sean
Posts: 7382
|
 |
« Reply #360 on: November 25, 2011, 06:58:02 PM » |
|
The newspaper headlines in II only change at the very end to let us know that they were successful. In I and III, the photographs keep changing throughout in gradual ways and are continually monitored as progress reports.
They do the newspaper thing twice to show success in #2; in #1, the photograph deteriorates [in a way which actually doesn't fit with the other two], but in #3, it actually changes from Doc's grave to "Clint"'s grave to nothing. I feel like that's more different than the photo/newspaper thing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DerickA
Posts: 9494
|
|
« Reply #361 on: November 25, 2011, 10:08:26 PM » |
|
I guess once we're done saying how super amazing some things are, it's only right to keep talking until you start complaining about it for no reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sean
Posts: 7382
|
|
« Reply #362 on: November 25, 2011, 11:30:18 PM » |
|
This isn't complaining, I just didn't understand where Wolfe was coming from. You know how 'Last Crusade' is obviously a retread of 'Raiders' but with Connery, where 'Temple of Doom' is definitely not a retread -- I kind of thought it was equally accepted that BTTF II was a retread and III was something else.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DerickA
Posts: 9494
|
|
« Reply #363 on: November 26, 2011, 12:26:41 AM » |
|
I don't get the complaining about Fox playing multiple characters (which he is great at) or saying that the future stuff in the beginning isn't the best stuff ever. They wrote Seamus for Crispin Glover, which would have been nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sean
Posts: 7382
|
|
« Reply #364 on: November 26, 2011, 01:18:47 AM » |
|
I think that I loved the future stuff so much when I was a kid -- I actually had the novelization of BTTF 2 and read it more than I've read most books -- that now I just see it as kiddie stuff. The hoverboard chase is cool, but I like the two other hoverboard uses even more.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Wolfe
Posts: 6865
|
|
« Reply #365 on: November 26, 2011, 01:25:29 AM » |
|
Fox is good as the multiple characters, and it honestly doesn't really bother me, but it's the one note I find to be off about the sequels. Had Glover played Shamus, that would have helped a lot, since I get why the future kids (at least the son) needed to look like Marty.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sean
Posts: 7382
|
|
« Reply #366 on: November 26, 2011, 01:36:23 AM » |
|
I remember how much they played it up in the trailer ("Michael J Fox... Michael J Fox... and Michael J Fox), and thinking it was weird when they were all in the first half hour of the movie and then never again, but I was just a kid, I didn't know how that stuff worked.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ian Larsen
Posts: 420
|
|
« Reply #367 on: January 14, 2012, 08:31:59 AM » |
|
Glover goes into extensive detail about the conflict with Gale and Zemekis in a new AV Club interview. More detail than I've seen before, anyway. A year ago I went to see It Is Fine, and heard him talk about the likeness-related lawsuit, but had to get the train while he was still on, so I don't know if he talked about the ending of the first film or the amount they wanted to pay him for the sequel at that Q&A. http://www.avclub.com/articles/crispin-glover,67635/ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sean
Posts: 7382
|
|
« Reply #368 on: January 14, 2012, 09:52:56 AM » |
|
It's funny that the further removed we get from 1985, the more it comes out that they actually shot with Stolz. I wonder if Glover's lawsuit is just another reason they'll never release that footage -- if you have a guy who sued you the last time you released unused footage involving him from the first movie, it might make the studio lawyers wary to do so again.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DerickA
Posts: 9494
|
|
« Reply #369 on: January 14, 2012, 05:31:08 PM » |
|
He keeps mentioning the lawsuit like it happened before or during the casting process of the sequels.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tarrik Dane
|
|
« Reply #370 on: February 13, 2012, 08:55:54 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Wolfe
Posts: 6865
|
|
« Reply #371 on: February 13, 2012, 09:13:51 AM » |
|
This might be obvious, but it doesn't actually "hover"-- unfortunately that technology, along with the flying cars, hasn't quite arrived.
Then what the fuck does it do? Companies need to stop making hoverboards that don't hover.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rev. Danny
Guest
|
|
« Reply #373 on: February 13, 2012, 11:17:13 AM » |
|
Yeah, except those actually did shit. Sure they can't catch ghosts, but they can move and blink and make noises. I'd be more excited if it was a skateboard painted to look like the hoverboard, with clear trucks and wheels. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BrianLynch
Administrator
Posts: 9388
|
|
« Reply #374 on: February 13, 2012, 11:47:36 AM » |
|
I like that it looks exactly like the movie hoverboard, I want to put one on my wall. If it had wheels and stuff, I probably wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
