I love the second film the most out of the trilogy. As you said, experiencing the first film from a different perspective was brilliant and I also think that nightmare Hill Valley is one of the most interesting settings in the trilogy. Instead of being a romantic comedy with a sci-twist, the second film went all-out on the sci-fi and time travel aspect and that's why I adore the second film the most.
Exactly. It went all in and had 3 different timelines that had relevant things happen in each of them. The "horror" of marty discovering what happened to 1985 is just so engaging and fascinating!
Preach! I never understood this notion of the 2nd film being inferior to the first. It took that foundation and built something so much more engaging and mature. Sequels are supposed to raise the stakes to justify their existence, and that's exactly what Back to the Future II did.
I never got the sense that the “reward” at the end of the first movie was financial, at least not foremost, but rather that George gained a great degree of confidence and self-esteem that he clearly lacked in the original timeline, something I think Marty, who may have been sort of overcompensating, wished that he’d had, and ultimately taught him. It even kinda swings around to the other side in the third movie, how Seamus sort of teaches Marty to be less of a hothead and try to be cool in situations where he usually McFlies off the handle.
Agreed. They stopped being SLACKERS, and success followed. However since Twin Pines Marty (who grew up in the regretful snarky family) replaced Lone Pines Marty who grew up in the confident and openly loving family.... Then Marty continued to screw up in his future....till he saw how his reckless emotional or greedy choices would lead him to ruin....so he ERASED them and embraced the life of Lone Pine Marty.
Yeah now that I think about it's kind of a double-edged sword. Either George gains self-esteem and confidence and becomes extremely successful because of it, which is a satisfying ending. Or George gains self-esteem and confidence, with a loving family and wife, but still stuck in the same dead-end life. It makes sense why the chose the first one, the second would be so difficult to pull off and be satisfying but Glover does have a point.
Back to the Future is definitely the best in the trilogy, but Part II is very underrated. We see the present, past, future, and alternate present all in one film. Going back to the first film and reliving it in a different perspective was a pretty clever move by "The Bob's."
@@shaunsteele6926I said in another comment pretty much the same thing, plus that I was disappointed that it was only the first act. I’ve long since come to appreciate the darkness of the second act and the cleverness of the third. Part II is definitely underrated, or at least it was when it first came out; I think people view it more positively now.
I like them both pretty much the same, but for different reasons. I love how they kept the consistency of the timelines. A lot of timeline/time loop movies nowadays have consistency and continuity issues. It's like the writers overcomplicate and get confused over their own material 😂
I'm so happy that BTTF 2 wasn't just a boring retread of the original and instead got pushed into new territory for a sequel and really made something that people still enjoy watching and beign a part of. I think if they went ahead with the 1967 version, it would have ruined the reputation of the original because of the watered down sequel.
I think they did a good job on the look and feel of the 1950's. I have a feeling they would have overdone the late 1960's if they had made the mistake of making the film this way.
The two most brilliant time travel movies were both directed by Bob Zemeckis, The BTTF Trilogy and Contact. I was fortunate enough to get a sneak peek at BTTF-2 when I was coming home from my night shift job when I noticed really bright lights in my neighborhood, so I walked over to see what was going on and was thrilled to discover they were filming the Strickland shotgun porch scene. I had the same P.O.V. behind Zemeckis that you included in this video, I can imagine my much younger self there watching in awe, I made sure to fully absorb the experience for future reference. 😉 I'm so glad they didn't make the 1967 version.
This is a great find. I'm so pleased they didn't just retread the first, but set in the 60's. Doc getting his idea for the journey home from an Acid Trip! I can't imagine that getting made, in a PG!
@@sealteamsix1784 It's never made explicit that's what it is. They just say Wakeup Juice, which you can take to be a hangover cure. Being ambiguous about an Acid Trip would be harder.
Crispin clearly doesn't understand how wealth often works. It's not that George was rewarded with money, more that his confidence that began in 1955 was cultivated and he got himself together. He used that confidence to not only keep his girl and keep the spark alive, but was able to become a personal success, working hard and taking what he was deserved, not demanding it like a needy actor. Of course that version of 1985 George would be better off financially. Even if he failed several times, he would have the confidence and determination to do it again until he succeeded.
I can’t speak to what was on Crispin Glover’s mind exactly, but I think you can attribute all that stuff to George being a more confident person, and read that as the point of the ending, while still concluding that’s a lazy way to signal it to the audience. It’s straight out of the ‘80s yuppie gospel to boil all that down into “look, George has a BMW now,” as if it would either be too much work to get it across another way, or as if the audience would be too dumb to follow it if the evidence weren’t parked in George’s driveway. I still love the movie and the whole trilogy, but if there had been no sequels that would have felt like a half-assed way of resolving the story.
Come on, man. The ending spends more time showing off the family's new hot, expensive vehicles than showing George as a confident man and respected father. The ending doesn't really depicts George's evolution or his new relationship with Marty. It was never about family or character development. It's a blockbuster and it was the 80s. It was always about the money.
The ultimate "director's cut" would be the three films edited together seamlessly minus the opening credits to part 2 and 3, and end credits to part 1 and 2, so that the scenes that open the movies can flow smoothly (and so they don't need to repeat the closing scenes as opening the following film as done in Ep 1 -> 2 and Ep 2 -> 3.
They did a trilogy because Back to the Future was meant to be one big movie but they realized that would make it had to show in theaters because it would be 3-4 hours long
4:25. According to the narrator, in 1967, George (now married to Lorraine) is away at Berkely on a teaching fellowship. Lorraine was going to visit him there. Marty was supposed to be conceived at Berkely, BUT the problem with that is - where are Marty’s brother David and sister Linda ? They are older than he is. They were born a few years before Marty. So, where are they in 1967? They forgot to have the 2 older kids included or mentioned in this 1967 version.
I absolutely love this trilogy. It’s great to hear about the history and possible storylines. Growing up, we had a BETA tape where my dad had spliced all three movies as one. That was the first way I ever watched it and fell in love immediately.
He cut and spliced 3 different reels of tape, or did he just record them to tape consecutively? I never knew anyone with Beta, were you able to use slower recording speeds to fit more onto a tape? I know a "flaw" of Beta's higher quality was that many movies needed two tapes.
@@D-Fens_1632 you could definitely slow it down to fit more, but I don’t remember the quality as I was a kid and easily impressed. I meant that he recorded them consecutively.
@@D-Fens_1632 I'm glad somebody else wants to know this. What has the internet turned us into?! My family had BETA in the early 80's. Everybody else had VHS so there were very few films for us to rent. But at least we could record off TV :-) I'm sturggling to imagine getting 3 movies onto one BTEA or VHS tape, even in long player mode. That would be approximately 4.5 hours of tape required.... Maybe in long player mode on VHS, but you would have wanted a 3 hour tape to do that. I don't remember our BETA having long player recording mode. I don't want to suggest the original poster of this thread is not telling the truth, but I'm really fascinated as to how it happened. How did somebody, 30 something years ago, manage to get 3 films onto a tape. Is there any more urgent question in the world right now?
Yeah the fact that Doc Brown, already a full grown aging adult, even becomes a hippie is ridiculous. Hippie culture was a not a fashion statement that the whole country adapted to.
BTTF 1/2 gave me the worst case of the Mandela Effect because I got the mom and girlfriend actresses mixed up all the time. Then they recast the gf between movies and I was 100% sure I was going crazy lol
@Bulletsandblockbusters Actually not true.theirs a difference in the scene where doc says u got to come back with me.when Marty says,do we become aholes in the future, in Elizabeth version, doc eyes start thinking before he says oh no u & Jennifer turn out fine.in the original version, doc never does that with his eyes
Crispin Glover: I told Zemekis that the ending was bad because it implied that having more money equalled happiness. Also Crispin Glover: Pay me $1 million or else I won't take part in the sequel
I read somewhere once that he refused to take part in the sequel because all the other actors and actresses wouldn't do the work for free, as he thought that being allowed to be part of the franchise should have been reward enough. It was years ago so I can't remember the source, but I remember thinking "Crispin, you're a f*cking idiot."
Crispin wanted more money, he was all about the money, money money money, until he was refused to be given more money, then he played the "money sends out a wrong message to the audience" card. If Crispin had got the money he asked for, he would have been in the sequel for sure and would never have said anything about "wrong messages". With all the royalties from the sequels, the merchandise, the sales of the movie both as DVD/BR and digital online, he would have made millions more, he would have got his money down the track. But he chose to shoot himself in the foot. He didnt think ahead. Interesting that the movie was all about back to future yet Glover couldnt look ahead into the future to see the potential revenue earnings. And so he missed out. I bet he regrets his temper tantrum and decision to this day.
I’m still glad we got the version we have now, the original version is interesting though but I definitely love the Alternate 1985, it’s crazy that part also unintentionally predicted the future too because Hill Valley was supposedly in California and a lot of California cities are starting to look like that now along with Police being Militarized. Sometimes I joke around with friends and family and tell them I think we’re in the alternate timeline of BTTF 2 with everything going on all, but other than that like everyone else who saw this movie I wanted a hoverboard specifically the pitbull one along with the power lace Nike’s. But that moment in the movie where Doc raises Marty up after he jumps off the rooftop, forever iconic to me.
