Back to the Future Trilogy 4K UHD (1985-1990)

[Tober27]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

equally large scale as BTTF.... Solo (like with BTFF it also turned out great after a re-shoot)

equally large scale as BTTF as well, but re-shot to much, much lesser degree.... Rogue One (also turned out great after re-shoot)

Exorcist 4, a movie completely remade before release.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

equally large scale as BTTF.... Solo (like with BTFF it also turned out great after a re-shoot)

equally large scale as BTTF as well, but re-shot to much, much lesser degree.... Rogue One (also turned out great after re-shoot)

Whereas BTTF seems to have clicked after the retooling and reshoot and is considered a modern classic, Solo and Rogue One seemed to have had too many structural problems to solve in the first place and were still flawed films even after the so-called fixes. Corporate stamped films almost never work out. Films that are labors of love seem to shine through.

[Cognoscente]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Whereas BTTF seems to have clicked after the retooling and reshoot and is considered a modern classic, Solo and Rogue One seemed to have had too many structural problems to solve in the first place and were still flawed films even after the so-called fixes. Corporate stamped films almost never work out. Films that are labors of love seem to shine through.

Although in the case of BTTF, it helped that the main producer was the main writer. In the July/August '88 issue of American Film magazine, Zemeckis talked about the benefits of a screenwriting partnership where one guy produces while the other guy directs.

[moviebuff75]

The first film is being shown at an old movie house here....in 35mm.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Whereas BTTF seems to have clicked after the retooling and reshoot and is considered a modern classic, Solo and Rogue One seemed to have had too many structural problems to solve in the first place and were still flawed films even after the so-called fixes. Corporate stamped films almost never work out. Films that are labors of love seem to shine through.

I don’t have a great deal (or any) evidence to support this, but I reckon more films have ended up betterer for their “corporate stamping” than people may think. Sometimes it does actually end up improving the film, despite the unyielding notion that the filmmakers are gods whose every whim should be respected and championed from the rooftops. God knows I spend enough time carping on aboot respecting creative intent up in here, but every so often a Storaro or Friedkin or Lucas will remind me that sometimes these people do actually need saving from themselves.

On the flip side, it cracks me the **** up that so many folks go on and on about how they never watch theatrical cuts, they always go for the extended version (if available) as being truer to the director's “vision”...but whenever Star Wars enters the game those same people wouldn’t piss on Lucas’ director's cuts if they were on fire. Not throwing shade, just making the point that on either side of the argument there’s room to manoeuvre.

[Cognoscente]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

On the flip side, it cracks me the **** up that so many folks go on and on about how they never watch theatrical cuts, they always go for the extended version (if available) as being truer to the director's “vision”...but whenever Star Wars enters the game those same people wouldn’t piss on Lucas’ director's cuts if they were on fire.

That said, I would like to see the uncut version of BTTF since the running time was only shortened because of the first test screening not being as embraced as the two Bobs would have liked. I often wonder how much control that Spielberg had for the sequels; he was constantly telling Zemeckis that the first act of part one had to be cut down, and RZ only agreed because of that test screening.

Speaking of Spielberg, he proved on Poltergeist that a producer/writer can have a directorial presence, and I often wonder how much of an overbearing presence that Gale was on set. In the comment section of a Hollywood Reporter article about the 2010 Blu-ray, a woman who had worked for Amblin claimed that one of the problems that RZ had was Gale wanting to co-direct BTTF.

[Geoff D]

Honestly, BTTF is as close to a perfick film as there is so I wouldn’t change a frame of it. I mean, I’m curious aboot deleted scenes (for this or any film) and happy to view them in isolation, but sometimes the grass isn’t always greener on the other side.

[david_blu]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Honestly, BTTF is as close to a perfick film as there is so I wouldn’t change a frame of it. I mean, I’m curious aboot deleted scenes (for this or any film) and happy to view them in isolation, but sometimes the grass isn’t always greener on the other side.

I mean the deleted scenes show things that almost made the cut and nothing majorly missing in my view.

I quite like the shot of Marty seeing the burnt down school in Part 2 in the deleted scene and I guess the hairdryer bit in the first film for continuity.

