Home Forums Ganymede & Titan Forum Something’s Gotta Be Done About Your Kids

Viewing 50 replies - 1 through 50 (of 100 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #101467
    TheLeen
    Participant

    Hah!

    #101466
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    Heheh. Indeed.

    I remember doing this with two DVD players and two TVs a few years back. Rather a lot of hassle, but nowhere near the amount of hassle as replicating a scene you filmed five years earlier just because of the recasting of a minor character.

    The “Marty, you’re acting like you haven’t seen me in week” is perfect.

    #101468
    Seb Patrick
    Keymaster

    You know, I was thinking recently about how to do an edit of all three films together (since I’m planning watching them back to back with someone shortly), and wondered what you’d do about that scene. I think my idea would have been to cleverly cut between the two, so that the transformation of Jennifer was a gradual one. Of course, it would have to involve losing as little Claudia Wells as possible.

    (that said, I’m not sure a full-length edit would work all that well. Both the first two films have such utterly perfect and triumphant endings (and so does the third, come to that) that you do actually want the chance to sit back and have a breather with a big grin on your face. Plus I love the trailer at the end of Part II.)

    (oh god I love BTTF. I wish I was watching the films right now.)

    #101470
    p2p_productions
    Participant
    #101474

    Awesome. I love the Back to the Future films, they are absolute masterpieces!

    #101476
    Danny Stephenson
    Keymaster

    I think my idea would have been to cleverly cut between the two, so that the transformation of Jennifer was a gradual one. Of course, it would have to involve losing as little Claudia Wells as possible.

    I think you should make a regeneration sequence, Seb.

    Or fade them into each other like the matchbooks and the newspapers as if the time space continuum has shifted.

    #101478
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    Clearly, the original Jennifer was the result of Lorraine having an affair with that ginger guy at Enchantment Under The Sea dance. When George taught him who was boss, that affair never happened and the ginger guy went onto procreate with someone else…hence Jennifer mk2.

    #101479
    Danny Stephenson
    Keymaster

    so Marty and Jennifer mk1 are brother and sister?

    #101480

    Trilogies and incest. Gotta luv ’em!

    #101481
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    >so Marty and Jennifer mk1 are brother and sister?

    Yup. In the original 2015, their kids are mutants and this was the reason Doc took them there. Thank fuck for the ripple effect, huh?

    #101483
    Carlito
    Participant

    That actually makes sense.

    The timeline took a bit longer than expected to FULLY correct itself so that reality didn’t actually fully absorb itself into the present time until the DeLorean had taken off, by which point the ‘mutant children’ problem became a different issue altogether…

    Wow a logical (if slightly contrived) explanation for the recast of Jennifer. After all these years!

    Do George, do George!!

    #101486
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    George is less of a problem as as the character is barely in the sequels so only fans would notice that he’s no longer played by Crispin Glover . A shame, but preferable to having him ride in the DeLorean as per Glover’s requests.

    But, if you find it slightly jarring that he looks different in 2015 (irrespective of the actor being covered in a ton of latex and being, um, upside down);

    Following Marty’s accident with the Rolls Royce, an overly-confident George confronted Needles’s father to demand for him to take some responsibility for his son’s actions. Mr Needles got very upset with this and him and his cronies battered poor old George to a pulp, crushing his vocal chords in the process. George underwent a LOT of plastic surgery as a result.

    Happily, in the final timeline none of this happened. And George still looks and sounds like Crispin Glover to this day (and will still do in six years).

    #101488
    pfm
    Participant

    The sequels would have been much better with Crispin Glover in them. For a start he would have played Seamus McFly in pt.3 and he probably would have had a bigger role as a result. The thing with that is how it just doesn’t makes sense how Lea Thompson plays his wife, she’s not related to Lorraine at all!!

    #101492
    si
    Participant

    In the original 2015, their kids are mutants

    “Please, don’t smoke. I don’t want a mutant baby.”

    (How on earth can you replace Jessica Stevenson with Pauline Quirke?)