It's blowing me away that I never noticed George wasn't Crispin Glover for the whole movie lololol what is wrong with me? I love 2 and it's potentially my fave; I am a sucker for 80s futurism and I like the high stakes of the darker timeline. To the first movie, I never saw the ending as 'happier bc rich'; it showed the knock-on effect of George having won Lorraine through confidence instead of pity. He had a better life and more motivation to take chances, even if you might get hurt. Showing them as wealthier is just good 'show don't tell', and tbh you *are* happier when you're better off financially. He also vanquished his HS bully which meant he wasn't under that intimidation as an adult.
@@Bulletsandblockbusters I was sitting there thinking whaaaat??? Like some kind of Mandela moment 🤣 shocking considering how many times I've seen it 😅😁
I disagree with almost everybody on this comment board, I liked the ending where Marty's parents are successful and everybody is happy, "Back to the Future" isn't an arty fartsy, navel gazing, pretentious, existential crisis type movie (And I like some of those movies). Its a romantic sci fi/comedy that is pure fantasy and I think Glover was wrong. Of course everybody has their opinion but I think some people's opinions are based on making themselves feel bigger and smarter than other people by spewing out "The ending was SOOOOOOOOOOO materialistic and yuppie" with their nose in the air. So whats wrong with making your situation better in life both materially and spiritually? George McFly gained his confidence and it made him a better person.
As in many other spheres where the sentiment makes it so we can't have nice things, a lot of the time it's either a form of imposter syndrome and related guilt over what one does have, or a misguided attempt to blame anyone or anything other than one's self for what one doesn't have.
yes, the ending is great. I love it. It shows George has more confidence to go for his dreams. Financial reward is just the outcome of that. Saying otherwise is pretentious and unintelligent.
Another bonafide classic from Bullets and Blockbusters, I'm never left uninterested, you are one of the best narrators and documentarians out there man.
Although the second movie is dark I still like it . The first one is a masterpiece of cinema and the second is a little but still fun with the third one getting back to what made the first one great . I watched all 3 movies one night and I don't think there is anything I would want them to change.
I was only 8 when it came out so, when I saw that the travel to the future was only the first act of the movie, I was disappointed, especially when they went to 1955 again in the third act. But I came to appreciate it so much more when I revisited it years later… especially when they went to 1955 again in the third act, for the very reason Zemeckis gave for it. And after the past several years, I _really_ came to appreciate the second act not only for the darkness, but for it being a little close to home.
That the director had huge professional and personal issues with Eric Stolz, and then Melora Hardin... and then also Crispin Glover during a fraught filming schedule on a single film suggests something rather more to me than that they were all mysteriously 'difficult' to work with. It hints that Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale might have lacked experience with casting decisions, and simply ended up hiring actors whose styles and abilities did not match their own tastes and the needs of their script. Yet, instead of handling the situation maturely, they resorted to public outbursts of criticism against them for merely doing what they were good at. That their performances didn't match what Zemeckis wanted doesn't make them 'difficult' - rather it hints at their seriousness and professionalism, which wasn't being matched by their director. Eric Stolz is fired for giving a method performance that is too serious - despite being specifically known as a serious method actor. Hardin is fired for simply being taller than their leading man. Glover is criticised in front of other actors for his 'over-the-top' mannerisms - a bizarre criticism considering the presence he has on screen. Dean Cundey, director of photography, specifically praised the level of commitment and effort which Glover gave, often seeing him collapse into a chair exhausted after shooting. Zemeckis yelling at him for daring to suggest an ending where the reward is a loving family... when Gale and himself had been originally concerned that their script retain the idea that the time-machine is not intended to be for financial gain. Other people also have concerning interactions with Zemeckis and Gale: Jill Schoelen says that she ultimately was told she had not been cast as Jennifer due to looking too "exotic." It all suggests that, when placed under the pressure of their first leading actor not giving the performance they had imagined and having to start over, Zemeckis and Gale tended to succumb to the stress and increasingly snapped and cast blame for their obstacles and mistakes upon the rest of their cast.
Hardin being fired for being too tall is pretty common. Marty is already dwarfed by Doc and Biff, it would make his character look even worse if his own GF towered over him.
also Spielberg was the one that got Stoltz and later fired him, it was an intentional move to show the studio execs that they need to pony up the dough and pay Michael J Fox or the movie would flop.
9:11 What Crispin Glover did has saved ALL actors in Hollywood. And we almost outcast from all A movies for years after that! He paid a price for suing them. But imagine today, with AI face replacement and facial tracking. If NO actors could own their nature provided likeness.... It would be total chaos. Crispin Glover is a HERO. And he is greatly underrated.
Interesting about glover who was hard to deal with on set. You should cover more films who had actors who were a pain to deal with like Jim Carrey on man on the moon and Edward Norton on the incredible hulk.
Method actors that insist staying on character all the time sound as the most unbearable and unprofessional thing to deal with tbh. You are on the set you want to do the job and get things done not deal with a Leto or Carrey playing pranks and odd unpredictable behaviors to keep people tense and add problems in an already tight schedule. Do your job while shooting and that's it.
Norton was similar to Glover on the sense of instead just shooting and getting it done getting into arguments about the script. You didn't like argue BEFORE shooting during pre production.
While I think we got the better version of Back of the Future 2, but it could be cool to see a version of this story in the comics or something Also I never realized Otis Peabody was played by the crazy grandpa from Silent Night, Deadly Night or
7:12 I didn’t realize the “Bojo” guy from the future also played one of Needles’ friends. I also like how’s he’s perfectly holding a can of Pepsi so we can see the logo perfectly
I've watched this trilogy so many times. It never gets old. Especially loved the concept of the future that was portrayed in 2! It still looks cool, and I still wish flying cars were a thing. The videogame scene still cracks me up: "You mean you have to use your hands?? What a baby's game"
If you've ever been poor, you'd understand that money does bring happiness. Having the money to make sure all your needs are met is priceless. I assume the trouble arises when you insist on having amounts of money wildly beyond needs and comforts that it just becomes a competition of status symbols. At the end of the first movie, Marty's family does have more money and comfort, but not wildly so. It's the same house with added comforts. As for the truck, I'm sure it has it's uses other than that of a status symbol. It's iconic for its day, but there is no demand for such a truck anymore. It plays well with the glorification of the 80s which wasn't intended in the first movie. It was just a product of its time. When the 3rd movie came out in 1990, what was the present during the first movie was now 5 years in the past. A lot had changed in just 5 years.
Money also buys a certain amount of convenience. The convenience part is very overlooked. Let's say I have $10 in my checking account until I get paid on Friday. I have to pay rent and the monthly bills sometime between today, which is Monday, and next Monday when they're due. I have Wednesday afternoon off but I can't pay any bills or run any errands until I get paid on Friday. If I had a little more wiggle room in my checking account, I could pay the bills on Wednesday when it would be most convenient for me but I have to wait for that next check to hit, so I'm limited to paying on Friday, the weekend, or Monday. Stuff like that.
I like how Part 2 has 3 layers -2015 -Dark Hill Valley -Rehash the first film from a new perspective The 1960s version just sounded like the first film done differently
I remember binging the entire trilogy with my sister during winter break one year and the amount of excitement we had for the ending of part 1 and having it continued into part 2 was insane. I still remember the feeling of “what’s next!?” The second blew my expectations out of the water for what a sequel can be like. I swear, it had a bigger impact on me than the ending of empire strikes back. I’ll always adore these movies, and I hope to never see them be remade.
It's a good thing that cliffhanger was there in episode 1, or we might have gotten stuck with going back to the 1960s, but since they wrote themselves into a corner, we got a masterpiece instead.
The way I saw it at the end of the first movie George got SUCCESS from his greater confidence including the publishing of his first novel. I never had the sense of him being RICHER as such.....
The fun future 2015 would be where Marty is the principal of the High school dishing out late notices to Biff's grandkids, and allows music that's "too darn loud" for the school dance. At a parents and grandparents social evening at the school Marty plays "Johnny B Goode" with the band for nostalgia's sake, and this time with a standing ovation instead of shocked silence, he tells the school parents in the crowd (who were kids themselves in 1955.....) "You know, 60 years ago, I told you your kids were gonna love it, and they still do!"
*"THE LOST WORLD: Jurassic Park"* would make a great future video, since there were many differences between early script ideas and the final cut of the film.
The second one is my favorite. Future, alternate present, and re-living the first movie from another angle but with an upgraded DeLorean. Brilliant movie!
I’m so glad this didn’t happen. How can she not recognise Marty when it’s only been around 10 years since she last saw him and he looks exactly the same??
Find it interesting that Crispin Glover had issues with the McFly family gaining financial reward at the end of the first movie yet asks for more money than his costars for his role.
Picking up immediately after 1 ended, and filming 2 and 3 back-to-back, gave the trilogy’s story a much more complete feel than you usually get when it wasn’t originally planned that way.
@@Bulletsandblockbusters it blew my mind the first time I learned of it! I think it was on another You Tube video, so strange they kept it in the film haha
Some of the ideas seem interesting but I still prefer the BTTF Part II that we ended up getting. The going back to 1955 and seeing things from a different angle was a really cool idea and it makes you almost think that 1985 Doc and Marty are there in the background of the first film (at least in my mind haha). The hippie stuff of 1967 just doesn’t sit right with me, but then again, I didn’t grow up back then, so I can’t comment or speculate.
