Home › Forums › Ganymede & Titan Forum › Something’s Gotta Be Done About Your Kids Search for: This topic has 100 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by pfm. Scroll to bottom Creator Topic July 24, 2009 at 11:12 am #4174 AndrewParticipant A video that needed to be assembled: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1917317 Creator Topic Viewing 50 replies - 1 through 50 (of 100 total) 1 2 Author Replies July 24, 2009 at 11:22 am #101467 TheLeenParticipant Hah! July 24, 2009 at 11:23 am #101466 Pete Part ThreeParticipant 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. July 24, 2009 at 11:41 am #101468 Seb PatrickKeymaster 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.) July 24, 2009 at 12:28 pm #101470 p2p_productionsParticipant Speaking of Robert Zemeckis… http://p2pproductions.blogspot.com/2009/07/jumpin-jeepers.html July 24, 2009 at 2:19 pm #101474 Kris ‘Drivaaar’ CarterParticipant Awesome. I love the Back to the Future films, they are absolute masterpieces! July 24, 2009 at 3:16 pm #101476 Danny StephensonKeymaster 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. July 24, 2009 at 3:35 pm #101478 Pete Part ThreeParticipant 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. July 24, 2009 at 3:42 pm #101479 Danny StephensonKeymaster so Marty and Jennifer mk1 are brother and sister? July 24, 2009 at 3:46 pm #101480 Kris ‘Drivaaar’ CarterParticipant Trilogies and incest. Gotta luv ’em! July 24, 2009 at 3:51 pm #101481 Pete Part ThreeParticipant >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? July 24, 2009 at 4:38 pm #101483 CarlitoParticipant 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!! July 24, 2009 at 5:00 pm #101486 Pete Part ThreeParticipant 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). July 24, 2009 at 5:16 pm #101488 pfmParticipant 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!! July 24, 2009 at 6:15 pm #101492 siParticipant 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?) July 24, 2009 at 7:26 pm #101495 Seb PatrickKeymaster >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 ;-) July 24, 2009 at 9:11 pm #101498 Pete Part ThreeParticipant 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. July 24, 2009 at 9:46 pm #101500 Danny StephensonKeymaster 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… July 24, 2009 at 10:31 pm #101504 JamesTCParticipant This is heavy. July 24, 2009 at 10:51 pm #101505 Bob LoblawParticipant Weight has nothing to do with it. July 25, 2009 at 12:05 am #101506 CarlitoParticipant The internet doesn’t weigh anything. July 25, 2009 at 12:36 am #101507 AndrewParticipant Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth’s gravitational pull? July 25, 2009 at 12:53 am #101508 CarlitoParticipant Ronald Reagan?? The ACTOR??!? July 25, 2009 at 12:54 am #101509 JamesTCParticipant Great Scott! July 25, 2009 at 6:37 am #101510 Pete Part ThreeParticipant Let’s see if you bastards can do ninety! July 25, 2009 at 9:20 am #101516 Ian SymesKeymaster Hoverboards don’t go on water, unless you got POW-AH! July 25, 2009 at 10:05 am #101517 Pete Part ThreeParticipant http://www.thehdroom.com/news/Comic-Con_Hot_Tub_Time_Machine_Trailer_is_Filthy/5357 This looks…interesting. July 25, 2009 at 10:08 am #101519 Seb PatrickKeymaster July 25, 2009 at 10:17 am #101520 Danny StephensonKeymaster Awesome!! July 25, 2009 at 10:41 am #101521 Pete Part ThreeParticipant Surely everyone has seen this: July 25, 2009 at 11:34 am #101522 p2p_productionsParticipant July 25, 2009 at 12:08 pm #101526 DessieParticipant I’ve never seen these movies. I’m missing out. July 25, 2009 at 12:12 pm #101527 CarlitoParticipant Yikes… http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2005-12-21/celeb/4 Bit old, mind. July 25, 2009 at 12:37 pm #101530 Smeg4BrainsParticipant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceJ7TeB64m0&NR=1 Shame about the poor video quality. July 25, 2009 at 10:57 pm #101535 pfmParticipant 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. July 25, 2009 at 11:41 pm #101536 AndrewParticipant 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. July 26, 2009 at 12:38 am #101537 pfmParticipant 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?? July 26, 2009 at 10:06 am #101543 siParticipant 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??!! July 26, 2009 at 1:14 pm #101545 AndrewParticipant “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. July 27, 2009 at 6:44 pm #101570 pfmParticipant 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. July 27, 2009 at 7:41 pm #101575 AnonymousInactive 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** July 27, 2009 at 9:17 pm #101580 AndrewParticipant > 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. July 27, 2009 at 11:06 pm #101586 pfmParticipant 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. July 27, 2009 at 11:15 pm #101587 AndrewParticipant 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. July 27, 2009 at 11:18 pm #101588 John HoareParticipant 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. July 27, 2009 at 11:30 pm #101590 pfmParticipant 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. July 27, 2009 at 11:36 pm #101592 AndrewParticipant > 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. July 28, 2009 at 1:37 am #101603 ChrisMParticipant >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. July 28, 2009 at 2:30 am #101604 AndrewParticipant > 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!) July 28, 2009 at 5:08 am #101606 Ben PaddonParticipant I’ve been to Doc Brown’s house. I have photos to prove it. His laboratory is a book store now. July 28, 2009 at 7:11 pm #101620 Tanya JonesParticipant >> You can all probably guess every single thing I love about it though >I was unaware that Yootha Joyce was in it. I LOLd. Author Replies Viewing 50 replies - 1 through 50 (of 100 total) 1 2 Scroll to top • Scroll to Recent Forum Posts You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Log In Username: Password: Keep me signed in Log In