[dvining]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don’t have a great deal (or any) evidence to support this, but I reckon more films have ended up betterer for their “corporate stamping” than people may think. Sometimes it does actually end up improving the film, despite the unyielding notion that the filmmakers are gods whose every whim should be respected and championed from the rooftops. God knows I spend enough time carping on aboot respecting creative intent up in here, but every so often a Storaro or Friedkin or Lucas will remind me that sometimes these people do actually need saving from themselves.

On the flip side, it cracks me the **** up that so many folks go on and on about how they never watch theatrical cuts, they always go for the extended version (if available) as being truer to the director's “vision”...but whenever Star Wars enters the game those same people wouldn’t piss on Lucas’ director's cuts if they were on fire. Not throwing shade, just making the point that on either side of the argument there’s room to manoeuvre.

People misinterpret what auteur theory actually is.

It's not that the film director is the sole author and authority on what goes into making a film, but that out of everyone involved with a project it is the director who gets primary authorship.

Go back and read the original Cahiers du Cinema article about it, and it's about finding out who's responsible for a series of French literary adaptations that have gone wrong, in the eyes of the writer, ultimately pointing at the director.

Film isn't like writing a novel, and even then novel writers have editors who tell them to tighten up sections, delete sections, and remake characters. Directors have a lot of say in how things come together in most cases, but they do not have every say. It was especially different in the studio era where producers were more commonly involved in creative decisions like David O. Selznick on something like Hitchcock's The Paradine Case. If I were to assign authorship to the MCU overall, it would go to Kevin Feige not any of the directors. Ridley Scott is well known to listen to his producers, especially after test screenings, and include their feedback.

In a messy world like cinema, assigning primary authorship to a film director over any other individual involved with a production is the probably least bad way to see who's responsible for the ups and downs of any project in general. It's like a model, and as George Box said, "All models are wrong, some are useful." Auteur theory is useful.

[Geoff D]

I doubt most people even know what auteur theory is in the academical sense. (I certainly don’t.) They just know that these poor put-upon directors are continually having their visions “butchered” by money-grubbing execs and that any and all extended versions are automatically betterer for it. Nah.

[Cognoscente]

Originally Posted by dvining

People misinterpret what auteur theory actually is.

It's not that the film director is the sole author and authority on what goes into making a film, but that out of everyone involved with a project it is the director who gets primary authorship.

Film isn't like writing a novel, and even then novel writers have editors who tell them to tighten up sections, delete sections, and remake characters. Directors have a lot of say in how things come together in most cases, but they do not have every say. It was especially different in the studio era where producers were more commonly involved in creative decisions like David O. Selznick on something like Hitchcock's The Paradine Case.

I'm reminded of something that I read in a topic about Poltergeist on Tapatalk's Classic Horror Film Board: "The question then isn't whether Hooper directed POLTERGEIST, but how many movies have active producer input, while others are more director-influenced. I think it's yet another reason why I think the auteur theory is just lazy, a way for a critic to not have to bother figuring out who did what on a movie, which would be different for every movie if one thought about it for more than two seconds.

It's not that Hooper didn't direct POLTERGEIST, then, but that the level of producer input was simply known. In thousands of other cases, we just assume the director had complete control, but we don't know, and haven't investigated the circumstances of each production, and never will, because it would be a project for each film.

Maybe if more people accepted that a movie is indeed a group effort and that the director's role is often not firmly set, especially when the producer is a strong one on a multi-million-dollar project (investors don't just let anyone spend their money), and that writers, cinematographers, editors and others often have much larger roles than the casual viewer might think, we wouldn't be thinking a movie's authorship is due to one all-powerful director every time."

[dvining]

Originally Posted by Cognoscente

I'm reminded of something that I read in a topic about Poltergeist on Tapatalk's Classic Horror Film Board: "The question then isn't whether Hooper directed POLTERGEIST, but how many movies have active producer input, while others are more director-influenced. I think it's yet another reason why I think the auteur theory is just lazy, a way for a critic to not have to bother figuring out who did what on a movie, which would be different for every movie if one thought about it for more than two seconds.

It's not that Hooper didn't direct POLTERGEIST, then, but that the level of producer input was simply known. In thousands of other cases, we just assume the director had complete control, but we don't know, and haven't investigated the circumstances of each production, and never will, because it would be a project for each film.

