subreddit:

/r/AskReddit

27.9k

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 19258 comments

HunterGonzo

883 points

2 months ago

It's so weird how BTTF doesn't often come to mind in the "trilogy" conversation. I think it's because the concept of a trilogy always seems to conjure visions of grandiose and epic films, whereas BTTF is more of a lighthearted action comedy. In all honesty though, the consistent quality of all 3 movies is above and beyond what almost all other film series achieve. Plus it all ties together so well, especially 1 and 2.

CosmicPennyworth

225 points

2 months ago*

A lot of people feel like 2 and 3 aren’t as good. I think they get campier and more repetitive but I almost love the sequels more for it

edit: I’m gonna use this comment to plug my Back to the Future 3 parody script

Everestkid

71 points

2 months ago

3 is weird because it feels like they wanted to make a Western but they needed to somehow tie it into the other Back to the Future movies. Although I did like the central plot point of being unable to drive the DeLorean because there wouldn't be a gas station in the area for decades.

I suppose I like 2 best because it's the most intricate of the three - 1 and 3 are just "go back in time, fix the thing that went wrong, go back to the future." oh that's why it's called that /s 2's got the actual future and alternate timeline fuckery going on, plus it ties in really well with 1.

thelastskier

12 points

2 months ago

See, the alternate timeline fuckery is something that always felt like a jarring plot-hole in 2 for me. How did Biff manage to travel back into the original 2015, but Doc and Marty somehow travelled to the alternate 1985?

DMPunk

15 points

2 months ago

DMPunk

15 points

2 months ago

There's a deleted scene that shows Biff fading from existence in 2015 after he returns from 1955, which just underlines the plot hole. If Biff changed the past so much he doesn't even exist in his original timeslot, then how did any of that happen?

bobrob2004

7 points

2 months ago

That plot hole is in 1 too. If Marty interfered with his parents first meeting, why does it take a week for him to disappear? How can he effect anything in the past if he doesn't exist? Biff eventually disappears, just like Marty would have. It just doesn't happen immediately.

EthosPathosLegos

13 points

2 months ago*

As a lifetime BTTF fan i have come to the theory that cause and effects take time to eminate through... well time. Marty's original reality was slowly being replaced by the affects of his actions in 1955 but those affects aren't instantaneous because (and this is movie logic) the affect has to travel linearly from the past to the present. This is why his older brother and sister fade first, because they were born closer to the point he had interfered with time. Basically the way i see it is that, changes made in the past that will create a timeline that overwrites the original timelines take time to catch up with the original future.

DMPunk

4 points

2 months ago

DMPunk

4 points

2 months ago

That makes sense. I guess time has to be slower than 88mph for this all to be possible in the first place

Pipehead_420

4 points

2 months ago

I’ve seen the movie so many times and never really through about that part. It’s kinda ruined it a bit for me now..

somedude224

4 points

2 months ago

It fixes 90 percent of the trilogy’s plot holes if you subscribe to the idea that time doesn’t change instantaneously, but instead slowly merges/or branches timelines over a period of hours/days.

Time works much less linear in BTTF. The future isn’t written, it’s constantly changing based on whether the events of that day continue into the next, and so on. Which is why Marty exists when his plan is working and why he starts to fade out when it stops working.

ilion

2 points

2 months ago

ilion

2 points

2 months ago

Pretty certain Doc even says something like this in part I.

yaboimankeez

6 points

2 months ago

It’s not a plot hole. Real 2015 Biff returns to his original timeline because, in 1955, a few hours after he gave his younger self the almanac, doc and Marty retrieve it, so the billionaire Biff 1985 timeline never happens.

thelastskier

2 points

2 months ago

Still doesn't explain how Doc and Marty ended up in the altered 1985 timeline when they only travelled back in time from the 'original' 2015.

racer_24_4evr

1 points

2 months ago

I’m in the minority where I prefer 3 to 2, although as I get older I appreciate 2 more and more.

dkarlovi

0 points

2 months ago

2 is by far the best one.

