Back to the Future Trilogy (Robert Zemeckis, 1985-1990)

[mfunk9786]

Whoa, DNR and edge enhancement downright destroy this release. People have very little depth, and everyone is covered in a bright halo, almost as if everyone had been cut and pasted into stock backdrops. Majorly disappointing.

Watched quite a bit of Part II... there is a major jump in quality from Part I, it looks great.

[Brian C]

You got further with it than Robert A Harris did, at least.

[mfunk9786]

He's majorly overreacting. As long as you hold the set firmly (without squeezing too hard obviously), it's no worse than an Eclipse set or something. It's far from ideal packaging, but it's not a dealbreaker. This guy's just being a spaz.

[MyNameCriterionForum]

People have very little depth, and everyone is covered in a bright halo, almost as if everyone had been cut and pasted into stock backdrops.

Welcome to the future.

Whoa, DNR and edge enhancement downright destroy this release.

Are you running the disc at the required 88 RPM?

[flyonthewall2983]

Whoa, DNR and edge enhancement downright destroy this release. People have very little depth, and everyone is covered in a bright halo, almost as if everyone had been cut and pasted into stock backdrops. Majorly disappointing.

Watched quite a bit of Part II... there is a major jump in quality from Part I, it looks great.

Is III in line with how good you say the 2nd film is?

[mfunk9786]

Haven't popped it in yet, but since they were filmed simultaneously, I'm hoping so.

[aox]

the reviews have stated that 2 and 3 are of the same quality and they also note that both are leaps ahead of the first film.

[dx23]

Jesus! I just opened the Blu-ray set and damn! Is this one of the worst packaging ever?!! Has Universal offered any sort of replacement packaging? Any set that needs instructions is just no-no in my book.

[aox]

Once you get used to it and it is second nature, it honestly isn't that bad. It just takes some getting used to. But yeah, those first five minutes were rough.

[flyonthewall2983]

Least favorite packaging would have to be that plastic thing on the Fear And Loathing CC DVD. It was a minute amount, but pretty sure the only time I ever shed blood trying to get one of these damn things open.

[manicsounds]

I went for the UK edition. Much better and simpler. (Plus no digital copies)

[domino harvey]

Jesus! I just opened the Blu-ray set and damn! Is this one of the worst packaging ever?!! Has Universal offered any sort of replacement packaging? Any set that needs instructions is just no-no in my book.

This has finally surpassed that Ackerman set as worst packaging ever. What the hell were they thinking?!

[dx23]

Apparently every retailer out there is overstocked with this set since next week they are selling it at Target for $14.99 and Best Buy for $19.99. I imagine Amazon will be pricematching Target's lower price.

[mfunk9786]

Jeez. I'm going to stock up for Christmas

[flyonthewall2983]

I went for the UK edition. Much better and simpler. (Plus no digital copies)

Is it a keep case? I was pleased to find out that the UK Alien Anthology set was in one.

[manicsounds]

No it isn't. Digipak in a slipcase. But only 3 discs without digital copy discs, and not that weird contraption from the US.

[aox]

Apparently this was a dump inventory sale. This is being released this fall according to Best Buy's website. I simply hope this is a repackaging. I don't want to double dip 9 months after my initial purchase.

[mfunk9786]

It's probably just the 3-disc set without the digital copies being released this fall. I wouldn't be too worried. The packaging said the digital copies were limited (as if anyone ever gave a shit about their inclusion).

[swo17]

Yeah, Amazon has a listing for this coming out August 30.

[dx23]

I think Universal and retailers around the country got stuck with a lot of inventory of this set due to their ridiculous MSRP. The same thing is going to happen sooner or later to their other box set like the Bourne Trilogy. Universal needs to either put a reasonable price tag on these box sets when they are released or just see the same overflow of not sold sets at retailers.

By the way, it appears that Universal released the Back to the Future BD set with a new packaging.

[Roger Ryan]

I have no problem making room for slightly larger packaging to accommodate useless digital copy discs when I got this set for $65 less than what the retail price will be in two months.

