If there's one thing guys like to do, it's drink. If there's two things they like to do, it's drink, and argue about things. This is what men do. This week is a "very special" Drunken Argument Friday, because this is a topic that we've argued about many, many times.
This Week's Drunken Argument: Which is better: Back to the Future: Part 1, or Back to the Future: Part 2?
Drunken Argument for Bttf: Part 1
BttF: Part 2 is just like my senile grandmother's fruit cake: there's a bunch of weird shit crammed into it, and you have to really search for any of the good parts. I mean, for Christ's sake, they expain time travel in twenty seconds, with a drawing that's made of two lines. I don't ask for a ton of explanation in time travel movies, but the least you can do is figure out a time traveling plot that doesn't seem like it was created by me in the 4th grade, right after I got pantsed and everyone saw my penis. The first BttF movie has a solid story, and you get to watch Marty fend off his mom from f*&king him. Plus, the movie wasn't bogged down by all these tiny little plot points they tried to force into the script, just to make some kind of sense. The only thing that the people who like BttF 2 ever talk about is the fuggin' hoverboard. That's it. They don't exist, people. THEY DON'T EXIST.
Drunken Argument for BttF: Part 2
Y'know what? You're right. Hoverboards don't exist. And I know two other things that don't exist, either: your balls, and time-traveling Deloreans, so let's just dismiss the "you can't think it's cool because it doesn't really exist" argument altogether, okay? Now that we got that out of the way, nobody can deny that hoverboards are, in fact, awesome. Here's a brief list of other things that are also awesome: Cheezy 3-D Jaws 19 billboards, Auto-fit Nike's, self-drying jackets, rehydratable pizzas, FLYING time-traveling deloreans, the line "McFry! Read my fax! You're fired!!", The Biff Tannen Museum, Mr. Fusions, and (neither last nor least) Grey's...Sports...Almanac. People who aren't afraid of the future find delight in BttF 2's ridiculous depiction of the future as a place where fairly lame 80's technologies are ubiquitous (i.e., fax machines in every room, including the closet), whereas people who are afraid of the future, perhaps because they've made some bad life decisions and foresee a dismal, lonely existence ahead of them, tend to find the sequel confusing and scattered. On behalf of the film's creators, I'd like to apologize for that. How dare they make a time travel movie that you have to pay attention to! In short, BttF 2 is way more awesome, hoverboards will be a reality, and your vagina is showing.
What do you think? Back to the Future: Part 1, or Back to the Future: Part 2?
Number 2 was way better, in addition to the already mentioned hoverboards and other cool shit it also has immediate consequences, like when Biff get the book the future changes right away. Not like in the bttf 1 when Marty looks like an autistic kid trying to play the guitar while only parts of him disappear, and why is he the last kid to disappear anyways? If one kid goes they all go, IMMEDIATELY...shenanigans!
Like it matters that one of them disappears, if you're going to analyze time traveling, the butterfly effect would mean that nine months later, none of the people born would be the same as before the time travel, the present time the world would have been completely different, with other wars fought, new borderlines of countries as well as completely different fashion, inventions etc.
Besides that, they both pale compared to Part 3... it was... the wild west... *cough!*
But if I had to choose from these, Part 1 for sure.
"if you're going to analyze time traveling, the butterfly effect would mean that nine months later..."
WHAT?!? Apparently you have no idea of what the butterfly affect is. BTW Part 3 was uber-gay.
The butterfly effect is a phrase that encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory. Small variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. This is sometimes presented as esoteric behavior, but can be exhibited by very simple systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill might roll into any of several valleys depending on slight differences in initial position.
It is a common subject in fiction when presenting scenarios involving time travel and with "what if" scenarios where one storyline diverges at the moment of a seemingly minor event resulting in two significantly different outcomes.
Earth rotates on it's axis at about 1000 mph, and rotates around the sun at about 67,000 mph, and the sun rotates through the galaxy ect. So, if Marty went 30 years back in time, and came out in the same spot, he would be floating in space and would implode and die. He wouldn't come out at Peabody's pine farm because it would be millions of miles away.
You do not implode in space, because you are in a huge vacuum with little to no matter around you...to implode would require huge amounts of pressure surrounding Marty...not the case.
That's what I used to think. Then I was told that we have to consider Marty's frame of reference when he time travels. Since he isn't moving relative to his frame of reference, (OK - he's moving at 88 MPH), he stays in the same 3-D location, even though he changes WHEN he is at that location.
Those physics guys can pull out some sweet equations when it comes to time travel.
Being completely sober and of sound mind (well), I have to state for the record that the train ride at the end of bttf 3, is one of the best sequences in all of moviedom.
I'm mad too cuz I think 3 should be on the run too!
but whatever between 1 and 2 I'll stick for 2 because we see the future, then they go back to the past an dcan't meet themselfs that are already there etc
You can't really split them up. They function best in context of a trilogy. Each has its place, each has its faults, and each has its strengths. 1 is the first, and is a good ride. 2 has the future and the rehash of 1. 3 has the wild west. I couldn't live without a single of the trilogy.
