Back to the future

[Edd Grayson]

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.

[riddler]

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.

[Edd Grayson]

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.   

[johnnygobbs]

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.

[Edd Grayson]

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.

[riddler]

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.

[Edd Grayson]

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. 

[johnnygobbs]

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).

[riddler]

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.

[thecolorsblend]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.