"Back to the Future"; Is it me, or do the sequels suck?

[Cmonster]

Working on some Back to the Future customs for a Muzz Mem, so I decided to watch the film. Hadn't seen it in a long time, so I popped in the DVD and watched it for inspiration. Great movie... Definitely Zemeckis in his prime. However... When I watched the sequels, I didn't find them even half as good. They seem to get super silly and actually kinda dumb... Just me?

SC

[theantiquetiger]

I have always liked the 2nd one as much as the 1st, but never cares for the third.

[Hector]

I really like the first two...but the cowboy one kinda sucks.

[huedell]

The first one is so perfectly rendered that 2 & 3 were bound to be inferior.

The first one was all about seeing your parents as kids... BAM!

2 and 3 were more "First movie revisted nostalgia/future jokes" & "Western".... not as impressive of platforms.

Altho' the idea of "new action taking place in the classic original"
is admittedly pretty neat.

[boynightwing]

As a kid I liked the 2nd one better because of the glimpses in to the future and the hover board and how dark the movie was.

I still like it now, but I prefer the first one to the other two. But I like all 3 and I watch them all a few times a year. I just bought them on blue ray back before Christmas. I think as a whole, they're kind of fun and that's what matters.

[starsky]

the first one was the best. the other two were just so so for me.

[bobws]

It's just you......and welll....... maybe some other folks. really it's all just personal taste, i love all 3.

[johnmiic]

The first movie was filmed 2X's. They shot the majority of the film, all the footage with Marty, with that actor in Caprica, Eric Stoltz, playing Marty. They saw from the dailies it wasn't working out so they replaced him with Michael J. Fox. So having filmed most of it the first time they could go back and fix whatever they felt needed to be fixed. That's why I think the first film is so perfect! They were able to re-shoot and fix any mistakes. No one ever gets to do that with a whole film! You can see the old footage in the new boxed sets.

I don't like #2 very much. Why does everyone have to yell their dialogue? What is this dumb plot device where people call Marty "chicken" he will do something stupid nearly all the time. It's cheap and it's dumb TV sitcom writing. Why replace the actress who played Marty's girlfriend with Elizabeth Shue if she is going to remain unconscious for the rest of the sequels?

#3 was better but you can't beat #1. Zemeckis did say no sequels were planned ahead of time like the Star Wars films. Still, I expected better.

[Brazoo]

Haha - yeah, I forgot about the "chicken" thing in 2!

I saw 2 in the theatre but never re-watched it. I liked 2 for some of it's zaniness playing with timelines - but it's pretty terrible. I guess I must have liked it enough to see 3 though. THAT experience was painful for me.

Part 1 is fantastic. Great script - incredible pacing. Just a perfect movie.



Speaking of Zemeckis, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2" is listed on IMDB with a 2012 release date. If you can believe it.

[Brazoo]

Sandy, (or anyone on here who might know), did the lead refrigerator nuclear test site gag that was used in Indy 4 originally come from an early draft of BTTF?

According to stuff I've read online it seems like the first idea for the return trip "back" involved putting Marty into a time machine/fridge and getting it hit with a nuke.

[Mikey]

Hmmm,

1 was the best by far .......

I aways thought 2 was too busy and not as much fun.

3 wasn't great, but it was better than 2 imo ... all except the flying train- which I hated.

This is my star ratings for them

1 *****
2 **
3 ***

[The Toyroom]

It's just you......and welll....... maybe some other folks. really it's all just personal taste, i love all 3.

Agreed....Of course nothing can ever match the original...

But "2" does have a lot of good parts to it, especially once they head back to 1955 and a lot of parallelisms play out. Before they get to that point though, "2" is very dark and doesn't hold up as well on repeated viewings today, as we are only 4 years away from 2015 and stuff just doesn't look like that. So it now becomes just another 80s-style movie like a "Weird Science" where the sci-fi just doesn't match up with what is really out there. And to a new viewer, I think "2" is the most difficult to explain as far as what is happening...it's all over the (hover)board as far as being set it 4 different time periods.

"3" is definitely a departure as it's a comedic western but there's enough nods and winks to the previous flicks and the trilogy's own internal history that it works for me...

They all are "must sit down and watch" TV in our house whenever they're on the tube...

[Earth 2 Chris]

I love 1, like 3, and could skip 2. It's too dark and convoluted for the series, I think.

Chris

[jwyblejr]

I think that's the problem with filming movies back-to-back. You wind up with Back to the Future 2 & 3. I think if they took they're time,things could have turned out better.

[Megospidey]

I love all 3 of them. I watched the first one 8 times at the movie theater (I had just gotten my license and go by myself).

They are also some of my kids favorite movies as well.