Couldn't sleep, so I was flipping channels and caught part of BACK TO THE FUTURE. It's toward the beginning when Doc Brown is showing Marty the time-travel-car. Brown says you could use the car to see the signing of the Declaration and plugs in July 4, 1776, and then says you could see the birth of Christ and plugs in December 25, 0000. This little tiny scene gets me all nit-picky because those exact points in history the film purports to visit never took place. I really like BACK TO THE FUTURE and this nitpick doesn't in any way truly diminish it -- but I still can't help but be irked.

What films do you like but still nitpick?

[Doc Brown was set to visit 25 years into the future... from 1985... which means, gulp, 2010...! I wonder how disappointed the 1985 Brown would be in 2010?]

BTtF is a film I overthink a bit too much, but I'd forgotten about the Xmas reference.  I think that would make me wince if I were to see the movie again.

...and easy for the audience too, no doubt.

I admit this is a total nitpick, very nearly a waste of time to be so carping, but, even quite gladly winking at imperfections (e.g., the car seems to travel only to Marty's hometown, so it would have been gosh-darn hard to see the birth of Christ anyway), I'm sure the filmmakers could just as easily used any number of historical incidents that really happened.

PICKING NITS!

One other film that comes to mind is The Magnificent Seven, which is, of course, based on The Seven Samurai.  This is the thing that bugs me about M7:  in Samurai, the villagers were sent specifically to hire samurai to defend the village.  In M7, if memory serves correctly, they were just told to get guns, not gunmen (they end up hiring gunmen because Yul Brenner's character tells them guns won't be enough in the hands of farmers and they persuade him to help them).  In Samurai, when the mercenaries arrive, the villagers hide and are then berated for their timidity by the men who hired the samurai.  In M7, the same thing happens but I have to wonder why.  The villagers weren't expecting gunmen, as I mentioned before.  I think, therefore, their reaction was understandable when they saw hired gunmen enter their city.  In any case, they didn't seem to deserve the tongue-lashing they subsequently got.

I could be off here.  Of course, even if I'm not, it's probably just nit-picking but that's what struck me when I saw the movie again after a long while.

Quote: e.g., the car seems to travel only to Marty's hometown, so it would have been gosh-darn hard to see the birth of Christ anyway

Interesting observation.  I don't remember if the movie ever implies this, but the car would seem to have to be moved to another location if the user wanted to go back in time in that location.

Quote: but the car would seem to have to be moved to another location if the user wanted to go back in time in that location.

Exactly why Doc built it into a vehicle.

Good point, though the De Lorean wouldn't get wings until the end of the movie.  ;-)  And (just to keep with the minutea theme) you gotta wonder if it could cross the Atlantic.

Doc was also just punching in numbers to show Marty, I'm sure that if he was really going back he'd try a little harder.

My biggest problem with BTtF is that in Part 2 Doc's motivation has changed and now it's a terrible thing to find out info from the future.  Doc seemed willing in part 1 to find out World Series information with a sly smile.  I guess you could say he saw the error of his ways after going into the future.

Quote: C'mon, a Delorean pulling up to the birth of Christ?

Can't help but think of that as a good premise for a comedy.

Michael Penn wrote: What films do you like but still nitpick?

I don't.  I've found that I'm not the kind of person that goes back and watches things just to nitpick them or tries to find the flaws in a film.  If I like something, I'll generally accept it for what it is without trying to see if there's something wrong with it.  I've also found that if I nitpick a film to death, I probably don't really like it.  That's why I hate the nitpicker books about Star Trek.  Just not my cup o' tea.

Going back to the original nit:

When I originally saw the film back in 1985, I took these calendar problems to be a sign that Doc was a specialist and not up on history.

How many of the general public know that Jesus was probably born in springtime (at least using what is written in the Christian Bible) and the Declaration was signed on various dates? (Tho, Hancock signed it on July 4th, yes? That would have been historical.) But how many people know how to make a time machine? I say we give Doc and the writers a break.

"C'mon, a Delorean pulling up to the birth of Christ?"

"Sounds like the beginning of a Monty Python sketch... "

***

Well, almost...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFrufPxjwX0

Quote: My biggest problem with BTtF is that in Part 2 Doc's motivation has changed and now it's a terrible thing to find out info from the future.  Doc seemed willing in part 1 to find out World Series information with a sly smile.  I guess you could say he saw the error of his ways after going into the future.

That's crossed my mind.  But, at the same time (no pun intended), we're dealing with different Docs...the Doc at the beginning of I is from a different timeline than the Doc we see from the point at which Marty first goes to 1955.  What's crossed my mind more, though, is the change (with backpedal/retcon) between I and III---

In I, Marty asks, "So, does this thing run on unleaded?" to which Doc replies that it's electrical, but powered by the stolen plutonium (later replaced by Mr. Fusion following the upgrade in the future).

Then, in III, we're told that only the time machine portion runs off the energy supplied by Mr. Fusion...the car's engine is gasoline powered.