BTTF Remake With Some Time Shift
Well hi again after a while 
Sorry if this was brought up before but I was just wondering;
It is obviously pointless to try remaking exact BTTF trilogy with new cast and improved effects. But what about a remake with some time shift? Imagine the main idea stays about the same however time spans and jokes/references change. For example in the story, present time could be 2012(assuming movie will be complete in 2012), Marty would be sent back to 1982 or the future time in part II would be 2042 etc. Do you think it might work out? Somewhat of a BTTF next generation.
Sorry if this was brought up before but I was just wondering;It is obviously pointless to try remaking exact BTTF trilogy with new cast and improved effects. But what about a remake with some time shift? Imagine the main idea stays about the same however time spans and jokes/references change. For example in the story, present time could be 2012(assuming movie will be complete in 2012), Marty would be sent back to 1982 or the future time in part II would be 2042 etc. Do you think it might work out? Somewhat of a BTTF next generation.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
BTTF does have one element going for it which most remakes don't; the time factor. If they did remake the first film, it would be going back to the 80's which a teenager today may not understand (could fit better with comedy). Going to 2045 wouldn't be that much different than part II's portrayal of 2015 as many of those things haven't happened yet. Part III would be very different as 1915 was during world war I and the wild west was well over.
But really BTTF has nothing to gain from being remade. The cast is perfect, the writing is perfect, and the special effect scenes and action sequences are used sparingly and visualized perfectly, and there's just no where to go but down. Any attempt to recapture it is going to disappoint because any change whatsoever would result in a decrease in quality.
Even though the film depicts the 80s and the 50s in pretty specific detail, the characters and settings resonate clearly enough as being those of "the teenager's present" and "the parents' past" that a viewer of any era should be able to relate to it. I watched the movie when I was a teenager in the 2000's and I could completely relate to Marty as "modern" and his reaction to the 50s is the same way I'd react to meeting my parents in the 70s I have no doubt. I don't need anybody to remake the movie to make that translation explicit. For a movie so grounded in specific timeframes, the themes it presents are totally universal and so the movie has aged extremely well as it is.
You're wasting your time on this board then. Even if cured, Michael J. Fox would have to play a 40-something Marty McFly, and at that point, Doc would either have to be super-aged or dead, so what's the point. The only continuation you're going to get is the game. Since you say it sucked(which is only your opinion, not a fact), then I guess you'll have to make do with 3 movies.
The Michael J Fox/Marty dillema would be a tough one (BTW sorry to say he'll never get cured, best case scenario is it'll stop getting worse). But most of the characters in the first film were cast to be their age in 1955 with aging makeup portaying them in 1955. If you go by his age in the game, Christopher Lloyd was playing a character born 25 years earlier than himself in real life. (Doc was born around 1913 while Lloyd was born in 1938. Lea Thompson and Crispin Glover were born in 1961 and 1964 playing characters born in 1938.
But as mentioned above, the time frames were not the main plot point. You can pretty much take a teenager from any of the last 100 years and send him back in time 30 years and he'd be confused, it would just be different technology, fads, pop culture etc. It was more about the realization that your parents were once your age.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/nov/06/stem-cells-brain-parkinsons-disease?newsfeed=true
There is still hope
Also don't underestimate the power of Hollywood. I am sure if this would ever happen they will be able to make them look like they did back then. Maybe even voice changing technology?
At there very least I would like Fox to be the voice actor for present day Marty in the game. But still unlikely.
Parkinsons is like Alzheimers, while there may be a cure to prevent it from getting worse some day, it's very unlikely to see the effects get reversed.
I am kind of wondering whether MJF can do voice work. He's still acting on the good wife. He's not able to act without showing the effects (his character on the show is said to have a disease) but I wonder what kind of experience he had doing the game? You'd thinking they'd have discussed a potential second season with him voicing his future selves as they likely would be a plot point in the second season.
Like Fame and Footloose recently got remakes, but the originals had become sort of cult-films that not everyone would get the references too.
Where as films like Moulin Rouge, RENT, Grease, BTTF etc. are still kind of front and centre and most everyone knows them; even if they aren't a massive fanboy so they don't need remakes and remakes would be awful.
Also I agree that a BTTF fan-film that explored the time-shifted jokes in an abbreviated form would be pretty fun.
Grease as well may or may not have time-shifted jokes; remember that film was made in the 70's about the 1950's. Now they may still leave it in the 50's or if it were done now, ask 'set Grease be like if it happened in the 90's?'
That's illogical. Just because it's a remake doesn't mean it will suck.
If it's a remake of Back to the Future, it will.
Explain your logic. Because it can't live up to the originals? That may be, but that doesn't mean it will suck completely. You can't live up to the expectations of one of the greatest movies of all time but then again that's only natural and if done right it could be pretty good. Not as good as the originals but a pretty great movie.
The only remakes that I have ever liked were Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear and Joel and Ethan Coen's True Grit. Those actually did live up to the originals. Mark my words, if they remake Back to the Future, it will sh*t all over the entire series.
So you just admitted you like 2 remakes better than the original so it's possible.
I wonder if people who liked the 1925 Wizard of Oz assumed the 1939 remake starring Judy Garland would suck?
Many people deem the remake of the Fly (starring Jeff Goldblum) better than the original 1958 film.
The modern Oceans 11 did far better than the original (spawned 2 sequels)
Some consider a remake to be the best horror film of all time -John Carpenters the thing
The first two back to the future films are my favourite of all time so hard for me to envision an remake ending up better without Lloyd and Fox but two months ago I called Batman Arkham Asylum my favourite video game of all time and now I consider it's sequel so who knows.
Exactly my point. I am not saying that a reamke would be better than the originals. But I am saying it is possible to be good or almost as good. It's even possible for it to be equally as good or better but since the trilogy is awesome that's a long shot.
It's almost like the BF3 VS MW3 argument. One group defends one game and the others defend the other. That's fine but than they have to say "CoD is better than battlefield, so BF3 sucks completely" Without admitting both games are good.
It would be a real challange to beat the BTTF movies. Does that mean it's impossible? No. It's a long shot but at the end of the day nothing is impossible when enough effort is put into it. I don't think that a remake would be better than the originals. I do believe that it is possible to come close or just as good if enough effort is put into the project and I will be willing to give it a try without saying "It's a remake/reboot it must suck". And of coarse it is still possible to beat the movies but very unlikely.
But like Doc says "If you put your mind to it you can accomplished anything".
Besides Bob gale says they will be no remake or reboot ever so I don't even know why we are arguing about this.
Not saying they definitely should do this but here's one way to do it;
make it a remake of the first film, first third of part II and a somewhat modified ending of the unused Number two script
-first hour or so encompass part I
-next half hour encompass the 'future' part of the second film
-the rest of the trilogy can be dropped for the most part. The alternate present would pretty much be the same time shifted and the 'return to the past' has already been done. As well skip the third film for the most part as going back in time 100 years is no longer the old west.
the number two script had Marty's character flaw be get rich quick schemes instead of the 'chicken' flaw. The ending was fairly similar to the ending of part III; marty's friends come to him with an investment scheme, he declines them and then finds his sons card from the future erases (signifying the future isnt written). Only flaw is arty hasn't learned his lesson yet by the time he returns from the future although I guess they could introduce said flaws earlier in the film when he's in the past and have him learn his lesson in the future.