    #101495
    Seb Patrick
    Keymaster

    >The thing with that is how it just doesn?t makes sense how Lea Thompson plays his wife, she?s not related to Lorraine at all!!

    Ah, this has been explained (among various other inconsistencies). The practical reason, obv, is that they wanted Lea Thompson in the third one, and wanted a “waking up confused” scene. But the in-film logic is simply that McFly men have a genetic predisposition towards women that look like Lea Thompson ;-)

    #101498
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    On a -barely related- note, my block of flats was struck by lightning earlier tonight (I think the communal Sky dish took the worst of it as we’ve lost Satellite TV) and a bunch of tiles fell on my car.

    It did not, sadly, happen at 10:04pm.

    #101500
    Danny Stephenson
    Keymaster

    The lightning didn’t break the dish, it simply sent the necessary 1.21 gigawatts into the Sky dish which sent it into the future to a time when it had become broken and returned it instaneously…

    #101504
    JamesTC
    Participant

    This is heavy.

    #101505
    Bob Loblaw
    Participant

    Weight has nothing to do with it.

    #101506
    Carlito
    Participant

    The internet doesn’t weigh anything.

    #101507
    Andrew
    Participant

    Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth’s gravitational pull?

    #101508
    Carlito
    Participant

    Ronald Reagan?? The ACTOR??!?

    #101509
    JamesTC
    Participant

    Great Scott!

    #101510
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    Let’s see if you bastards can do ninety!

    #101516
    Ian Symes
    Keymaster

    Hoverboards don’t go on water, unless you got POW-AH!

    #101517
    Pete Part Three
    Participant
    #101519
    Seb Patrick
    Keymaster

    #101520
    Danny Stephenson
    Keymaster

    Awesome!!

    #101521
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    Surely everyone has seen this:

    #101522
    p2p_productions
    Participant

    #101526
    Dessie
    Participant

    I’ve never seen these movies. I’m missing out.

    #101527
    Carlito
    Participant
    #101530
    Smeg4Brains
    Participant

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceJ7TeB64m0&NR=1
    Shame about the poor video quality.

    #101535
    pfm
    Participant

    The one thing that bugs me is how Doc gives all these morality speeches about screwing with time and wanting the time machine destroyed but then he flucking goes and creates another one for himself out of a bluddy steam train which is far more dangerous than the DeLorean ever was! Idiot.

    #101536
    Andrew
    Participant

    It’s a re-work of the “I figured ‘What the hell'” ending to part one. As with the letter Marty wrote, and later Marty’s change of response to ‘chicken’, Doc’s choice (and his Big final Speech) concludes that fate is in your own hands. Time machine or not, behaviour’s the thing.

    So he builds a new machine not to change things – no more “Something’s gotta be done about your kids” – but because living out of time is where Doc is meant to be. He blongs in the Old West, the 50s, the present and the future. And so long as he’s where he belongs, living life as opposed to trying to fix stuff constantly, we’ll be fine. Possibly.

    All the problems of Part Two are caused by intentions to meddle – Marty’s kids, Biff’s greed, correcting what Biff did – so while the final ending maybe doesn’t mesh with the ‘accidentally changing time’ riff of Part One, it’s certainly in keeping with the themes of Parts Two and Three.

    #101537
    pfm
    Participant

    I think my favourite part of the whole series is the end of BTTF2 when the guy comes with the letter. The way it’s directed is interesting, it’s actually quite sinister for a moment when the car appears. Maybe that’s just me…

    When I first watched that I was convinced it was going to be Doc in the car. Every time I see it I STILL think it should be old Doc in the car somehow. Or maybe a different twist could have been an ancient Marty. If he’s 17 (you’ve got to laugh at them trying to make us believe that MJF is 17, even in the first movie he was in his 20s) when he goes back to 1885, 70 years later he would have been 87. He walks silently up to Marty then gets back in the car. However, you’re talking major paradoxes and bending the rules to the point of stupidity. Marty would have to make sure he stayed in 1885, lived to he was 87 in order to give himself the letter in 1955, but then he can’t possibly get back to Jennifer. Oh sod Jennifer!! She was played by a different actress anyway, who cares??