I don't buy any of the shit about Jennifer. The writers are WRITERS, do your job and MAKE her an interesting character. She barely appears in the first movie, so she's really a blank slate for whatever. They saw a limit in what was actually a possibility.
And part of being a writer is to not have a film bogged down with character development and story arcs that aren't necessary. Having a good tite script means to not fill the script up with a lot of unnecessary and irrelevant information just to do it. The film is about Marty, Doc and their nemesis Biff.
Are you forgetting about Lorraine being a central character in the first film? She’s written well clearly gender doesn’t have anything to do with it, it’s just not interesting writing Jennifer because she was never meant to be a major character
Bob Gale made a mistake there about The Three Musketeers and Four Musketeers being filmed back to back. It was actually shot as one movie, The Three Musketeers. Then during editing they decided to cut it into two movies. This led to a landmark legal ruling about doing that without paying the actors for two movies instead of one. The producers of that film however still liked the idea of filming a film and its sequel back to back that they made their next project Superman and Superman 2 that way.
The part in 2015 sounded good, but goes downhill in 1967 when it falls back on the tropes of the first film. The one good thing about that other script is the greater involvement of Jennifer. Overall, the movie we got is better!
Banging video as always Mr Bullets! With Gladiator 2 set to come out this year, have you considered doing what could have been Gladiator 2? There's a script floating around that I think was written as a joke where Maximus becomes immortal and lives to the present day that is prettier bonkers
I find it refreshing to see a film that really benefited from the maturation process. This is not a subdued dream but rather a polished and perfected vision. I absolutely love the film since it came out, and now I know how it came to be
This would have been an interesting story for the sequel but we got was still pretty good I had mixed feelings initially when I watched it but I loved it more over time definitely like the first movie from a different perspective angle of the third act and seeing the future in the first and the dystopia of the second definitely it's a nice balance of not repeating the predecessor as most sequels do while playing out with its predecessor
Awesome video. I had heard that the original was meant to be a one-off, but had no idea about the 1967 planned sequel. It was my belief that once the first struck gold, that 2 & 3 were written at the same time, with the future and western past as the most obvious destinations. For me, this trilogy is perfect the way they are and am glad the other film didn’t happen. Also, the Biff/Trump parallels have aged so well, #2 has such a fun re-watchability factor.
Trump parallels? They didn't put them in there for that then. Trump was a somewhat local celebrity of New York at that time still. If the movie features New York, you see him or a parody of him in it.
@@caiusmadison2996 He was most definitely already in the national popular culture consciousness and a common object of parody by the mid-80’s. If someone knew nothing else about him, they associated him with plastering his name on his casinos and hotels at that time. If they knew a second thing about him, it probably related to his gaudy lifestyle. He was absolutely a direct influence and that was a conscious part of the joke even back then.
The most frustrating thing about resolving the cliffhanger at the end of part one was that they should have given Jennifer something to do. The idea that she's a one-dimensional character is only true in that we never really saw her, so she's more of a blank slate, than one-dimensional, which is incredibly freeing. The fact that they were recasting her anyway, they could have taken the character in any direction they wanted. Also, Glover had a point.
Also, "they weren't misogynists, Jennifer is just a one-dimensional character"? Yeah?! And _why_ is that? Could it be _misogyny?_ I mean, to be fair, almost no one knew how to write for women back then, but they could have been the first. Wait, when did *Alien* come out? 1979... well, they could have been _among_ the first
@@Wendy_O._Koopa ''And why is that? Could it be misogyny?'' Orrrr they just weren't interested in writing a character who had already been relegated to the background in the first film, which is a perfectly reasonable creative decision.
@@Ale_LSHI agree. One of the biggest problems in writing a script is to not keep it tite and to have too many characters to draw the viewer in too many directions. Then those character need and some sort of development and some sort of growth.
@@BigSplenda1885 Yes, misogyny _is_ pretty cringeworthy. Thank you for bringing that up! But it could be worse, you could beg the question by saying that since she was poorly written in the first movie, she _had_ to be poorly written in the second and third.
@@futurestoryteller yeah it would require some really creative plot device. I’m sure Doc can rig up a parachute on the back like it’s a space capsule falling back down to earth 😆
@@jimjo8541 it would be best if it was saved by something that existed back in 1967 but not in 1985. like a mineshaft that was paved over since then, or a public swimming pool that was closed.
A) I'm no physics major but I wonder how long it would take a DeLorean to reach 88 MPH in a nose dive. B) remember that once they hit 88 mph they may travel to their destination but it would still be geographically the same place. So if they hit 88 mph in a nose dive 100 ft from the ground in 2015 Hill Valley they'd transport to going 88 mph 100 ft from the ground in whatever year they traveled to in Hill Valley. With a DeLorean that is damaged an unable to fly they'd still be in a nose dive with no way to pull out. They'd surely be dead.
seeing Marty and Doc in the 60s would've been interesting, but not sure it would've worked out that great. 1967 is only about 18 years earlier than 1985, it'd be like going back to 2006. Sure there was a stark cultural contrast between the 60s and the 80s, but it's such a short period of time. Marty's parents would already be married with two kids, Lorraine would probably be pregnant with Marty.
'eras' seemed more distinct back then. the 60s felt like the 60s since literally the first week of janurary 1970. the 80s was literally only a decade before GTA: vice city was released, but it completely captured the aesthetic (and other 90s movies did too). meanwhile now 2024 might as well be 2008 or 2004, it feels exactly the same.
You know, sometimes I think that they did NOT have to re-shoot the opening for this movie and totally could have copied it over since it is practically identical, but the fact that they did makes it so much better.
As much as I love Part 2, the initial premise is really dumb. You don't need to time travel to the future, to change the future. You can affect that change through the natural passage of time.
The idea of integrating yourself into the past was so awesome that anytime I see other movies do it gets me super excited; Insidious and Harry Potter 3 being two examples.
BTTF2 was brilliant and is my favorite of the trilogy because of the cool but dystopic future envisioned by the authors but also the very unique trope of having our protagonist go back and sneak around the set of the first movie! I don't think I've ever seen that before; other films may have copied it after this one.
I've heard the Bob's tell the "we regret the ending of part one" story many times over the years. I don't know why but it the solution just dawned on me. Part II begins the same as it does now but instead of a story they didn't want to tell, the Delorean pops back into view 3 seconds after it disappeared, Doc, Mary and Jennifer stagger out of the car with relief and commiserate about their adventure. That obligation to the original movie satisfied, the Bob's are free to write whatever they REALLY want with no restrictions.
@scalzmoney....that would suck ...you would have cheated the audience, The other movie ended with Doc saying something has to be done about your kids ...
I have watched many videos on the trilogy and I have to say thank you . Thank you for discussing this script I have seen people discussing it before they will just graze over it. I knew everything you said here but you did an excellent job. So thank you
I wasn't really crazy about Part 2, as I was really stoked at the end of the first one, where they were literally going into the future, complete with a flying DeLorean! However, they were only in the future for a small portion of the film, instead spending most of it back in the 50's again. I preferred Parts 1 and 3 much more. However, it's still better than this idea of going back to the 60's though. And this is my second favorite trilogy, after Lord of the Rings. And I heard that rumor back in the day that Crispin Glover was hard to work with. I didn't realize that he was recast until watching this.
I loved 2 as a kid because of the future stuff but I actually am bored by the whole sequence as an adult. The stuff going back to the 50s I find neat tho and I did like the nightmare hill valley sequence.
I remember seeing BTTFII in theaters. I remember being so amazed that there was a trailer for the third movie shown immediately after the second movie ended. Being a kid, I was like, “wait. They didn’t bring this trailer back FROM the future, did they? I mean how could the third movie already have been made when the second movie had just been released?!?”
How ironic that Glover claims he was arguing for the characters not to get a monetary award…while asking for $1million dollars for a very small role in the sequel. 😂
Good point lol. Also, monetary reward isn't the main message of the movie. It was that George has the confidence to stand up for himself, which builds a better relationship with Lorraine and it's just common that more confident people tend to have better success in what they do in life.
I honestly think sidelining Jennifer and not having Crispin Glover reprise George McFly were the movie’s two main flaws. It didn’t make sense for Doc to ask Jennifer to come along with them and then immediately backpedal and anesthetize her. Even as a kid I thought that was such a random plot point that to include in the movie. And don’t even get me started on the bizarre Crispin Glover mask they had that actor wear in the movie along with the bizarre decision to flip him upside down. I’m glad Crispin sued them for illegally using his likeness.
@@jesustovar2549 There's always this one idiot who feels he has to defend crap, lol. No, the third movie wasn't good, it was a total disaster and that they mostly just ripped off Time after Time was just pathetic.
@@shaunsteele6926 Lol, why? The plot was yet another rehash of the same old story. The love story was bad and as i said, a total rip off of Time after Time. Heck Mary Steenburgen even commented on it, saying that she basically plays the same exact character all over again and how uncreative it was. The western backdrop looks like that: A backdrop. It's horribly made. At least "Hell Valley" looks believable. Also the entire ending with the flying, time travelling tran is just way too goofy looking. And while BttF2 had a nice dark turn, BttF 3 is so bland, boring, vanilla PG rated and utterly forgettable. In this case, most critics back then were absolutely right. I watched all movies on January 1 (i do that ever year though usually i skip the third, this time i decided to just watch it as well) and yeah it once again reminded me what a massive drop in quality it was.
