Back to the Future: 25th Anniversary Trilogy - Oct. 26th

[kdo]

Originally Posted by tiger_qc

Why?
Even if part 3 is weaker it's needed to complete the journey, it can't end up wit Doc stucked in 1885.

Not for me it isn't. Over the past 15 years I haven't had a problem at all watching Parts I & II only. And if I can't find someone who wants a free copy of "Part III" on Blu, I'm just throwing it in the garbage when I buy the set. I will never watch the film again, and I'm really not in need of anymore 'coasters' right now...

[skyofcrack]

The BTTF trilogy is AS GOOD if not better than the original Star Wars trilogy and Parts II and III are just as good and as important as Empire and Jedi.

I'm sick and tired of people knocking Parts II and III. Marty can only go back and meet his parents once folks. Then, the story actually has to progress beyond that. Zemeckis hit three home runs as far as I'm concerned.

[Liquid_Swords]

Originally Posted by kdo

Not for me it isn't. Over the past 15 years I haven't had a problem at all watching Parts I & II only. And if I can't find someone who wants a free copy of "Part III" on Blu, I'm just throwing it in the garbage when I buy the set. I will never watch the film again, and I'm really not in need of anymore 'coasters' right now...

But...even if just for this?

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by skyofcrack

The BTTF trilogy is AS GOOD if not better than the original Star Wars trilogy and Parts II and III are just as good and as important as Empire and Jedi.

I'm sick and tired of people knocking Parts II and III. Marty can only go back and meet his parents once folks. Then, the story actually has to progress beyond that. Zemeckis hit three home runs as far as I'm concerned.

Well see, the thing is, the first movie was never meant to lead into other chapters, it was just meant to be a stand alone story. It was never meant to be a series of time traveling adventures between 2 friends, it was just meant to be a story of a kid from a dysfunctional family who gets the chance to meet his parents at the same age, help them become better people and realize, "Hey, my parents are okay people after all." So no, I'm sorry, but the story never needed to progress beyond the gag ending that the first movie had (gag being the operative word), because to me at least, that WAS the ending of the story.

And Parts II and III as important as Empire and Jedi? I'm sorry again, but Parts II and III are perfect examples of sequels that don't amount to anything at all and we're just made for the sake of being made. Sorry to go on this long, but I just can't for the life in me understand why so many other pointless, nothing sequels are rightfully recognized for what they really are (the Matrix sequels, the Highlander sequels), and yet the Back to the Future sequels are so beloved by everybody. I just don't get it at all. You can bash me and criticize me all you want for saying this, but I know what I'm talking about.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by kamphausd1

Well see, the thing is, the first movie was never meant to lead into other chapters, it was just meant to be a stand alone story. It was never meant to be a series of time traveling adventures between 2 friends, it was just meant to be a story of a kid from a dysfunctional family who gets the chance to meet his parents at the same age, help them become better people and realize, "Hey, my parents are okay people after all." So no, I'm sorry, but the story never needed to progress beyond the gag ending that the first movie had (gag being the operative word), because to me at least, that WAS the ending of the story.

And Parts II and III as important as Empire and Jedi? I'm sorry again, but Parts II and III are perfect examples of sequels that don't amount to anything at all and we're just made for the sake of being made. Sorry to go on this long, but I just can't for the life in me understand why so many other pointless, nothing sequels are rightfully recognized for what they really are (the Matrix sequels, the Highlander sequels), and yet the Back to the Future sequels are so beloved by everybody. I just don't get it at all. You can bash me and criticize me all you want for saying this, but I know what I'm talking about.

And how is Star Wars different? The first one was made to be standalone as well, with the other sequels basically made for money, just like probably any other movie made in history.
And "you know what you're talking about"? Liking a movie is completely subjective, you either like a movie or not. Many like this trilogy, and you don't. You don't have to be arrogant about it.