Maybe if more people accepted that a movie is indeed a group effort and that the director's role is often not firmly set, especially when the producer is a strong one on a multi-million-dollar project (investors don't just let anyone spend their money), and that writers, cinematographers, editors and others often have much larger roles than the casual viewer might think, we wouldn't be thinking a movie's authorship is due to one all-powerful director every time."

I'm currently working my way through Howard Hawks' filmography, and the impending question of The Thing from Another World is upon me. Do I include it? Christopher Nyby is the credited director, but it was produced by Hawks with Hawks on set for most of the production where he offered input.

Each movie really is different. Assigning ownership to the director really is the easy thing to do because it's probably right most of the time. It's not like editors just work in a vacuum with footage that the director hands them. Someone is there with the editor to make sure that scenes, shots, and performances mesh beyond the concerns of just the individual sequence. Is that the director? The producer? It's someone. The editor has their own style and form, for sure, though.

Another thing is that when viewing a director's body of work, most of the time there's commonality between the films that's undeniable. Back to the Future is very much a part of Zemeckis' filmography, especially in that early period of his career. It is of a piece with Romancing the Stone, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, and Used Cars, but Spielberg's influence is there as well. It's a mess to figure out who's directly responsible because there really isn't a good answer. The director as king is the least bad option, I think. It doesn't include a lot of information.

That perception has leaked into popular discourse over the decades where directors are held up on the pedestal to the point where the idea of questioning the director seems like questioning Joyce or Dickens. Well, Joyce become impenetrable by the end and Dickens definitely had to deal with editors throughout his entire career. Film has so many more input points, and directors are as fallible as anyone else.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don’t have a great deal (or any) evidence to support this, but I reckon more films have ended up betterer for their “corporate stamping” than people may think. Sometimes it does actually end up improving the film, despite the unyielding notion that the filmmakers are gods whose every whim should be respected and championed from the rooftops. God knows I spend enough time carping on aboot respecting creative intent up in here, but every so often a Storaro or Friedkin or Lucas will remind me that sometimes these people do actually need saving from themselves.

On the flip side, it cracks me the **** up that so many folks go on and on about how they never watch theatrical cuts, they always go for the extended version (if available) as being truer to the director's “vision”...but whenever Star Wars enters the game those same people wouldn’t piss on Lucas’ director's cuts if they were on fire. Not throwing shade, just making the point that on either side of the argument there’s room to manoeuvre.

[Geoff D]

Loosen up!

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Auteur Theory is often misunderstood and misapplied in order to provide a simplistic interpretation that the Director is the sole creative authority who makes all final decisions in perpetuity on what has happened or will happen with any given film.

All directors technically qualify as Auteurs under the superficial understanding of the theory but the real thrust of the argument is that some directors creative collaborative process exhibits such distinctive qualities in their body of work that sufficiently observant viewers can notice those unique aspects.

Assigning Auteurship to a director is not necessarily an affirmation of legitimacy or praise of their creative output but that is the common application, especially by the laymen.

[Show spoiler]
George Lucas and Star Wars is an interesting, and has been a longtime, mainstream example of Auteruship but also the importance of numerous positive contributions to the creative process. GL's original vision for SW that he was shopping around to studios was dramatically different from the ultimate produced product. Certain individuals from Fox provided some positive advice for shaping the narrative of SW:ANH but even during production and in the editing bay other voices played vital roles in elevating and improving GL's creative endeavour beyond his own initial decisions.

GL is the auteur and architect of the SW Universe but his creative vision has greatly benefited from positive input and contributions from many, many others.

It is true that there have always been some Studio heads who have not been positive influences on numerous film productions and should have stayed in their own respective lanes. When one is the financial facilitator of a production it is a tantalizing temptation to also believe ones own skill set also includes the creative.

However again there have been and are currently plenty of excellent producers and financiers who know how to best enable productions to achieve within reason much of the creative ambitions.

It is easy and simple to always vilify The Studio, Studio Suits, and The Producers and that understanding has plenty of examples to justify it but unlike popular belief it is not a binary Good vs Bad situation.