@@Bulletsandblockbusters i been here but holidays and family but i been watching seen the elf 1 when it dropped just didnt comment was watching on my firestick so i could show it to others.
I really wish Crispen could’ve been in the sequels, was a wonderful actor and his part in the movie was fantastic. I just wish he would’ve worried about his acting and let the others run the show. Still, it’s the best trilogy ever!!!😎
Fun Fact: While the actress for Jennifer Parker changed constantly, going from Melora Hardin (for the Eric Stoltz Cut) to Claudia Wells (in Part I) and Elisabeth Shue (in Parts II/III), her Japanese dubbed voice remains the same for the Japanese DVD release: Masako Katsuki (who was Michiru Kaiou aka Sailor Neptune in the original *"Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon"* anime series and the 2nd & 3rd installments of its film trilogy).
Japan is pretty good about voice actor consistency like that, since voice actors are highly respected there. If someone voices a character they typically have that role for as long as they want it unless something major happens that prevents it.
Without George upside-down you wouldn't have the perspective of the twin towers falling on that glitchy screen. Both movies were riddled with 9/11 precognitive references. I was such a fan of the first two movies (saw each 7 times in the theater) that when the towers did fall in 2001 I was expecting it, like following a script.
All due respect to the beautiful Elizabeth Shue, but I really like the original Jennifer even more. 🥰 I have an explanation for this: multiple universes! Marty didn't even notice that Jennifer changed! The same argument can be made for all the story discontinuities we've seen. We already know he changed time in some way. The multiverse idea means the original timeline exist. Maybe Eric Stolz is Marty in another universe. 😂
@@rmnffx....will you kiddies stop talking about multiverse....that idea wasn't even a thought back in the 80s .....it's stupid and way over used today
Channel 4 in the UK did a whole evening of stuff about this film on the actual day in 2015 they travel to. Including one re-cut of the movie with some flavour of the month TH-camr or whatever (much like how one of Queen Elizabeth II's jubilees was celebrated with an interview with some famous-for-five-minutes pop star giggling at merch from the 1950's). I always reckoned they should have got lookalike actors / early deepfakes and done a re-cut of Back to the Future 2, only done the 2015 scenes in something resembling the actual 2015. A "hoverboard" chase with those Segway-like things, old Marty being fired by email instead of fax etc. The flying car would be a little harder to explain, Doc could just say he'd also been to 2115 and got the tech for that.
On a side note, I honestly love how the second movie diverged from the first movie. The first movie felt more serious with Marty not used to time travel. The second movie kicks in and Marty is almost like a hero. He understands time travel and what he needs to do now. It also has the traditional blueprint of the first movie within the first 20 minutes or so but changes it to be something more sinister with Biff making himself rich. Hell, they even undo the romantic themes of the first one by temporarily SHOOTING GEORGE
In back to the future 2, there are hints of the wild best with docs shirt with a car, cow boys on horses and the part with doc saying he wanted to live in the wild west days.
I vehemently disagree with the notion that audiences want a sequel to be the same movie as the original just a little different. What we want is for a sequel to stay true to what was done in the original and continue with a new story within the characters and universe that was established. Perfect sequel example: Terminator 2. Perfect example of a sequel done wrong: Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens.
@@andrewmurray1550 True. What we got was a poorly executed retread of the original trilogy with new characters at the expense of the original characters.
BTTF 2 is the very best in the series. The only shame is it didn't have Crispin Glover in it. I don't know if Crispin got any awards for his portrayal of George in part 1, but he should have done. Perhaps they could create a retrospective Oscar or something similar?
It's kinda odd how the traveling to the future part is what sounds more appealing about BTTF2 but it ends up being the most boring part of the film, with a lot of it just being a retread of the first movie, while the later part of the film where it actually goes back to the first film to see the exact same scenes from a different perspective ends up feeling much more fresh and creative.
Everybody thought that Robert Zemeckis was planning sequels, when he was filming the first Back to the Future movie like George Lucas was planning to get sequels made, when he was directing the first Star Wars movie in 1977.
![[기초영어회화] 영어로 혼잣말 하기 | 필수 영어 표현 | 쉬운 영어 | 반복 듣기 | 병원](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/K1M600rvdcs/mqdefault.jpg)
I love the second film the most out of the trilogy. As you said, experiencing the first film from a different perspective was brilliant and I also think that nightmare Hill Valley is one of the most interesting settings in the trilogy. Instead of being a romantic comedy with a sci-twist, the second film went all-out on the sci-fi and time travel aspect and that's why I adore the second film the most.
Exactly. It went all in and had 3 different timelines that had relevant things happen in each of them. The "horror" of marty discovering what happened to 1985 is just so engaging and fascinating!
@@bassmunk My opinion exactly.
SAMEE
I couldn't have said it better myself!!!!
Preach! I never understood this notion of the 2nd film being inferior to the first. It took that foundation and built something so much more engaging and mature.
Sequels are supposed to raise the stakes to justify their existence, and that's exactly what Back to the Future II did.
I never got the sense that the “reward” at the end of the first movie was financial, at least not foremost, but rather that George gained a great degree of confidence and self-esteem that he clearly lacked in the original timeline, something I think Marty, who may have been sort of overcompensating, wished that he’d had, and ultimately taught him. It even kinda swings around to the other side in the third movie, how Seamus sort of teaches Marty to be less of a hothead and try to be cool in situations where he usually McFlies off the handle.
Agreed. They stopped being SLACKERS, and success followed.
However since Twin Pines Marty (who grew up in the regretful snarky family) replaced Lone Pines Marty who grew up in the confident and openly loving family....
Then Marty continued to screw up in his future....till he saw how his reckless emotional or greedy choices would lead him to ruin....so he ERASED them and embraced the life of Lone Pine Marty.
“Mcflies off the handle”
😂😂
God damn it. I hate that made laugh
I suspect that if the monster truck wasn't in the ending people wouldn't think that at all.
Yeah now that I think about it's kind of a double-edged sword. Either George gains self-esteem and confidence and becomes extremely successful because of it, which is a satisfying ending. Or George gains self-esteem and confidence, with a loving family and wife, but still stuck in the same dead-end life. It makes sense why the chose the first one, the second would be so difficult to pull off and be satisfying but Glover does have a point.
Successful authors get paid. That is what it conveyed. And rightfully so.
Back to the Future is definitely the best in the trilogy, but Part II is very underrated. We see the present, past, future, and alternate present all in one film. Going back to the first film and reliving it in a different perspective was a pretty clever move by "The Bob's."
as a kid in 1989, I LOVED the future scenes in part 2. As an adult having lived through the actual 2015, it's just kind of silly watching it now lol
@@shaunsteele6926I said in another comment pretty much the same thing, plus that I was disappointed that it was only the first act. I’ve long since come to appreciate the darkness of the second act and the cleverness of the third. Part II is definitely underrated, or at least it was when it first came out; I think people view it more positively now.
I enjoy it but it lacks the heart of the first movie.
One is the best. It's perfect.
I think the best part of the second movie was the intense cliffhanger ending. When I first saw that Western Union scene, it gave me chills
Nothing makes me feel older than BTTF2 being set in 2015!! 😅
USA Today put out that actual front page when that date arrived.
@@billkeithchannel 😲😲
How about joint pain? That makes me feel older than it being set in 2015.
@@seanpalmer2050 Turmeric capsules with 95% curcuminoids really helps those knees and joints.
Yes! And also, Blade Runner was set in 2015, if I remember correctly. Where are all the flying cars???
The best thing about BTTF 2 was the introduction of hoverboards, which we all want to have
And flying cars!
And endless Jaws sequels!
And small de-hydrated Pizza Hut pizzas.
And self drying clothes.
I was mad they never showed the guitar of the future. I wanted to know what kind of music would be huge in 2015
BTTF 2 was always my favorite of the three. Would rewatch it many times as a kid.
Mine too, I don't even have to hesitate when asked.
I like them both pretty much the same, but for different reasons. I love how they kept the consistency of the timelines. A lot of timeline/time loop movies nowadays have consistency and continuity issues. It's like the writers overcomplicate and get confused over their own material 😂
@@handsomeX
The 3 parts make a seamlessly perfect trilogy of a whole movie.
I'm so happy that BTTF 2 wasn't just a boring retread of the original and instead got pushed into new territory for a sequel and really made something that people still enjoy watching and beign a part of. I think if they went ahead with the 1967 version, it would have ruined the reputation of the original because of the watered down sequel.
I think they did a good job on the look and feel of the 1950's. I have a feeling they would have overdone the late 1960's if they had made the mistake of making the film this way.
@@jimkeskey Specially with how anti-hippie Hill Valley was going to be, there wasn't going to be much room for all out 60's fanfare
No it’s not enjoyable empire has some meat to it part 2 is a rehash with no enjoyment screw them all
@@gkroll8467 What?
@jimkeskey yeah, also the part about the Doc being a hippy & dropping LSD is just stupid. He was to old to be a hippy at that point.