    #101543
    si
    Participant

    My main question about BTTF was always ‘How old is Doc anyway?’ He’s old in the eighties, he’s old in the fifties. If we place his age in 1955 at a conservative 50-odd, that means that in 1985 he’s a very sprightly 80-odd year old. But it’s the 1980s Doc who has the relationship with Clara, who is in her forties, fifties at a push (they have kids by the end of the movie, remember).
    So is the 1950s Doc a prematurely aged 20-30year old? Or does Clara like the older man somewhat?

    What the hell is going on??!!

    #101545
    Andrew
    Participant

    “I went to a rejuvenation clinic and got a whole natural overhaul. They took out some wrinkles, did hair repair, changed the blood, added a good 30 to 40 years to my life. They also replaced my spleen and colon. What do you think?”

    The Doc of 1985, though almost 80 (he’s in his late 40s in 1955, Llyod’s actual age, white of hair but otherwise not especially old), was rejuvenated in the future to take his body age down to…well, Lloyd’s actual age again (by then 50), give or take.

    So although he’s technically in his late 70s when he meets Clara, his body is back to 50-ish.

    #101570
    pfm
    Participant

    They only did the rejuvination thing so they wouldn’t have to keep applying the age makeup to Christopher Lloyd. IMO they shouldn’t have mentioned it at all, when the had to reshoot the ending of BTTF1 they should have taken the opportunity to have him return looking younger with no explanation. Well, you do lose the little gag about Doc thinking Marty wouldn’t recognise him…but I’m sure we could live without that.

    #101575
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I need to get these movies – they’re fantastic. No doubt there’ll be a boxset like Jurassic Park.

    I need to remind myself of how deeply I loved (or lusted over) Lea Thompson in the mid-eighties. Might as well pick up Some Kind of Wonderful as well.

    **sigh**

    #101580
    Andrew
    Participant

    > IMO they shouldn?t have mentioned it at all, when the had to reshoot the ending of BTTF1 they should have taken the opportunity to have him return looking younger with no explanation.

    What’s the gain there? 30s of screentime? Why avoid it like that? Especially when the character who returned at the end of the first film WAS wearing the old-age make-up. This is the kind of stuff Annie Wilkes gets the sledgehammer/electric knife out for! :)

    It may have come from Lloyd’s dislike for the make-up (and since he signed to the first film based on playing the character at his actual age, bookend scenes aside, that’s hardly unreasonable), but I’d consider it a massive hindrance to the basic writing process not to confront the issue head-on.

    You may gain a few seconds of screen time by not having those lines and quick latex effect, but the knock-on effect is to impede or alter the writing of the character through two films. Once you know you’ve pulled a cheat like that, you can really struggle to get the lines down – the writing feels like a lie and comes out bad.

    I mean you could write it and then not shoot it as-written, I guess. But again I say – why bother? It’s a neat fix to an organic problem that impedes the progress of the film hardly at all.

    #101586
    pfm
    Participant

    The thing is, whenever I watch it it always stands out to me as being a convenient fix. Obviously they tried their best but it comes across as a little throwaway. Even though it’s only 30 seconds AND it’s a sequel it’s just a niggly something that…oh hang it, I’m just not thinking 4th dimensionally. I’ll be instantly transported to 1885 and those Indians won’t even BE there!

    My favourite line is – “Shot in the back by Buford Tannen over a matter of 80 dollars?? WHAT KIND OF A FUTURE DO YOU CALL THAT?!??” just the insane way Christopher Lloyd delivers it. Though his best line delivery ever is probably in Roger Rabbit as Judge Doom, when he gives that long speech and says ‘My God…it’ll be beautiful.’ at the end. Did anyone else used to find him scary as Judge Doom?? Good god, I did. Seeing Roger Rabbit when I was 6 can’t have helped.

    #101587
    Andrew
    Participant

    There’s maybe nothing I miss more about Zemekis’s departure to virtual cinema than the way he used to create genuinely unique characters in collaboration with his actors.