Most of the people that are commenting were probably born after these movies came out. By the way part 1 is the best, this is obvious. No idea why you guys even debate this as only people born in the 90's debate this kind of crap..
I was born in 83 saw the second film in the theaters (i was def too young to see the first one in theaters) and I am openly debating this discussion .... dont be a hater because you feel old pops! P.S. - First one is the best no doubt about it... the idea was fresh different and exciting the second has its merits in the debate but without the glory of the first one there would be no flying deloreans period!!!
I would like to rebut that argument, Exhibit A: Godfather Part II. Exhibits B and C: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and Return of the King (both better than Fellowship), Exhibit D: The Dark Knight. Exhibit E: Spider-man 2 and Exhibit F: Empire Strikes Back.
2 The Godfather is a better film than its sequel, there are two scenes that especially make it superior (the restaurant killings and the protection of his father at the hospital). The fact that mainstream media has been referring to the sequel as a better film (Scream 2 had a scene where this was discussed for example) seems to have been picked up by the general public, but imo the original is better.
(I would also like to take this opportunity to say that every single Batman movie was shit. The latest one had a cool Joker. Thats it. All shit. And you are dumb for liking them.)
However, Two Towers and Return of the King are not sequels to Fellowship of the Ring. All three were written as one, long, continuous, story. It was merely split into 3 parts for a maximum capital gain.
(92 Comments)
Twitter
Holy Taco Goes to the Bahamas
May 22nd, 2009 at 03:12 pm
First... I guess? And BttF 2 is awesome!
May 22nd, 2009 at 03:30 pm
BttF2...easy
I mean if you had the chance to jump into a time machine, would you go to the past or the future??...
Yeah, I thought so.
May 22nd, 2009 at 05:39 pm
id go to the past, because i could fucking rule the past...id know everything that was going to happen...id be better than biff
May 22nd, 2009 at 03:55 pm
hoverboards
May 22nd, 2009 at 03:56 pm
I'm gonna say the first one is better than the second, just like your mom was better the first time.
May 22nd, 2009 at 04:01 pm
Part 2.. Remember , there was always rumors about hover boards coming out.. " I seen the comercial" lmao
May 22nd, 2009 at 04:10 pm
Duh, Part I!
May 22nd, 2009 at 04:10 pm
Number 2 was way better, in addition to the already mentioned hoverboards and other cool shit it also has immediate consequences, like when Biff get the book the future changes right away. Not like in the bttf 1 when Marty looks like an autistic kid trying to play the guitar while only parts of him disappear, and why is he the last kid to disappear anyways? If one kid goes they all go, IMMEDIATELY...shenanigans!
May 22nd, 2009 at 04:56 pm
Like it matters that one of them disappears, if you're going to analyze time traveling, the butterfly effect would mean that nine months later, none of the people born would be the same as before the time travel, the present time the world would have been completely different, with other wars fought, new borderlines of countries as well as completely different fashion, inventions etc.
Besides that, they both pale compared to Part 3... it was... the wild west... *cough!*
But if I had to choose from these, Part 1 for sure.
May 22nd, 2009 at 05:57 pm
"if you're going to analyze time traveling, the butterfly effect would mean that nine months later..."
WHAT?!? Apparently you have no idea of what the butterfly affect is. BTW Part 3 was uber-gay.
May 23rd, 2009 at 02:06 am
I don't know what the "butterfly affect" is either, let's have the guy who didn't understand the sarcasm of the Part 3 comment explain it.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:28 am
From wikipedia:
The butterfly effect is a phrase that encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory. Small variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. This is sometimes presented as esoteric behavior, but can be exhibited by very simple systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill might roll into any of several valleys depending on slight differences in initial position.
It is a common subject in fiction when presenting scenarios involving time travel and with "what if" scenarios where one storyline diverges at the moment of a seemingly minor event resulting in two significantly different outcomes.
May 22nd, 2009 at 04:23 pm
BTTF 2
hoverboards.....woulda given a toe to have one when I was a kid....still would now.
May 22nd, 2009 at 04:41 pm
BTTF 1. Hands down, any day.
May 22nd, 2009 at 05:12 pm
1 is groundbreaking. 2 is masturbation on the idea of 1.
1 rules.
May 22nd, 2009 at 05:14 pm
bttf 1
no doubt
May 22nd, 2009 at 05:17 pm
BttF2 all the way.
MCFLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
MCFRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
MCFRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
YOU ARE TERMINATED
TERMINATED
TERMINATED
TERMINATED
TERMINATED
TERMINATED
May 22nd, 2009 at 05:22 pm
Part 3, with Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen and ZZ Top!
May 22nd, 2009 at 05:28 pm
BTTF 1 of course, hands down, end of story.
May 22nd, 2009 at 06:31 pm
Earth rotates on it's axis at about 1000 mph, and rotates around the sun at about 67,000 mph, and the sun rotates through the galaxy ect. So, if Marty went 30 years back in time, and came out in the same spot, he would be floating in space and would implode and die. He wouldn't come out at Peabody's pine farm because it would be millions of miles away.