The two most brilliant time travel movies were both directed by Bob Zemeckis, The BTTF Trilogy and Contact. I was fortunate enough to get a sneak peek at BTTF-2 when I was coming home from my night shift job when I noticed really bright lights in my neighborhood, so I walked over to see what was going on and was thrilled to discover they were filming the Strickland shotgun porch scene. I had the same P.O.V. behind Zemeckis that you included in this video, I can imagine my much younger self there watching in awe, I made sure to fully absorb the experience for future reference. 😉 I'm so glad they didn't make the 1967 version.
That’s wild! Thanks for sharing that.
Oh wow I didn't realize Zemeckis directed Contact. Love that movie.
This is a great find. I'm so pleased they didn't just retread the first, but set in the 60's. Doc getting his idea for the journey home from an Acid Trip! I can't imagine that getting made, in a PG!
everyone is forgetting the scene in 3 where doc got drunk in the saloon and then had some cocaine juice to wake up.
@@sealteamsix1784 It's never made explicit that's what it is. They just say Wakeup Juice, which you can take to be a hangover cure. Being ambiguous about an Acid Trip would be harder.
@@sealteamsix1784 it was caffeine, not cocaine.
Things were rated differently back then than they are now. Back in the day like the 80’s, 90’s you’d have PG-13 movies with nudity
@@RND_Gaming sure, but there's no way a PG would have featured Doc dropping Acid to get an idea.
Crispin clearly doesn't understand how wealth often works. It's not that George was rewarded with money, more that his confidence that began in 1955 was cultivated and he got himself together. He used that confidence to not only keep his girl and keep the spark alive, but was able to become a personal success, working hard and taking what he was deserved, not demanding it like a needy actor. Of course that version of 1985 George would be better off financially. Even if he failed several times, he would have the confidence and determination to do it again until he succeeded.
He says money is not important and asks for 1 million dollars 😂
I can’t speak to what was on Crispin Glover’s mind exactly, but I think you can attribute all that stuff to George being a more confident person, and read that as the point of the ending, while still concluding that’s a lazy way to signal it to the audience. It’s straight out of the ‘80s yuppie gospel to boil all that down into “look, George has a BMW now,” as if it would either be too much work to get it across another way, or as if the audience would be too dumb to follow it if the evidence weren’t parked in George’s driveway. I still love the movie and the whole trilogy, but if there had been no sequels that would have felt like a half-assed way of resolving the story.
Come on, man. The ending spends more time showing off the family's new hot, expensive vehicles than showing George as a confident man and respected father. The ending doesn't really depicts George's evolution or his new relationship with Marty.
It was never about family or character development. It's a blockbuster and it was the 80s. It was always about the money.
And they can't be that much better of financially, anyway, as they still live in the same house!
@@RCassinello or he made a smart financial decision and didn't buy more house than he needed, but made it nicer. Again, mindset of a winner.
The ultimate "director's cut" would be the three films edited together seamlessly minus the opening credits to part 2 and 3, and end credits to part 1 and 2, so that the scenes that open the movies can flow smoothly (and so they don't need to repeat the closing scenes as opening the following film as done in Ep 1 -> 2 and Ep 2 -> 3.
I've seen attempts on the Internet Archives. Some are good but its kind of off balance with the recasting of Jennifer between one and two.
Back to the Future: Abridged would be the most longest movie ever.
@@maximusprime3459 We have deep fakes now, you only have to fake a few minute and you can have which ever Jennifer you prefer.
They did a trilogy because Back to the Future was meant to be one big movie but they realized that would make it had to show in theaters because it would be 3-4 hours long
The McFly family had modest financial gains. Crispin is blowing the ending out of proportion.
Exactly, it’s not financial gain, it was a gain in confidence and self esteem, that did ultimately result in that modest economic boost.
This
It's also confidence as the clothes and house style of 1985 at the beginning are safe, old fashioned and dull.
Exactly. They still lived in the same house. And just looked slightly upper middle class but it wasnt like they became millionaires.
After George became published, he surely didn’t get a mansion like Stephen King’s.
4:25. According to the narrator, in 1967, George (now married to Lorraine) is away at Berkely on a teaching fellowship. Lorraine was going to visit him there. Marty was supposed to be conceived at Berkely, BUT the problem with that is - where are Marty’s brother David and sister Linda ? They are older than he is. They were born a few years before Marty. So, where are they in 1967? They forgot to have the 2 older kids included or mentioned in this 1967 version.
David and Linda are in the dinner scene. I just neglected to mention them.
The kids were either adopted later or Lorraine had conceived them already and they were living with her in a commune or some schitt.
I absolutely love this trilogy. It’s great to hear about the history and possible storylines. Growing up, we had a BETA tape where my dad had spliced all three movies as one. That was the first way I ever watched it and fell in love immediately.
I tried to do this myself with my first VCR. I couldn't decide where to have the end of 1 go into the 2nd with Jennifer changing actresses, lol.
He cut and spliced 3 different reels of tape, or did he just record them to tape consecutively? I never knew anyone with Beta, were you able to use slower recording speeds to fit more onto a tape? I know a "flaw" of Beta's higher quality was that many movies needed two tapes.
@@D-Fens_1632 you could definitely slow it down to fit more, but I don’t remember the quality as I was a kid and easily impressed. I meant that he recorded them consecutively.
@@D-Fens_1632 I'm glad somebody else wants to know this. What has the internet turned us into?! My family had BETA in the early 80's. Everybody else had VHS so there were very few films for us to rent. But at least we could record off TV :-) I'm sturggling to imagine getting 3 movies onto one BTEA or VHS tape, even in long player mode. That would be approximately 4.5 hours of tape required.... Maybe in long player mode on VHS, but you would have wanted a 3 hour tape to do that. I don't remember our BETA having long player recording mode. I don't want to suggest the original poster of this thread is not telling the truth, but I'm really fascinated as to how it happened. How did somebody, 30 something years ago, manage to get 3 films onto a tape. Is there any more urgent question in the world right now?
I seriously doubt he “spliced” all three movies as one. I’m SURE he just recorded all three movies back to back. . .
Not every person in the late 1960’s was a hippie; they were a subculture, mostly found around major cities. Does Hollywood know this?
Yeah the fact that Doc Brown, already a full grown aging adult, even becomes a hippie is ridiculous. Hippie culture was a not a fashion statement that the whole country adapted to.
It's influence was greater than you are giving it credit for
They were just a loud minority, like today with pro Palestine, just stop oil, BLM etc
You're wrong! Everyone was a hippie then!
Doc was from swing jazz era
BTTF 1/2 gave me the worst case of the Mandela Effect because I got the mom and girlfriend actresses mixed up all the time. Then they recast the gf between movies and I was 100% sure I was going crazy lol
Hahaha
@Bulletsandblockbusters Actually not true.theirs a difference in the scene where doc says u got to come back with me.when Marty says,do we become aholes in the future, in Elizabeth version, doc eyes start thinking before he says oh no u & Jennifer turn out fine.in the original version, doc never does that with his eyes
Crispin Glover: I told Zemekis that the ending was bad because it implied that having more money equalled happiness. Also Crispin Glover: Pay me $1 million or else I won't take part in the sequel
IKR. Riddle me that.
Marxism is a helluva drug
I read somewhere once that he refused to take part in the sequel because all the other actors and actresses wouldn't do the work for free, as he thought that being allowed to be part of the franchise should have been reward enough. It was years ago so I can't remember the source, but I remember thinking "Crispin, you're a f*cking idiot."
Crispin wanted more money, he was all about the money, money money money, until he was refused to be given more money, then he played the "money sends out a wrong message to the audience" card.
If Crispin had got the money he asked for, he would have been in the sequel for sure and would never have said anything about "wrong messages".
With all the royalties from the sequels, the merchandise, the sales of the movie both as DVD/BR and digital online, he would have made millions more, he would have got his money down the track.
But he chose to shoot himself in the foot. He didnt think ahead. Interesting that the movie was all about back to future yet Glover couldnt look ahead into the future to see the potential revenue earnings. And so he missed out. I bet he regrets his temper tantrum and decision to this day.
Show me the money!
I’m still glad we got the version we have now, the original version is interesting though but I definitely love the Alternate 1985, it’s crazy that part also unintentionally predicted the future too because Hill Valley was supposedly in California and a lot of California cities are starting to look like that now along with Police being Militarized. Sometimes I joke around with friends and family and tell them I think we’re in the alternate timeline of BTTF 2 with everything going on all, but other than that like everyone else who saw this movie I wanted a hoverboard specifically the pitbull one along with the power lace Nike’s. But that moment in the movie where Doc raises Marty up after he jumps off the rooftop, forever iconic to me.
It's blowing me away that I never noticed George wasn't Crispin Glover for the whole movie lololol what is wrong with me? I love 2 and it's potentially my fave; I am a sucker for 80s futurism and I like the high stakes of the darker timeline.
To the first movie, I never saw the ending as 'happier bc rich'; it showed the knock-on effect of George having won Lorraine through confidence instead of pity. He had a better life and more motivation to take chances, even if you might get hurt. Showing them as wealthier is just good 'show don't tell', and tbh you *are* happier when you're better off financially. He also vanquished his HS bully which meant he wasn't under that intimidation as an adult.
Haha as I was making this I was wondering if there’s anyone out there that doesn’t know this.
