty the date they arrived on in the "Future". Lots of laughs of course, especially following the teaser footage montage of BTTF Part III with the announcement; "Coming summmer of 1990" at the end. As we were walking out into the hallway after the film ended, someone made the joke that they now couldn't wait for Summer 1990! To which someone else responded that he couldn't wait for 1991, cause that's when he was born.  ;D

Great night. Excellent movie. Good times.  8)