PhoenixRising

I loved the first Back To The Future, dragonfire. But I thought the two sequels were kind of weak.

Part II was all over the place, jumping from 2015(which we now know didn't happen the way the movie said ), to the alternate universe in 1985 after old Biff went back in time and gave his younger self that sports almanac, changing history. And then back to 1955 where Marty had to get that almanac from Biff before he used it to change history, and Marty was just retracing his steps from the first movie, which was kind of repetitive. I would've liked it better if they'd just stayed in 2015 more instead of jumping around all over the place. And how can old Marty exist in the future when young Marty left 1985 and traveled 30 years into the future? That time paradox always bugs me. I actually liked Part III better because they stuck to 1885 and the story was more focused, and the Old West storyline was fun. But I thought the ending made no sense.

dragonfire

Part 2 was more like a build up to Part 3. See it seems because the movie was too long they had to split it up into 2 parts, and because of Zemeckis already directing Roger Rabbit, he couldn't put his full focus on Part 2 like he did with Part 1. Plus they were filming 2&3 back to back. Why didn't the ending made no sense?

sum1

Zzzzz.

PhoenixRising

I'm sorry, sum1. We're putting you to sleep... but then, you do need the sleep.

Yeah, that's another thing that bugged me. Part II didn't even feel like a complete movie, more like a lead up to another movie, like you said. And yes, Who Framed Roger Rabbit? was already taking up a lot of Zemeckis' time, so I think that contributed to the film's limitations as well.

The ending didn't make any sense because we're supposed to believe that Doc Brown made a time traveling locomotive train from parts taken from the hover board?

Also, it didn't make much sense to me that Jules Verne was Doc Brown's main inspiration, since H.G. Wells was the one who wrote about time travel.

dragonfire

Almost the whole movie was a foreshadow of 1885/Old West. Since Lloyd played in Roger Rabbit, that could explain why we got less Doc in Part 2 as well. I never really questioned it. Maybe Doc isn't a Wells fan? I mean would you want to name your kids after the guy that caused the Particle Accelerator explosion?

sum1

Zzzzzzzz!!!

PhoenixRising

Look at it this way, sum1... at least you're getting some sleep.

Very funny, dragonfire. That's not the Wells I mean. War of the Worlds, The Invisible Man, The Time Machine, that H.G. Wells. But yeah, I think both Zemeckis and Lloyd were both spread out too thin at the time.

Also, Back To The Future Part II came out in 1989, the same year that every other damn sequel came out. Back To The Future Part II, Ghostbusters II, Lethal Weapon 2, The Fly II, The Karate Kid Part III, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Licence To Kill, Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers, Friday The 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan, A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child... I mean, jeeez! Even the Shakespearean film, Henry V. The only big movie to come out that year that wasn't a sequel was Batman.

sum1

I liked some of those.

PhoenixRising

Which ones, sum1? And I remember that summer. Everyone was hyped for all the sequels and blockbusters, but some of them disappointed. Oh, and The Abyss, Dead Poets Society, and Honey, I Shrunk The Kids also came out that year.

sum1

Last Crusade, Licence to Kill (the only Bond film I like), Star Trek V.

PhoenixRising

I liked Licence to Kill and Last Crusade as well. Wasn't into Star Trek V, to be honest. I thought II, III, and IV were better.

sum1

Wrath of Khan is a clunky film with an awful overdone performance in the lead villain role. Ricardo Montalban was unbearable in the role and nothing can excuse casting a white guy (his parents were from Spain) as a guy of Indian/Pakistani background. It was bad enough in a '60s tv show, they shouldn't have repeated the mistake by bringing the character back in an '80s movie.

The Search for Spock was so-so.

Voyage Home was fun, but lightweight and had that annoying preachins about whales.

PhoenixRising

I didn't know Montalban's parents were from Spain. Thanks for the info.

Did you know that originally the character was gonna be a Viking type of character before Roddenberry changed him to a middle eastern character?

Well, I liked Wrath of Khan, but I guess it's not for everyone. But I thought Star Trek V was... well, a bit of a letdown.

sum1

He wasn't a Middle Eastern character. He was Indian-Pakistani.

PhoenixRising

Ah, yes. I keep thinking Pakistan is the middle east.

The point is, he originally wasn't even supposed to be that, he was supposed to be a Nordic character. Roddenberry changed the character to Khan Noonien Singh after an Indian officer that Roddenberry knew during WWII.