@@Bulletsandblockbusters I was sitting there thinking whaaaat??? Like some kind of Mandela moment 🤣 shocking considering how many times I've seen it 😅😁
LMAO
I disagree with almost everybody on this comment board, I liked the ending where Marty's parents are successful and everybody is happy, "Back to the Future" isn't an arty fartsy, navel gazing, pretentious, existential crisis type movie (And I like some of those movies). Its a romantic sci fi/comedy that is pure fantasy and I think Glover was wrong. Of course everybody has their opinion but I think some people's opinions are based on making themselves feel bigger and smarter than other people by spewing out "The ending was SOOOOOOOOOOO materialistic and yuppie" with their nose in the air. So whats wrong with making your situation better in life both materially and spiritually? George McFly gained his confidence and it made him a better person.
As in many other spheres where the sentiment makes it so we can't have nice things, a lot of the time it's either a form of imposter syndrome and related guilt over what one does have, or a misguided attempt to blame anyone or anything other than one's self for what one doesn't have.
yes, the ending is great. I love it. It shows George has more confidence to go for his dreams. Financial reward is just the outcome of that. Saying otherwise is pretentious and unintelligent.
Another bonafide classic from Bullets and Blockbusters, I'm never left uninterested, you are one of the best narrators and documentarians out there man.
Thank you so much!!!! Means a lot
The man is 🔥
@@patrickbossio8044 hundo percent
Although the second movie is dark I still like it . The first one is a masterpiece of cinema and the second is a little but still fun with the third one getting back to what made the first one great . I watched all 3 movies one night and I don't think there is anything I would want them to change.
At some point sequels get very dark, like Empire Strikes Back or Temple of Doom.
I was only 8 when it came out so, when I saw that the travel to the future was only the first act of the movie, I was disappointed, especially when they went to 1955 again in the third act. But I came to appreciate it so much more when I revisited it years later… especially when they went to 1955 again in the third act, for the very reason Zemeckis gave for it. And after the past several years, I _really_ came to appreciate the second act not only for the darkness, but for it being a little close to home.
That the director had huge professional and personal issues with Eric Stolz, and then Melora Hardin... and then also Crispin Glover during a fraught filming schedule on a single film suggests something rather more to me than that they were all mysteriously 'difficult' to work with. It hints that Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale might have lacked experience with casting decisions, and simply ended up hiring actors whose styles and abilities did not match their own tastes and the needs of their script. Yet, instead of handling the situation maturely, they resorted to public outbursts of criticism against them for merely doing what they were good at. That their performances didn't match what Zemeckis wanted doesn't make them 'difficult' - rather it hints at their seriousness and professionalism, which wasn't being matched by their director. Eric Stolz is fired for giving a method performance that is too serious - despite being specifically known as a serious method actor. Hardin is fired for simply being taller than their leading man. Glover is criticised in front of other actors for his 'over-the-top' mannerisms - a bizarre criticism considering the presence he has on screen. Dean Cundey, director of photography, specifically praised the level of commitment and effort which Glover gave, often seeing him collapse into a chair exhausted after shooting. Zemeckis yelling at him for daring to suggest an ending where the reward is a loving family... when Gale and himself had been originally concerned that their script retain the idea that the time-machine is not intended to be for financial gain. Other people also have concerning interactions with Zemeckis and Gale: Jill Schoelen says that she ultimately was told she had not been cast as Jennifer due to looking too "exotic."
It all suggests that, when placed under the pressure of their first leading actor not giving the performance they had imagined and having to start over, Zemeckis and Gale tended to succumb to the stress and increasingly snapped and cast blame for their obstacles and mistakes upon the rest of their cast.
I always got the impression that Bob Gale was going out of his way to make Glover look bad
Well said!
Hardin being fired for being too tall is pretty common. Marty is already dwarfed by Doc and Biff, it would make his character look even worse if his own GF towered over him.
also Spielberg was the one that got Stoltz and later fired him, it was an intentional move to show the studio execs that they need to pony up the dough and pay Michael J Fox or the movie would flop.
Go watch Crispin Glover's appearances on Letterman and Carson. They are very bizarre and I can see why Zemeckis found him difficult.
9:11 What Crispin Glover did has saved ALL actors in Hollywood. And we almost outcast from all A movies for years after that! He paid a price for suing them. But imagine today, with AI face replacement and facial tracking. If NO actors could own their nature provided likeness.... It would be total chaos. Crispin Glover is a HERO. And he is greatly underrated.
Damn that's actually hella crazy to think about!
Interesting about glover who was hard to deal with on set. You should cover more films who had actors who were a pain to deal with like Jim Carrey on man on the moon and Edward Norton on the incredible hulk.
Jim wasnt in Man on the Moon, that was Andy. And Tony Clifton
Method actors that insist staying on character all the time sound as the most unbearable and unprofessional thing to deal with tbh. You are on the set you want to do the job and get things done not deal with a Leto or Carrey playing pranks and odd unpredictable behaviors to keep people tense and add problems in an already tight schedule. Do your job while shooting and that's it.
Norton was similar to Glover on the sense of instead just shooting and getting it done getting into arguments about the script. You didn't like argue BEFORE shooting during pre production.
Read the graphic novels from IDW for more BTTF content.
While I think we got the better version of Back of the Future 2, but it could be cool to see a version of this story in the comics or something
Also I never realized Otis Peabody was played by the crazy grandpa from Silent Night, Deadly Night or
7:12 I didn’t realize the “Bojo” guy from the future also played one of Needles’ friends. I also like how’s he’s perfectly holding a can of Pepsi so we can see the logo perfectly
I've watched this trilogy so many times. It never gets old. Especially loved the concept of the future that was portrayed in 2! It still looks cool, and I still wish flying cars were a thing. The videogame scene still cracks me up: "You mean you have to use your hands?? What a baby's game"
If you've ever been poor, you'd understand that money does bring happiness. Having the money to make sure all your needs are met is priceless. I assume the trouble arises when you insist on having amounts of money wildly beyond needs and comforts that it just becomes a competition of status symbols.
At the end of the first movie, Marty's family does have more money and comfort, but not wildly so. It's the same house with added comforts. As for the truck, I'm sure it has it's uses other than that of a status symbol. It's iconic for its day, but there is no demand for such a truck anymore. It plays well with the glorification of the 80s which wasn't intended in the first movie. It was just a product of its time. When the 3rd movie came out in 1990, what was the present during the first movie was now 5 years in the past. A lot had changed in just 5 years.
Money also buys a certain amount of convenience. The convenience part is very overlooked. Let's say I have $10 in my checking account until I get paid on Friday. I have to pay rent and the monthly bills sometime between today, which is Monday, and next Monday when they're due. I have Wednesday afternoon off but I can't pay any bills or run any errands until I get paid on Friday. If I had a little more wiggle room in my checking account, I could pay the bills on Wednesday when it would be most convenient for me but I have to wait for that next check to hit, so I'm limited to paying on Friday, the weekend, or Monday. Stuff like that.
I like how Part 2 has 3 layers
-2015
-Dark Hill Valley
-Rehash the first film from a new perspective
The 1960s version just sounded like the first film done differently
Best trilogy off all time
I remember binging the entire trilogy with my sister during winter break one year and the amount of excitement we had for the ending of part 1 and having it continued into part 2 was insane. I still remember the feeling of “what’s next!?” The second blew my expectations out of the water for what a sequel can be like. I swear, it had a bigger impact on me than the ending of empire strikes back. I’ll always adore these movies, and I hope to never see them be remade.
It's a good thing that cliffhanger was there in episode 1, or we might have gotten stuck with going back to the 1960s, but since they wrote themselves into a corner, we got a masterpiece instead.
One thing I like about Back to the future is mainly the locomotive from the third film, knowing that I happen to be a train enthusisast.
The way I saw it at the end of the first movie George got SUCCESS from his greater confidence including the publishing of his first novel. I never had the sense of him being RICHER as such.....
The fun future 2015 would be where Marty is the principal of the High school dishing out late notices to Biff's grandkids, and allows music that's "too darn loud" for the school dance. At a parents and grandparents social evening at the school Marty plays "Johnny B Goode" with the band for nostalgia's sake, and this time with a standing ovation instead of shocked silence, he tells the school parents in the crowd (who were kids themselves in 1955.....) "You know, 60 years ago, I told you your kids were gonna love it, and they still do!"
You sound like you write for Disney. LOL
Marty as the Hill Valley High School principal sounds awesome.
Very few parents of high school kids in 2015 were even born by 1955.
*"THE LOST WORLD: Jurassic Park"* would make a great future video, since there were many differences between early script ideas and the final cut of the film.
The second one is my favorite. Future, alternate present, and re-living the first movie from another angle but with an upgraded DeLorean. Brilliant movie!
I’m so glad this didn’t happen. How can she not recognise Marty when it’s only been around 10 years since she last saw him and he looks exactly the same??
Also why does she bail him out? Because he has the surname McFly? Does she assume he's a distant cousin of George?
I can see a good chunk of what we got ended up in the final film, and though this has some interesting ideas I'm happy with what we got
Same here
It would be great to see an outtake video from original. Especially since they replaced the original Marty with Fox.
Find it interesting that Crispin Glover had issues with the McFly family gaining financial reward at the end of the first movie yet asks for more money than his costars for his role.
He is a tool
Picking up immediately after 1 ended, and filming 2 and 3 back-to-back, gave the trilogy’s story a much more complete feel than you usually get when it wasn’t originally planned that way.
Without Jennifer, we would have never had the iconic “I’ll old!/I’m young!” moment.
