# Are the Back to the Future sequels really that bad? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 9, 2011, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-back-to-the-future-sequels-really-that-bad/574105 "2011-03-09T23:44:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DooWahDiddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9bcb4/32.png) [@DooWahDiddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DooWahDiddy)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2011, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-back-to-the-future-sequels-really-that-bad/574105/81 "2011-03-13T02:49:21Z")
> [@Jman](#): > > Agreed. I watched 2 last night after reading this thread, and started 3, which I’ll finish in a little while. The whole ‘chicken’ thing is very contrived, and feels contrived from the very first time they do it. Well they may not use the phrase “chicken” in the first one (I honestly can’t remember if they do) but certainly there’s the whole “I care too much about what people might think of me” thing, as evidenced in Marty’s reluctance to show his songs to anybody and George’s reluctance to let anybody read his stories. Surely we can use this as a precedent for “chicken”? > [@Jman](#): > > The other thing that I know is supposed to be sort of funny, but gets rather old when you watch them together is the “I had a horrible nightmare.” “Well you’re back in good ol’ 1955…the 27th floor…the McFly Farm…” Funny the first time when his mom was young…old the other times. Oh come on, this is just a riff on the ol’ “History repeats itself” meme. > [@Jman](#): > > Part II is actually very good after they leave the future. I think what I don’t like about the parts in the future is not the over the top tech junk, but rather Griff…which is just so insanely stupid… Once they get away from that joke of a plot device, the rest of the film is quite good. Okay, this I agree with you on. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2011, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-back-to-the-future-sequels-really-that-bad/574105/82 "2011-03-13T06:57:06Z")
> [@stegon66](#): > > The train keeps on going. I really don’t think it noticed. If it didn’t see it long before it hit in order to stop, it wouldn’t have seen it after it destroyed it. The train plowed through that thing like it was made of paper. If you recall, the Doc even mentioned that the DeLorean was not particularly sturdy and would not survive a battle with even Biff’s old car. ---
**Author:** ![Marc\_Xenos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9a140/32.png) [@Marc\_Xenos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marc_Xenos)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2011, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-back-to-the-future-sequels-really-that-bad/574105/83 "2011-03-13T18:42:11Z")
I have over 3,000 DVDs in my collection, mostly in case I ever MIGHT want to watch them again. The Back to the Future trilogy is a set that I do enjoy every several months when company wants to watch them. They’re fun to watch, and it’s not so much about any pretense at plausability but just the comical disconnects between “future me” and “past me”. Good acting, hammy as it is, carries it off well. The first was inventive and funny. The second was darker, and admittedly a connector to the third one. You could actually watch #3 and never really need #2 to enjoy it. Still, #2 plays up the future/past meeting/disconnect more so than the first. As I said, if you relax and watch it for the fun, it’s enjoyable. Try to analyze it too much, and it would be irritating. Go ahead and watch all three, from the beginning. They tend to segue into each other and they are fun to watch. And #3 resolves Marty McFly’s predicament in middle age from #2, as well as provide the overall Moral of the Story from all three. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-back-to-the-future-sequels-really-that-bad/574105.md?page=4)