May 22nd, 2009 at 07:13 pm
i like the way you think.
May 23rd, 2009 at 06:41 am
You do not implode in space, because you are in a huge vacuum with little to no matter around you...to implode would require huge amounts of pressure surrounding Marty...not the case.
Fucking rookie.
May 22nd, 2009 at 08:00 pm
Its a fucking movie Bill Nye shut up
May 23rd, 2009 at 07:14 am
That's what I used to think. Then I was told that we have to consider Marty's frame of reference when he time travels. Since he isn't moving relative to his frame of reference, (OK - he's moving at 88 MPH), he stays in the same 3-D location, even though he changes WHEN he is at that location.
Those physics guys can pull out some sweet equations when it comes to time travel.
May 23rd, 2009 at 04:26 pm
exactly. the delorian is in the same exact place in 3-d space, but the earth is somewhere else completely.
May 22nd, 2009 at 07:02 pm
number 2, goddamnit
May 22nd, 2009 at 07:44 pm
This whole argument is as funny as a screen door on a battleship.
May 25th, 2009 at 05:14 am
submarine maybe?
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Apparently my vagina's showing again, because i'm going with number 1. That and i'm pantsless.
May 23rd, 2009 at 05:45 am
no.2 everytime! FTW
May 23rd, 2009 at 05:56 am
Why isn't BTTF 3 in the dispute?
Did you guys just assume that the third one is the worst?
WITHOUT a drunken argument?
May 23rd, 2009 at 06:27 am
Being completely sober and of sound mind (well), I have to state for the record that the train ride at the end of bttf 3, is one of the best sequences in all of moviedom.
May 23rd, 2009 at 06:30 am
Wow, thats freakin insane dude. Too cool!
RT
www.real-anonymity.pro.tc
May 23rd, 2009 at 06:35 am
I'm mad too cuz I think 3 should be on the run too!
but whatever between 1 and 2 I'll stick for 2 because we see the future, then they go back to the past an dcan't meet themselfs that are already there etc
May 23rd, 2009 at 06:50 am
2 all the way
May 23rd, 2009 at 07:27 am
You can't really split them up. They function best in context of a trilogy. Each has its place, each has its faults, and each has its strengths. 1 is the first, and is a good ride. 2 has the future and the rehash of 1. 3 has the wild west. I couldn't live without a single of the trilogy.
May 23rd, 2009 at 07:28 am
Most of the people that are commenting were probably born after these movies came out. By the way part 1 is the best, this is obvious. No idea why you guys even debate this as only people born in the 90's debate this kind of crap..
May 24th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I was born in 83 saw the second film in the theaters (i was def too young to see the first one in theaters) and I am openly debating this discussion .... dont be a hater because you feel old pops! P.S. - First one is the best no doubt about it... the idea was fresh different and exciting the second has its merits in the debate but without the glory of the first one there would be no flying deloreans period!!!
May 23rd, 2009 at 07:29 am
Oh without a doubt the first is the best. The sequels of any movie just never seem to comare!
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 am
I would like to rebut that argument, Exhibit A: Godfather Part II. Exhibits B and C: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and Return of the King (both better than Fellowship), Exhibit D: The Dark Knight. Exhibit E: Spider-man 2 and Exhibit F: Empire Strikes Back.
May 24th, 2009 at 04:33 am
I mostly agree with your comment, but...
1 All Spiderman films suck.
2 The Godfather is a better film than its sequel, there are two scenes that especially make it superior (the restaurant killings and the protection of his father at the hospital). The fact that mainstream media has been referring to the sequel as a better film (Scream 2 had a scene where this was discussed for example) seems to have been picked up by the general public, but imo the original is better.
May 26th, 2009 at 01:55 pm
I mostly agree with your rebuttal but...
Only SM3 sucked.
May I also add Star Trek 2.
(I would also like to take this opportunity to say that every single Batman movie was shit. The latest one had a cool Joker. Thats it. All shit. And you are dumb for liking them.)
July 21st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
How the kcuf could you forget Terminator 2?
Hands down the best sequel to anything in media; print, movies, games, music, tv shows, you, etc...
February 9th, 2010 at 12:00 am
However, Two Towers and Return of the King are not sequels to Fellowship of the Ring. All three were written as one, long, continuous, story. It was merely split into 3 parts for a maximum capital gain.
May 23rd, 2009 at 07:34 am
Wow, you all equally suck...It's quite breathtaking actually.
May 23rd, 2009 at 09:37 am
And you're a condescending idiot Who contributes nothing to the discussion.
May 23rd, 2009 at 07:53 am
BttF1, since BttF2 has a timeline flaw which invalidates the whole movie.
May 23rd, 2009 at 09:31 am
What flaw?
May 23rd, 2009 at 09:42 am
One flaw is how did old biff get back to the normal future after changing the past?
May 23rd, 2009 at 09:49 am
There is a deleted scene in the DVDs where right after coming back from the past(and changing it) he collapses and disappears
Post new comment