 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 28, 2014 - 3:43 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
One of the fun things about being a BTTF fan - and I'm a massive fan of the series - is trying to come up with loopholes that "the two Bobs" (Zemeckis and Gale) missed (or glossed over). I've read loads of them and a lot of things fans have raised actually don't hold water but there is one that I've always had myself about part III which I've never seen anywhere else so I thought I'd set it out here just to see if any fellow BTTF fan can shoot me down.
Ok now strap in and hold tight cos this is going to get complicated -
Ok, so the Doc from 1985 is struck by lightening and is zapped back to the old West in a DeLorean we'll call the 1885 car.
Doc buries the 1885 car in the Delgado mine and it is unearthed 70 years later by Marty and the 1955 Doc. As far as we know, the only damage to the car is that the flying circuits have been fried and that the tyres have perished. So, let's call this the 1955 car.
Now, Marty takes the 1955 car back in time to the old West and ruptures a fuel line which sets up the basic premise of the film, ie how do they get the Delorean up to 88 MPH to activate the time circuits and get Marty and Doc back to the future.
Still with me?
The 1955 car is now sitting in Doc's workshop in Hill Valley and after a few failed ideas at creating a substitute fuel the Delorean blows the fuel line. Oh dear.
But wait a minute! The Delorean that just got damaged isnt the only Delorean in the old West at that time! Remember, the damaged one is the 1955 car.... BUT only 8 months earlier (per the Western Union letter Emmet Brown sent to Marty) Doc buried the 1885 car in the mine so it is still there when Marty arrives in the past (or rather the past past). And that one probably wasn't low on gas (Ok that's conjecture on my part but there is nothing toward the end of Part II that suggests the car is running on empty).
Now, ok I remember there is a line that Doc says at the drive in about having filled the (1955) car up with gas but that doesn't mean the tank was totally empty before does it? Doc and Marty only need a smidgeon of fuel to hit 88 MPH.
Ok, I realise it would have been a pretty dull (and short) conclusion to the saga if Marty could simply stamp on the throttle and get him and Doc back to 1985 but picking these sort of holes in movies we love is kind of fun.
So, does any fellow BTTF fan agree with the above? Or have any others on the series generally?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't think Part 3 is under-appreciated, it did well and received positive reviews.
I like it a lot, a step-up after the rather dark and forced Part 2.
Some parts in Part 2 just don't feel right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They had a clever idea: retell BTTF as a Western.
And, it works!
Its like those Shakespeare plays set in modern times or that ep of THE PRISONER "Living in Harmony" where they retold N0.6'S STORY AS A WESTERN.
excellent score also!
brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
.... Picking plot holes in films about a scientist who makes a time machine out of a DeLorean car seems pretty pointless to me.
No one told you that this board is the "home" of pointless nitpicking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 28, 2014 - 3:21 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jeyl
(Member)
|
When it comes to the sequels of Back to the Future, I prefer 3 a lot more than 2.
Part 2 is just... I don't know. The film comes off as a very bleak movie that is not only dark in tone, but also visually. A lot of portions of Part 2 takes place during the night! It's kind of off putting. Also, I can understand putting kids in danger, but wow. We have an adult Biff who wants to flat out murder a kid for no other reason than because he knows about the Almanac. Why? Biff already has his fortune, his fame and Lorrain as his wife. He could destroy the bloody book and simply say that Marty is just a goof like his father was. Michael J. Fox was certainly older than a kid, but Marty as a character he is still a kid and watching a guy trying to shoot a kid was neither fun or exciting. Same goes for the tunnel sequence.
Story wise, it's also quite repetitive with it's exposition, like Biff using the Almanac. That is an element of the story that is explained to us in great detail no less than three times. I know time travel movies can be tough to follow, but Biff's plan wasn't. Thankfully these scenes are made tolerable only because the actors are so into their roles, but it still drags the film down.
Part 3 thankfully drops the repudiative exposition and gives us a lot more character bang for the buck. I enjoyed Doc's romance with Clara, I liked the conclusion to Marty's 'chicken' plot and it was a lot more fun. It certainly makes watching Part 2 worth the endeavor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 2, 2014 - 8:43 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mr Greg
(Member)
|
I liked Part II, a lot....yes, it was darker, yes it played a cheap trick instead of having an ending, and yes there is an air of unpleasantness abut the whole thing if I'm honest, but when you have the inventiveness being shown on screen as it was, for me, a lot of the complaints didn't matter. Still not a patch on the original, but good flick nonetheless.
I find Part III, if I'm honest, to be better than the first two put together. Wonderful storytelling, delightful performances, the tone is just right, that wonderful, wonderful score....everything sits together just perfectly. One of my favourite movies of all time, and one of the rare examples of a sequel trumping the original (and an even rarer case of a "threequel" being better than the first two!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
III is great!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
) with a huge smile. 