Cacophonous_Silence

42 points

2 months ago

2 not as good!?

3 sure... BUT 2 GAVE US HOVERBOARDS!!!!

OldDirtyBusstop

19 points

2 months ago

I’ve grown to really like 3 in its own right. Mad dog is a great character. Some really amusing moments (lighten up jerk, hey frisbee far out, etc).

mrpersson

15 points

2 months ago

I honestly think it gets a bad rap because westerns had stopped being a thing at that point so it was looked at by younger people at the time as too old timey. I know the first movie goes to the 50s but that was supposed to be real life whereas I think people thought the third one seemed more like a movie set.

That said, I love the third one now. If anything the second one feels a little less special now that 2015 is no longer the future.

EphemeralFart

6 points

2 months ago

“Hoverboards don’t work on water… unless you’ve got POWER!!!

dkarlovi

8 points

2 months ago

POWAH

AktuallyIsDolan

19 points

2 months ago*

2 is the best 😫

Also BTTF IS THE BEST TRILOGY PPL 😫😫😫

Cacophonous_Silence

11 points

2 months ago

It's actually funny to me that BTTF was the first thing that came to my head

I'm a Star Wars fanboy, have watched far too much LotR due to my ex, love The Godfather, etc.

But for a TRUE trilogy

BTTF hits hard

The 3rd is forsure a weak point but I usually binge all 3 when the mood hits. Solid forsure

DMPunk

0 points

2 months ago

DMPunk

0 points

2 months ago

For it to be a true trilogy, it would have to at least be conceived as a three-part story. But BttF 2 and 3 came after the fact

bobrob2004

4 points

2 months ago

You could say the same thing about Star Wars.

SonofSniglet

1 points

2 months ago

Yeah, if that's the rubric then what still qualifies?

ReyGonJinn

-1 points

2 months ago

As someone who never watched it growing up and tried for the first time at 33... 2 is a bad movie. Just not good. Cool concepts for the time but it has not aged well.

Kagamid

4 points

2 months ago*

3 not as good!?
"I thought we could settle this as men.".
"You though wrong dude.".
The entire concept that you could be stuck in the old west where you could be murdered and any time while trying to figure out a way to get a car to go 88mph was excellent. It was different enough to justify the movie while still having the nods to the movies before.

GuyFromDeathValley

8 points

2 months ago

It's kinda funny. Other movies turn out really bad when they essentially re-use the plot or entire segments in the sequel(s), but with Back to the Future its one of the best things about it. Like a consistent running gag, a tannen yelling at a McFly in a saloon/cafe, Marty waking up in a bed with a variation of his mom or their bloodline sitting next to the bed, tannen getting manure all over him..

itsthecoop

6 points

2 months ago

I figure because it's not just literally reusing it but coming up with variations (some more clever than others) of them.

KbbbbNZ

7 points

2 months ago

BTTF was literally my first thought for this answer. You can't just watch one movie. They're a set!

Trama-D

4 points

2 months ago

You can't just watch one movie. They're a set!

Exactly this.

Convoy_Avenger

3 points

2 months ago

Well said. I could watch most other movies on this list as a stand alone experience. BTTF, I always watch them all, and usually at least once a year. It's the perfect trilogy.

colin_staples

9 points

2 months ago

I personally think 2 is the weaker of the trilogy, while 3 is as good as 1

A-Brit-A-Broad

9 points

2 months ago

I’ve always preferred 3 over 2 as well and I’m surprised to see so many people say that it’s the runt of the litter!

But in any case, I love all three, they’re all exceptional and it’s easily one of the greatest trilogies of all time.

d0ubs

6 points

2 months ago

d0ubs

6 points

2 months ago

Completely agree, moreover 1 and 3 aged very well, the 2nd not so much.

jolsiphur

3 points

2 months ago

I honestly can't stand the plot to BTTF2. There's just too much that would never happen... Like why the hell would Doc Brown take Marty to see his future self to fix the future when Doc can just slap some sense into Marty in the present.

But without BTTF2 we wouldn't have the 3rd one, which is phenomenal so it gets a pass just on that alone.

