Why is back to the future II more popular than back to the future III

I don’t get it. I always liked III more. but I still think the first one is much better than both the sequels. But my friend puts I and II in the same league, and then doesn’t like III

Why doesn’t everyone have the same opinions as I?

Your friend is a communist, that’s why. Filthy commies hate the old west, because it was a God-Damn Libertarian paradise.

Also, free will and stuff.

The first two are science fiction. The third one is fantasy.

Yeah, it reads as “sillier” to some people.

As I recall, III was widely regarded as the superior movie even at the time. However, III was released less than a year after II, and people were sort of fed up with how mediocre II was, and didn’t bother with III.

Part II was a very slightly higher grade of suckage than part III, IMHO.

I remember when Part II first came out, most reviewers didn’t like it as much, because they felt it rehashed the first one too much. Even though that was the point. It also suffered from “middle part of a trilogy” syndrome, where it felt like an incomplete story, because it was.

I personally really liked it and appreciated what it managed to do with time travel and ground breaking visual effects.

However, Part III is my favourite. When it came out, and even now when I watch the trilogy in a marathon, I love the character interaction the most, starting from 1955 Doc’s reaction when Marty shows him the letter Doc wrote from 1885.

I felt Part II was underrated when it came out and still like it for the skewed take on It’s a Wonderful Life for the alternate 1985 sequence and the quick-or-you’ll-miss-it details (e.g., the story below the fold about Nixon declaring for his fifth term when Prof. Brown shows Marty the “Brown Declared Insane” newspaper headline and the CDs being thrown out as obsolete).

It was Laserdiscs being thrown out as obsolete

Yeah, 3 is quite a bit better than 2 in my opinion. I wasn’t aware it was viewed as worse than 2.

People thought II sucked? I thought it was great. I and II are really awesome. I is a good stand alone but II really builds on I and plays with it. III just seemed kind of boring.

I remember that many people didn’t like II. Some seemed to have difficulty following all of the time travel twists and turns, but it made sense to me. (As much sense as the premise allows. I’m sure you could find plenty of paradoxes and plot holes.)

I personally enjoyed all three but I think I and III were better. II wasn’t as good but it was entertaining and it’s needed to make sense of III.

III absolutely pwned. I saw all of these movies years after they had come out, though, so reviews/when they came out/a wait between them/etc doesn’t factor in. I watched them all with a child’s glee.

I couldn’t believe Darth Vader was Marty’s father.

An excellent trilogy.
I didn’t like the first film, but have come to enjoy it when considered with the other two.

I remember nothing about Part III other than a souped-up train. That’s it.

Marty: “Does this place have a back door?”
Barkeep: “Yeah, it’s around back.”

Clint Eastwood.

That help? :slight_smile:

It sucks slightly less.

actually reads thread

Oh, hi, Alpha Twit.

I remember a big train, Marty calling himself Clint Eastwood, and a few other details. It just felt like a conventional narrative, though. There wasn’t anything clever or funny about it like with the second one playing with the scenes in the first one. And on its own, it was just a mediocre movie. Not like the first one which, even if it hadn’t been part of a trilogy, was a great movie with a good script. The last one was just so forgettable.

I don’t think I’d call the third one fantasy. There’s no elves, gnomes, ogres, orks, trolls, magic, spirits or supernatural. It much better fits sci-fi like the rest.