[WorkShed]

I wouldn't put Back to the Future in the same arena as The Matrix franchise. I think if Crispin Glover didn't go crazy with asking for so much money and was properly in II & III, a lot of problems that people have of those films being so heavily focused on Michael J. Fox would go away.

The Matrix sequels unraveled the hero's journey in the sequels and crammed the narrative with characters that had no true bearing on the initial film. That is not true with Back to the Future. Sure, it made Marty a little unlikeable in the beginning of II and a lot of II's plot is coincidental with elements happily falling into place without direct control over the main characters. However, II & III never lost sight of the fact that the movies were there to entertain and not overly preach about the ramifications of time travel.

The Matrix became too self-important and, like the Star Wars prequels, just plain failed to entertain. Like the Obi-Wan and Anakin duel, I just got too tired of the characters and weak story to be thrilled by the final Mr. Smith and Neo fight.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by skyofcrack

I'm sick and tired of people knocking Parts II and III. Marty can only go back and meet his parents once folks. Then, the story actually has to progress beyond that. Zemeckis hit three home runs as far as I'm concerned.

I very much agree. These are pretty much my all-time favorite movies, and I think the entire series is great. If other people don't like it, fine, but I'm thrilled with it.

Originally Posted by kamphausd1

Well see, the thing is, the first movie was never meant to lead into other chapters, it was just meant to be a stand alone story.

And... so what? If you don't like the sequels, that's fine.

But as far as I am concerned, I'm actually rather impressed with the job and Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis did in picking up the second movie right where the first one left off and making it seem like it was something that was planned all along, even though it wasn't.

A lot of movies (and movie series for that matter) are often "works in progress" until they are done. The fact is that the first movie was a big success, and a sequel was going to happen no matter what. If Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis had said no, I fear to imagine what we would have gotten. I'm sure many more of the actors from the first movie (in addition to Crispin Glover) wouldn't have returned. We would have probably seen a lot of recasting of parts or would have otherwise gotten something that was just poorly thrown together for the sake of cashing in on the popularity of the first movie. While you probably feel that way about parts II and III now, I have a feeling that you would have hated what we would have gotten in this other scenario.

[sony324]

Originally Posted by Andy CYP

I pray to god we get individual cases. Not to long left til we find out now.

I hope so too

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

And how is Star Wars different? The first one was made to be standalone as well, with the other sequels basically made for money, just like probably any other movie made in history.
And "you know what you're talking about"? Liking a movie is completely subjective, you either like a movie or not. Many like this trilogy, and you don't. You don't have to be arrogant about it.

It's different with Star Wars. Lucas had always wanted to continue the story beyond the original film, and that's exactly what Empire and Jedi did. The Star Wars story did need to be continued because Vader and the Empire were still out there, Luke still was training to be a Jedi, and so on. And that's what the Star Wars sequels did, they continued the original story, took it in new exciting directions while staying true to it's roots, they didn't just recycle the same lines and scenes from the original movie and give us meaningless, dime a dozen time travel adventures that had nothing to do with the premise of the original story.

And I wasn't being arrogant, when I said I know what I'm talking about, I simply meant that I stand by my convictions that parts II and III weren't needed at all and contributed nothing to the story. And I happen to love the original Back to the Future by the way, it's actually my favorite film of all time.

[JenM]

It's true they never intended for BTTF to have sequels. Zemeckis said on the extra features for the original DVD set that the ending to the first film was meant as a joke - if they'd known they'd be doing a sequel they wouldn't have had the girlfriend in the car at the end, and they may not have even gone into the future.

That's why the future scenes in BTTF 2 look so goofy in the film - they didn't want to do a 'serious' future look because they knew it would inevitably not look right when that year actually came, and I think the movie suffered for it a little. But I think it's also why they were there so briefly...to me, the movie didn't really start getting good until they got to the alternate 1985, which I thought was an awesome idea for a story (of course the absence of Crispin Glover was a big part of that too), as well as having to go back to 1955. I think the only other time travel story I've seen that was as clever as that was the last act of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

I loved the sequels, but I can see why people didn't. The first movie does seem like it takes place in entirely different universe than the other two films.