EYRONHYDE

2 points

2 months ago

Loved your script. Made my evening. Keep at it.

GimmeThatRyeUOldBag

1 points

2 months ago

Surely 3 is better than 2.

KnockMeYourLobes

1 points

2 months ago

I like BTTF and BTTF3 best. I usually DO not watch the second one though, because all the back and forth and who's what and when just gives me a headache.

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

Two is my favourite because it actually goes to the future. Also it could not exist without the other two. One & Three could be standalone films but two links both together perfectly and as a kid it opened my mind up to the possibilities of time travel and playing around with time.

MagnumDoberman

1 points

2 months ago

I think it’s fitting for a story about fixing your distant time relatives’ mistakes (or yours) to be cyclical and repetitive. But maybe as another commenter said, I’m biased as fuck as I love these. 😂

Wolferesque

1 points

2 months ago

they get campier and more repetitive

Isn’t that the point? (At least the repetitive part).

Luke90210

1 points

2 months ago*

Honestly liked the third and last one in part because Doc gets a life he likes and deserves. He was happy in the Old West with friends, then a girlfriend and then his family. I don't think Doc ever thought he was going to get that sort of happiness.

Gestrid

1 points

2 months ago

I feel like the third one is just kinda okay, while the second one was unique because it took place during the first movie and, at least to the average first-time viewer, near-seamlessly mixed the scenes from the first and second movie together.

petehehe

20 points

2 months ago

BTTF would have been my favourite trilogy regardless, but if we're comparing it against Star Wars and LotR, they're not even trilogies anymore. There's like 9+ Star Wars's, and including The Hobbit films (which I am) 6 LotR's! So they were never really in the running. Pepperidge Farm remembers when trilogy meant 3.

Malarky_Famous

6 points

2 months ago*

BTTF is one of my favorite movies. 2 is fantastic, one of the best sequels ever. 3 is decent.

But I think the issue is that other 'trilogies' are more...one story in three parts. Back to the Future felt more like 'let's make a sequel' than 'we need to finish telling this story'.

Obviously they set it up for sequels at the end of 1 & 2, but if they never made a sequel after the original, that movie wouldn't feel incomplete.

I don't think A New Hope or Fellowship of the Ring would be satisfying at all if the story ended there.

[edit] What I'm basically saying is BTTF feels less like a trilogy than SW and LotR, and more like a great movie with some sequels.

mrpersson

3 points

2 months ago

You're half right

Technically they said "let's make two sequels!"

The end of the original is a joke. They never intended to make a second. It was just a "I guess they're still going to go on more adventures with this time machine" kind of thing.

Then I guess since the first was so successful they decided to make two sequels so at that point, they did plan to have 2 continue into 3. They may have even shot them at the same time.

phord

3 points

2 months ago

phord

3 points

2 months ago

Part Ii was really just a setup for part III. They even filmed them practically at the same time.

Supspidey2013

6 points

2 months ago

I gotta agree. BTTF has gotta be up there. Plus it's quotable. I think the only problem that sets it apart is 3.

aspannerdarkly

3 points

2 months ago

3 is the best one!

KanedaSyndrome

2 points

2 months ago

It is in my opinion the best trilogy right after Lord of the Rings and Star Wars.

SomberWail

1 points

2 months ago

BttF honestly just doesn’t feel like a trilogy. That said, it technically is and it’s better than Star Wars. I would only put LotR above it. The Godfather is ruined by the third movie but the first true are among the greats of all film.

1986MetsWin

1 points

2 months ago

I didn't like the sequels as first, but just like the first one, the more I watched, the more connections and threads I discovered throughout all three of them, the more I appreciated all three movies.

I can't believe we are living 7 years AFTER the events at the beginning of the 2nd movie.

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

because 2 and 3 are significantly worse

Negative_Equity

1 points

2 months ago

My gf has never seen them properly. I remember back when I was a young stoner, my sm my bro watched 3 3 times in a row cos we couldn't be arsed to change the dvd. Time well spent I'd say, 20 years later.