[domino harvey]

I'm celebrating my own made-up tradition, Nostalgia November, by revisiting childhood favorites, and first up by proximity was the Back to the Future Trilogy. Was the second still the best? Yes. Was the third still the worst? Yes. Was it a bad film? Nah, just a kinda lame Western comedy lacking the observant humor of the first two films. Highlights: Hoverboards. Christopher Lloyd mugging. Elisabeth Shue trying to outdo him and mostly succeeding.

[Roger Ryan]

I'm celebrating my own made-up tradition, Nostalgia November, by revisiting childhood favorites, and first up by proximity was the Back to the Future Trilogy. Was the second still the best? Yes. Was the third still the worst? Yes. Was it a bad film? Nah, just a kinda lame Western comedy lacking the observant humor of the first two films. Highlights: Hoverboards. Christopher Lloyd mugging. Elisabeth Shue trying to outdo him and mostly succeeding.

The second film is the cleverest, but the script for the first film is still the wittiest.

[colinr0380]

Oh no domino! For me by far the worst part of the whole series was the first half of the second film where all the fantastical promise (albeit promise that I likely let grow too large to ever be fulfilled) of getting to see a future society was drained by all of the broad, schticky futuristic 2015 stuff, from the in jokes of the Jaws films to the extended sequence inside the McFly's house!

As much as I like Elizabeth Shue as an actress, it was a terrible shame that they couldn't bring back the actress who played Jennifer in the first film to reprise that role - this is something that also works against the future section of Part II as not only is it an overly broadly played section but the audience is having to get used to a new actress in the role along with the way they are interpreting the character - i.e. this new Jennifer having far too comedic fainting fits and immediately whining about the future causing the filmmakers to continually have to find reasons for knocking her out, something which makes Doc's (albeit impulsive) decision to "bring her along" at the end of the first film seem incredibly bizarre as they never utilise the character in a significant way or make her an important player in her own right. Part of the excitement (at least for me) at the end of the first film is the idea that Jennifer is being brought fully into Marty's world, and from the way Claudia Wells played the part in the first film there actually seemed a strength and curiosity there on her part - that she might get to have an role in the adventure too. Eventually the Jennifer (and Shue's playing of the character) in the sequels does pay off, but only in a rather limited way (one that doesn't affect the narrative at this point, just her understanding of the importance of that moment) at the very end of Part III when she understands the significance of Marty refusing to drag race and thereby avoiding the impact that accident will have had on the rest of their lives.

I like the third a lot as well, particularly the way that this one does actually involve Mary Steenburgen's Clara into the action (and the understanding of the action, with the shared love of Jules Verne) in the way that Part II pointedly withdrew from with Jennifer; and the way that it actually made the time travelling subservient to the love story. I also assume that the train crashing end of the film is a nod towards The General?

However (I agree with Roger Ryan that the first film's script is still the best, but the sequels do manage to do it justice to a surprisingly nice extent) don't get me wrong about the second film - I can see why some of the futuristic stuff was narratively necessary (i.e. to see how badly Marty's life was going wrong and to get the characters away from the time machine so Biff could go back to the 50s. Plus I have to admit that I do like the flying cars, hoverboards and the Sports Almanac, elements which pay off throughout the sequels!), which at least prevents much of it from being a pointless diversion from the proceedings even if I wish that the future had been played a little less tongue in cheek at times. And I do love the extremely dark alternative 80s (and the way that Biff may be doing a homage to Al Pacino in Scarface sitting in the tub with his floozies and watching the 'bulletproof vest' sequence of Fistful of Dollars, thereby preparing the audience for Part III!)

And while people (or at least my parents at the time!) might complain about the complexity of the second film, that is one of the most successful aspects of Part II, especially when we get to the impressive juggling of all of the doubling characters in the 1950s section! After that Part III might seem rather tame, but I get the impression that the filmmakers were striving to bring things together for the climax and that while Part II was their chance to go wild with the time travel paradoxes, Part III was instead emphasising a straightforward, 'simpler time', almost classically Western goodies vs baddies and train hijack storyline to tidy things up neatly.

[colinr0380]

Talking about Steenburgen's role in Part III reminded me that she was not exactly a novice even then at this kind of material, having starred with Malcolm McDowell and David Warner in the HG Wells vs Jack The Ripper in modern day San Fancisco film Time After Time!