For the sake of simplicity it makes plenty of sense to assign primary creative responsibility to the Director with the good faith hope that they will be good stewards of their films for home theater releases. We have had sufficient examples where that has not been the case but more often than not it has been good to have the primary creative voices make decisions on home releases.

Rounding back to BTTF, it also benefited from the refiner's fire to make the shooting script better than the initial script treatment. For example changing from the Nuclear Test Site Time Machine scenario to the more dynamic and kinetic Delorean Time Machine and ultimately the Clock Tower Scenario.

In editing it is very easy to lose the forest for the trees and become too emotionally attached to a given cut that may work for the director but prove inefficient and less than ideal with an actual audience. Less can definitely be more but too little is also a problem as well.

With regards to original Director's Cuts versus released Theatrical Cuts, again that is something that should be taken on a case-by-case bases. Not all DCs or ECs are good nor are they all bad. In recent decades "Extended" or "Unrated" cuts have been nothing more than bad faith cash grabs rather than sincere attempts to provide a version that better reflects the desired creative intent by the Director.

For example with Ridley Scott some of his films the Extended or Director's Cuts are truly the superior edits and the Theatrical Cuts are serious compromises that under mine the narratives.

Now Alien is a prime example of the Theatrical Cut is the superior version and the "Director's Cut" is nothing more than a marketing misnomer for a simply Anniversary Alternative Cut. With Blade Runner Final Cut that for me is the best version of the film but it is fascinating to revisit the older cuts. Kingdom of Heaven, the Extended Cut is superior.

There are several more Extended versions by other directors which are indeed the superior versions of their respective films rather than the familiar TCs but I agree with Geoff, not all ECs are necessarily better and yes indeed there are some TCs which are inferior compromised edits that under serve or harm a given film.

Also agree with the sentiment many feel that with regards to BTTF the final Theatrical Cut is nigh on perfection.

PS I might provide my POV on "Studio Stamping" by referencing various classic films that were produced under the far more controlling Studio System of yore later or not. TLDNW: There are plenty of classic films that were produced under the Studio System that are well regarded and actually under cut some shallow arguments about Studio Influence is always negative or Auteur Theory. Ultimately though I agree letting the Creatives do the creation within reason is the best approach.

[david_blu]

At this point I had to scroll back up to the top of the page to remember what thread I'm in. Oh yes Back To the Future, great scott!

[emailking]

I wouldn't mind hypothetically seeing some brief clips of Stoltz as Marty but I wouldn't even want to see an alternate cut. I want BTTF to stay the way it is in my mind.

[batman2000]

I saw a review for bttf 1 and think for 2 that said the 4K blu ray wet either just 1080p or standard def so are the 4K transfers really that bad for the first two movie one review mentions the one part of the first movie this right here is the part one negative review mentions. but possibly the worst moments come in the scenes with Lorraine in the car towards the end, where detail appears to drop off, noise becomes apparent and, either through poor lighting or damaged stock, the shots just look sub-par. It's the worst the film gets and, even so, utterly forgivable in the grand scheme of the restoration of not just this but all three films in the trilogy.

[david_blu]

Originally Posted by batman2000

I saw a review for bttf 1 and think for 2 that said the 4K blu ray wet either just 1080p or standard def so are the 4K transfers really that bad for the first two movie one review mentions the one part of the first movie this right here is the part one negative review mentions. but possibly the worst moments come in the scenes with Lorraine in the car towards the end, where detail appears to drop off, noise becomes apparent and, either through poor lighting or damaged stock, the shots just look sub-par. It's the worst the film gets and, even so, utterly forgivable in the grand scheme of the restoration of not just this but all three films in the trilogy.

If you don't buy this set because of what you read somewhere and think they said x you are really missing out. This is the best the trilogy has looked without doubt.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by david_blu

If you don't buy this set because of what you read somewhere and think they said x you are really missing out. This is the best the trilogy has looked without doubt.

I've been gone for a while because life gets in the way sometimes, but I see he's still at it. Lol. I on the other hand just picked this set up this afternoon. I haven't watched any of the 4K discs yet, but I have watched part of the original on blu-ray. While it looks miles better than the 25th anniversary, it still looks as if Universal can't leave the grain management alone. It's 2021. Just friggin' stop already.