Great video! Appreciate you using the clip from III with Doc's creepy kid pointing to his bits hahaha
Haha was waiting for someone to point that out
From what I remember the kid was indicating he had to pee lol it's always hilarious to watch nonetheless
@@Bulletsandblockbusters it blew my mind the first time I learned of it! I think it was on another You Tube video, so strange they kept it in the film haha
Some of the ideas seem interesting but I still prefer the BTTF Part II that we ended up getting. The going back to 1955 and seeing things from a different angle was a really cool idea and it makes you almost think that 1985 Doc and Marty are there in the background of the first film (at least in my mind haha). The hippie stuff of 1967 just doesn’t sit right with me, but then again, I didn’t grow up back then, so I can’t comment or speculate.
It's so weird viewing that future 2015 scene actually in the past now.
I don't buy any of the shit about Jennifer. The writers are WRITERS, do your job and MAKE her an interesting character. She barely appears in the first movie, so she's really a blank slate for whatever. They saw a limit in what was actually a possibility.
Aren't mainstream Hollywood writers tasked with the job of making profitable films, tho ???
And part of being a writer is to not have a film bogged down with character development and story arcs that aren't necessary. Having a good tite script means to not fill the script up with a lot of unnecessary and irrelevant information just to do it. The film is about Marty, Doc and their nemesis Biff.
Are you forgetting about Lorraine being a central character in the first film? She’s written well clearly gender doesn’t have anything to do with it, it’s just not interesting writing Jennifer because she was never meant to be a major character
Bob Gale made a mistake there about The Three Musketeers and Four Musketeers being filmed back to back. It was actually shot as one movie, The Three Musketeers. Then during editing they decided to cut it into two movies. This led to a landmark legal ruling about doing that without paying the actors for two movies instead of one. The producers of that film however still liked the idea of filming a film and its sequel back to back that they made their next project Superman and Superman 2 that way.
The part in 2015 sounded good, but goes downhill in 1967 when it falls back on the tropes of the first film. The one good thing about that other script is the greater involvement of Jennifer. Overall, the movie we got is better!
Banging video as always Mr Bullets!
With Gladiator 2 set to come out this year, have you considered doing what could have been Gladiator 2? There's a script floating around that I think was written as a joke where Maximus becomes immortal and lives to the present day that is prettier bonkers
Oh ya! I’ll def be doing it closer to release
Look forward to it as always!
One thing bttf2 has that the others dont is it goes to the past, features a parallel timeline and the future, so theres alot of variety there
I find it refreshing to see a film that really benefited from the maturation process. This is not a subdued dream but rather a polished and perfected vision. I absolutely love the film since it came out, and now I know how it came to be
I absolutely love BTTF 2, the whole trilogy is amazing but part 2 is by far my favorite
Sorry folks, Jennifer 1 was much hotter.
I'm not sorry
I used to think so too but Elizabeth shue is steaming
@@AlphonseWeebay haha that's funny. As a kid I thought Wonder woman 1977 Lynda Carter had a really fat @ss. Now I find her quite shapely.
@@AlphonseWeebay she stood the test of time... still hot to this day... but as the role of jennifer, jennifer 1 is still hotter
This would have been an interesting story for the sequel but we got was still pretty good I had mixed feelings initially when I watched it but I loved it more over time definitely like the first movie from a different perspective angle of the third act and seeing the future in the first and the dystopia of the second definitely it's a nice balance of not repeating the predecessor as most sequels do while playing out with its predecessor
Awesome video. I had heard that the original was meant to be a one-off, but had no idea about the 1967 planned sequel. It was my belief that once the first struck gold, that 2 & 3 were written at the same time, with the future and western past as the most obvious destinations. For me, this trilogy is perfect the way they are and am glad the other film didn’t happen. Also, the Biff/Trump parallels have aged so well, #2 has such a fun re-watchability factor.
Trump parallels? They didn't put them in there for that then. Trump was a somewhat local celebrity of New York at that time still. If the movie features New York, you see him or a parody of him in it.
@@caiusmadison2996 He was most definitely already in the national popular culture consciousness and a common object of parody by the mid-80’s. If someone knew nothing else about him, they associated him with plastering his name on his casinos and hotels at that time. If they knew a second thing about him, it probably related to his gaudy lifestyle. He was absolutely a direct influence and that was a conscious part of the joke even back then.
Thomas F Wilson should run against Mr Trump and politely request that he "make like a tree and get outta here!".
The most frustrating thing about resolving the cliffhanger at the end of part one was that they should have given Jennifer something to do. The idea that she's a one-dimensional character is only true in that we never really saw her, so she's more of a blank slate, than one-dimensional, which is incredibly freeing. The fact that they were recasting her anyway, they could have taken the character in any direction they wanted.
Also, Glover had a point.
Also, "they weren't misogynists, Jennifer is just a one-dimensional character"? Yeah?! And _why_ is that? Could it be _misogyny?_ I mean, to be fair, almost no one knew how to write for women back then, but they could have been the first. Wait, when did *Alien* come out? 1979... well, they could have been _among_ the first
@@Wendy_O._Koopa ''And why is that? Could it be misogyny?'' Orrrr they just weren't interested in writing a character who had already been relegated to the background in the first film, which is a perfectly reasonable creative decision.
@@Ale_LSHI agree. One of the biggest problems in writing a script is to not keep it tite and to have too many characters to draw the viewer in too many directions. Then those character need and some sort of development and some sort of growth.
@@Wendy_O._Koopa cringe
@@BigSplenda1885 Yes, misogyny _is_ pretty cringeworthy. Thank you for bringing that up! But it could be worse, you could beg the question by saying that since she was poorly written in the first movie, she _had_ to be poorly written in the second and third.
I would have liked to see the Time Machine doing the free fall to get up to 88 mph. But that’s about it from this scrapped idea.
Maybe they had to scrap it because if the car nosedives it's going to kill them both when it lands at their destination
@@futurestoryteller yeah it would require some really creative plot device. I’m sure Doc can rig up a parachute on the back like it’s a space capsule falling back down to earth 😆
@@jimjo8541 it would be best if it was saved by something that existed back in 1967 but not in 1985.
like a mineshaft that was paved over since then, or a public swimming pool that was closed.
@@sealteamsix1784 yeah I like the pool idea 😆 although you’d need to cover the car in rice to dry it out for the next time jump.
A) I'm no physics major but I wonder how long it would take a DeLorean to reach 88 MPH in a nose dive.
B) remember that once they hit 88 mph they may travel to their destination but it would still be geographically the same place. So if they hit 88 mph in a nose dive 100 ft from the ground in 2015 Hill Valley they'd transport to going 88 mph 100 ft from the ground in whatever year they traveled to in Hill Valley. With a DeLorean that is damaged an unable to fly they'd still be in a nose dive with no way to pull out. They'd surely be dead.
The original Jennifer actress was so much better
I agree. I like Elizabeth Shue as an actress but I always thought that she was miscast in the 2 sequels.
I know a lot of people would even cite BTTF Part Two as the inspiration for Avengers Endgame.
seeing Marty and Doc in the 60s would've been interesting, but not sure it would've worked out that great. 1967 is only about 18 years earlier than 1985, it'd be like going back to 2006. Sure there was a stark cultural contrast between the 60s and the 80s, but it's such a short period of time. Marty's parents would already be married with two kids, Lorraine would probably be pregnant with Marty.
'eras' seemed more distinct back then.
the 60s felt like the 60s since literally the first week of janurary 1970.
the 80s was literally only a decade before GTA: vice city was released, but it completely captured the aesthetic (and other 90s movies did too).
meanwhile now 2024 might as well be 2008 or 2004, it feels exactly the same.
You know, sometimes I think that they did NOT have to re-shoot the opening for this movie and totally could have copied it over since it is practically identical, but the fact that they did makes it so much better.
As much as I love Part 2, the initial premise is really dumb. You don't need to time travel to the future, to change the future. You can affect that change through the natural passage of time.
That's something that bugs me to this day. Why can't Doc just come back and give them a few words of wisdom and leave it at that?
And THAT is why this trilogy was so incredibly successful. The focus is on both Doc and Marty from the very beginning.
The idea of integrating yourself into the past was so awesome that anytime I see other movies do it gets me super excited; Insidious and Harry Potter 3 being two examples.
BTTF2 was brilliant and is my favorite of the trilogy because of the cool but dystopic future envisioned by the authors but also the very unique trope of having our protagonist go back and sneak around the set of the first movie! I don't think I've ever seen that before; other films may have copied it after this one.
I've heard the Bob's tell the "we regret the ending of part one" story many times over the years. I don't know why but it the solution just dawned on me. Part II begins the same as it does now but instead of a story they didn't want to tell, the Delorean pops back into view 3 seconds after it disappeared, Doc, Mary and Jennifer stagger out of the car with relief and commiserate about their adventure. That obligation to the original movie satisfied, the Bob's are free to write whatever they REALLY want with no restrictions.
@scalzmoney....that would suck ...you would have cheated the audience, The other movie ended with Doc saying something has to be done about your kids ...
@@williamwilkinson6665Yeah. It seems to be a bit of bait and switch. That would have pissed a lot of people off.
The second film is my favorite although the first is still definitely the best in my opinion. The going back into the first one was genius.
I’d like to see a video about the proposed sequel to Forrest Gump.