    Don’t get me wrong, I kinda like Beowulf – but nothing he’s done so far mirrors the brilliance of the performances in Used Cars, the BTTF trilogy, Forest Gump (yes, seriously), Roger Rabbit and even Death Becomes Her.

    #101588
    John Hoare
    Participant

    If I had to pick a favourite film, then Roger Rabbit is probably it.

    You can all probably guess every single thing I love about it though, so I shall leave you all to fill in the blanks for yourself.

    #101590
    pfm
    Participant

    Judging from his comments at Comic Con it seems Zemeckis still has the Roger Rabbit sequel (though I think it’s been rumoured as a prequel called ‘Who Discovered Roger Rabbit?’) on his mind. He confirmed the hand-drawn animated characters would stay 2D and that 3D characters would also feature. The issue there is obviously that you would have to set the sequel NOW to include 3D characters, e.g. Shrek, Wall-E. If anything a prequel would have more primitive animation, so I highly doubt they would go down that route.

    And yes I’m sure everyone would LOVE him to get back to live-action filmmaking, though he said he’s sticking with the mocap for the foreseeable future. Give him credit for pushing the boundaries, it’s what he’s always done after all, but truly excellent movies have usually come along with that. I really like Cast Away though I don’t want it to be his last live-action feature.

    > You can all probably guess every single thing I love about it though

    I was unaware that Yootha Joyce was in it.

    #101592
    Andrew
    Participant

    > You can all probably guess every single thing I love about it though, so I shall leave you all to fill in the blanks for yourself.

    You be careful – she smudges.

    #101603
    ChrisM
    Participant

    >even Death Becomes Her

    Even? Is that film generally disliked then? I really liked it too. Then again I like dark humour and the idea of immortality in a bottle and the consequences was brilliant. And seeing Bruce Willis actually pull it off as a hen-pecked husband, a far departure from his usual action hero roles was great.

    #101604
    Andrew
    Participant

    > Even? Is that film generally disliked then?

    It’s seen, I think, as pretty forgettable. Just didn’t make much of an impression. Certainly it’s a pretty slight story. The points it makes aren’t particularly revelatory, and the narrative is very A to B. It’s almost hard to imagine how they got it to last for the runtime.

    Which is not to knock it completely. The performances, photography and effects are terrific. And yeah, nice to see Willis break type.

    > it seems Zemeckis still has the Roger Rabbit sequel (though I think it?s been rumoured as a prequel called ?Who Discovered Roger Rabbit??) on his mind

    Never gonna happen. Just won’t. (The joke being that Hoskins is actually interested in doing a sequel – and a prequel wouldn’t actually need him in it.) He’s not confirmed anything beyond ‘what he might do’, and that’s kinda meaningless at this point. Source novel notwithstanding, it’s probably for the best.

    > Give him credit for pushing the boundaries, it?s what he?s always done after all, but truly excellent movies have usually come along with that.

    Not for a while, sadly, and Used Cars, Romancing the Stone and BTTF didn’t so much ‘push boundaries’ as ‘do things well’. I have soft spots for Castaway, Death Becomes Her, Contact and Beowulf but he hasn’t truly excelled in his field for a long time. Which is a shame, because there was a time when his story and character work really meshed with his technical skills. That he seems to have left comedy behind is a real shame, too.

    In a decade’s time – hell, even right now – will anyone look at him as much of a pioneer? I’m not sure they will. I’m not convinced his impact on the ho-hum frontiers of mo-cap make up for the loss of the films that could have been had. (His choice, though; not saying we’re ‘entitled’ to those hypothetical films!)

    #101606
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    I’ve been to Doc Brown’s house. I have photos to prove it.

    His laboratory is a book store now.

    #101620
    Tanya Jones
    Participant

    >> You can all probably guess every single thing I love about it though

    >I was unaware that Yootha Joyce was in it.

    I LOLd.

Viewing 50 replies - 1 through 50 (of 100 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.