[JenM]

Originally Posted by kamphausd1

And Parts II and III as important as Empire and Jedi? I'm sorry again, but Parts II and III are perfect examples of sequels that don't amount to anything at all and we're just made for the sake of being made. Sorry to go on this long, but I just can't for the life in me understand why so many other pointless, nothing sequels are rightfully recognized for what they really are (the Matrix sequels, the Highlander sequels), and yet the Back to the Future sequels are so beloved by everybody. I just don't get it at all. You can bash me and criticize me all you want for saying this, but I know what I'm talking about.

Of course they didn't need to get made, most sequels didn't. And like most sequels, you can take them or leave them, but they were a lot more fun than most pointless sequels, imo. I'm surprised they're so well-regarded now, because I remember them not being so popular when they were first released.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by kamphausd1

And I wasn't being arrogant, when I said I know what I'm talking about, I simply meant that I stand by my convictions that parts II and III weren't needed at all and contributed nothing to the story. And I happen to love the original Back to the Future by the way, it's actually my favorite film of all time.

Technically we don't "need" any movie.

We don't "need" the first BTTF. It is very entertaining, but we will not cease to exist without it.

We did not "need" the original Star Wars movie. And despite 'Empire' and 'Jedi' expanding upon the original story, those were not "needed" either ... not even to understand the first movie. Lucas may have intended to continue the story when/if possible at the time of making the first movie, but the first movie was still done in such a way that it also works as a self contained movie.

[MrSlr]

The first one is definately my favorite but i do enjoy them as a trilogy a lot.. I cant wait to hear the train scene in BTTF3 in glorious DTS-HD

[saprano]

Sometimes i wonder what people are complaining about when they dislike a movie. Heh, whatever. I like all 3 equally. Couldn't tell you how many times i've watched them.

[tiger_qc]

Originally Posted by saprano

Sometimes i wonder what people are complaining about when they dislike a movie. Heh, whatever. I like all 3 equally. Couldn't tell you how many times i've watched them.

I liked them all but the first is the best by far. Just like most of the franchise, you can't beat the first of is kind.

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Technically we don't "need" any movie.

We don't "need" the first BTTF. It is very entertaining, but we will not cease to exist without it.

You're right, we don't need any movie really, but I guess the point I'm trying to get across here is that while parts II and III were really just nothing more than simple time travel adventures, the original movie was so much more than just that. Don't get me wrong, I don't think they're terrible movies, I just don't think they're really anything special, and they certainly didn't carry on in the tradition of what made the first film such an original and entertaining concept.

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

We did not "need" the original Star Wars movie. And despite 'Empire' and 'Jedi' expanding upon the original story, those were not "needed" either ... not even to understand the first movie. Lucas may have intended to continue the story when/if possible at the time of making the first movie, but the first movie was still done in such a way that it also works as a self contained movie.

Well, that's debatable I guess. I mean, Vader was left alive and the Empire was still ruling the galaxy with an iron fist, but I can kind of see what you mean. I guess one of the very few movies out there that truly left not outlet at all for a second chapter was Highlander. Man, why in the name of God did they have to make sequels to THAT movie?

[kdo]

Originally Posted by Liquid_Swords

But...even if just for this?

As funny as the kid signaling he has to go to the bathroom is, it still doesn't warrant me keeping the film...

Originally Posted by JenM

The first movie does seem like it takes place in entirely different universe than the other two films.

True!

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by saprano

Sometimes i wonder what people are complaining about when they dislike a movie. Heh, whatever. I like all 3 equally. Couldn't tell you how many times i've watched them.

I feel the same way. They never get old and I enjoy all 3 of them.

[bmogav]

I hate manure!!!

[KingLeonidas300]

I do enjoy all three films but part 2 was my favorite. I will probably hold off until I can get them in individual cases.. It didn't take long for the Lord of the Rings trilogy to make it to individual releases (still not buying) so I think I can hold off until then.