I have watched many videos on the trilogy and I have to say thank you . Thank you for discussing this script I have seen people discussing it before they will just graze over it. I knew everything you said here but you did an excellent job. So thank you
My pleasure. Glad you enjoyed it
I wasn't really crazy about Part 2, as I was really stoked at the end of the first one, where they were literally going into the future, complete with a flying DeLorean! However, they were only in the future for a small portion of the film, instead spending most of it back in the 50's again. I preferred Parts 1 and 3 much more. However, it's still better than this idea of going back to the 60's though. And this is my second favorite trilogy, after Lord of the Rings.
And I heard that rumor back in the day that Crispin Glover was hard to work with. I didn't realize that he was recast until watching this.
I loved 2 as a kid because of the future stuff but I actually am bored by the whole sequence as an adult. The stuff going back to the 50s I find neat tho and I did like the nightmare hill valley sequence.
At least we could say that Part 2 had the most influence on the once extremely popular and now missed BTTF ride at Universal's theme parks.
@@BulletsandblockbustersBut it's still fun to see how they imagined 2015, some invents became real, like the hoverboards.
@@nicksorenson940My mother went on that ride.
For sure!
I remember seeing BTTFII in theaters. I remember being so amazed that there was a trailer for the third movie shown immediately after the second movie ended. Being a kid, I was like, “wait. They didn’t bring this trailer back FROM the future, did they? I mean how could the third movie already have been made when the second movie had just been released?!?”
How ironic that Glover claims he was arguing for the characters not to get a monetary award…while asking for $1million dollars for a very small role in the sequel. 😂
Haha yup. Although I feel like he was asking for so much because he didn’t want to do it.
Good point lol. Also, monetary reward isn't the main message of the movie. It was that George has the confidence to stand up for himself, which builds a better relationship with Lorraine and it's just common that more confident people tend to have better success in what they do in life.
I honestly think sidelining Jennifer and not having Crispin Glover reprise George McFly were the movie’s two main flaws.
It didn’t make sense for Doc to ask Jennifer to come along with them and then immediately backpedal and anesthetize her. Even as a kid I thought that was such a random plot point that to include in the movie.
And don’t even get me started on the bizarre Crispin Glover mask they had that actor wear in the movie along with the bizarre decision to flip him upside down. I’m glad Crispin sued them for illegally using his likeness.
Back to the future 1 and 2 are two of the greatest films ever made
100% agree
3 is still good tho
@@jesustovar2549 There's always this one idiot who feels he has to defend crap, lol. No, the third movie wasn't good, it was a total disaster and that they mostly just ripped off Time after Time was just pathetic.
@@ShadowAngel-lt8nw Part 3 was a masterpiece compared to part 2
@@shaunsteele6926 Lol, why? The plot was yet another rehash of the same old story. The love story was bad and as i said, a total rip off of Time after Time. Heck Mary Steenburgen even commented on it, saying that she basically plays the same exact character all over again and how uncreative it was.
The western backdrop looks like that: A backdrop. It's horribly made. At least "Hell Valley" looks believable.
Also the entire ending with the flying, time travelling tran is just way too goofy looking.
And while BttF2 had a nice dark turn, BttF 3 is so bland, boring, vanilla PG rated and utterly forgettable.
In this case, most critics back then were absolutely right.
I watched all movies on January 1 (i do that ever year though usually i skip the third, this time i decided to just watch it as well) and yeah it once again reminded me what a massive drop in quality it was.
HAPPY NEW YEAR BOSSMAN great start of the year with this 1
You’re back!
@@Bulletsandblockbusters i been here but holidays and family but i been watching seen the elf 1 when it dropped just didnt comment was watching on my firestick so i could show it to others.
My man!
Well I think we live in the better timeline because I'm not sure this movie would be better than the one we eventyally got.
I really wish Crispen could’ve been in the sequels, was a wonderful actor and his part in the movie was fantastic. I just wish he would’ve worried about his acting and let the others run the show. Still, it’s the best trilogy ever!!!😎
If Jennifer isn't interesting, that's the writers fault. Make her interesting.
Now im stuck on your videos... great work!
Thank you. Enjoy!
Fun Fact:
While the actress for Jennifer Parker changed constantly, going from
Melora Hardin (for the Eric Stoltz Cut)
to Claudia Wells (in Part I) and
Elisabeth Shue (in Parts II/III), her Japanese dubbed voice remains the same for the Japanese DVD release: Masako Katsuki (who was Michiru Kaiou aka Sailor Neptune in the original *"Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon"* anime series and the 2nd & 3rd installments
of its film trilogy).
Japan is pretty good about voice actor consistency like that, since voice actors are highly respected there.
If someone voices a character they typically have that role for as long as they want it unless something major happens that prevents it.
Without George upside-down you wouldn't have the perspective of the twin towers falling on that glitchy screen. Both movies were riddled with 9/11 precognitive references. I was such a fan of the first two movies (saw each 7 times in the theater) that when the towers did fall in 2001 I was expecting it, like following a script.
Great Scott! I remember playing the Telltale Back to the Future game, so fun.
One of the best trilogies in film history!
All due respect to the beautiful Elizabeth Shue, but I really like the original Jennifer even more. 🥰
I have an explanation for this: multiple universes! Marty didn't even notice that Jennifer changed!
The same argument can be made for all the story discontinuities we've seen.
We already know he changed time in some way. The multiverse idea means the original timeline exist. Maybe Eric Stolz is Marty in another universe. 😂
It's fascinating that these creative writers couldn't write her to be an interesting character.
@@rmnffx....will you kiddies stop talking about multiverse....that idea wasn't even a thought back in the 80s .....it's stupid and way over used today
"Maybe Eric Stolz is Marty in another universe."
He is in the altered DCEU timeline of the Flash movie.
Alt universe.. seriously !
Actor had life issue & they recast her.
Shouldn't be time you let go your training pants fantasy idea's ?
@@rmnffx It's just creating another timeline, not a universe or others, though.
“You named our son after the guy you just happened to bail out of jail while I was out of town nine months before our son was born?”
7:26- it never gets old!
Rumor is he still waiting to pee.
@@farscape1714who
He never worked in Hollywood again.
Apparantly he works in a pizza shop now and is really short.
Wonder what they did to him.
Channel 4 in the UK did a whole evening of stuff about this film on the actual day in 2015 they travel to. Including one re-cut of the movie with some flavour of the month TH-camr or whatever (much like how one of Queen Elizabeth II's jubilees was celebrated with an interview with some famous-for-five-minutes pop star giggling at merch from the 1950's). I always reckoned they should have got lookalike actors / early deepfakes and done a re-cut of Back to the Future 2, only done the 2015 scenes in something resembling the actual 2015. A "hoverboard" chase with those Segway-like things, old Marty being fired by email instead of fax etc. The flying car would be a little harder to explain, Doc could just say he'd also been to 2115 and got the tech for that.
"The 2 Bobs" sounds like an auto shop 😄
Haha
Or characters from Office Space.
@@ScottCleve33 ha ha 😄
On a side note, I honestly love how the second movie diverged from the first movie. The first movie felt more serious with Marty not used to time travel. The second movie kicks in and Marty is almost like a hero. He understands time travel and what he needs to do now. It also has the traditional blueprint of the first movie within the first 20 minutes or so but changes it to be something more sinister with Biff making himself rich. Hell, they even undo the romantic themes of the first one by temporarily SHOOTING GEORGE
I love the dark version of hill valley
In back to the future 2, there are hints of the wild best with docs shirt with a car, cow boys on horses and the part with doc saying he wanted to live in the wild west days.
I vehemently disagree with the notion that audiences want a sequel to be the same movie as the original just a little different. What we want is for a sequel to stay true to what was done in the original and continue with a new story within the characters and universe that was established. Perfect sequel example: Terminator 2. Perfect example of a sequel done wrong: Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens.
the only flaw with Star Wars, is they waited to long to actually do any decent sequels, with the original cast.
@@andrewmurray1550 True. What we got was a poorly executed retread of the original trilogy with new characters at the expense of the original characters.
BTTF 2 is the very best in the series. The only shame is it didn't have Crispin Glover in it. I don't know if Crispin got any awards for his portrayal of George in part 1, but he should have done. Perhaps they could create a retrospective Oscar or something similar?
It's kinda odd how the traveling to the future part is what sounds more appealing about BTTF2 but it ends up being the most boring part of the film, with a lot of it just being a retread of the first movie, while the later part of the film where it actually goes back to the first film to see the exact same scenes from a different perspective ends up feeling much more fresh and creative.
Agreed 100%
I think you missed the point. It wasn't a "retread". History rhymes and has a way of being circular or a vortex.
@@billkeithchannel That's a BS excuse to just repeat the same idea.
@@Dreadjaws Current Hollyweird has run out of ideas. 95% of what is released is all reboots of established IPs.
the delorean nose diving to reach 88 mph would've been great
Living in California is like living in the alternate Hill Valley in Back to the future two. 😢
Back to the Future is the greatest Trilogy ever…I’ll die on that hill lol
Sorry Crispin, but money buying happiness is what the 80's were built on. 😅
Everybody thought that Robert Zemeckis was planning sequels, when he was filming the first Back to the Future movie like George Lucas was planning to get sequels made, when he was directing the first Star Wars movie in 1977.