Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekig4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekig3!tekig5!tekig4!briand
From: briand@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Diehm)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: _Back_to_the_Future_  (spoiler)
Message-ID: <232@tekig4.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 13:25:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekig4.232
Posted: Tue Aug 27 13:25:27 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Aug-85 08:05:44 EDT
References: <2706@ut-sally.UUCP> <1715@hao.UUCP>
Reply-To: briand@tekig4Diehm.UUCP (Brian Diehm)
Distribution: net
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 41
Summary: 

In article <1715@hao.UUCP> kitten@hao.UUCP writes:
>                             Kelvin Thompson writes:
>>  
>>  _Back_to_the_Future_ is a bad, confused movie.  If there are any doubts
>>  that Hollywood is still rife with drug abuse, this movie can lay them to
>>  rest.

 . . .

>>  For example, one moment Fox is driving around in a parking lot, then the
>>  viewer turns to his girlfriend to talk about dinner plans and looks up to
>>  find the student staring at a farmer in the middle of nowhere.  Later,
>>  when the viewer returns to his seat with some hot dogs and popcorn, he
>>  sees a strange, seemingly incestuous conversation between Fox and his
>>  mother (maybe his sister?).  Still later, after the viewer has moved to a
>>  better seat, Fox is in a concert hall playing electric guitar, even
>>  though he was banned from the concert early in the film.  And all through
>>  the movie, whenever the viewer looks up from trying to quiet the baby he
>>  is sitting, he notices all sorts of inconsistent details: the town square
>>  looks completely different in different scenes; the same people will
>>  sometimes drive recent-model sedans and later drive dated jalopies; and
>>  characters' ages and relationships to one another seem to shift randomly.

>I'm sorry I had to leave in so much of the above article in my summary,
>but this is ridiculous!  I get that you didn't want to go to this movie
>in the first place, and had it already condemed.  Really now, you must
>have the attention span of a three year old to have missed so much.
>To enjoy a movie, you must *watch* it.
>
>(boy, my first counter-flame!  that felt good - except for the singed paws)

And to enjoy satire, one must *read* it!  Really, I know it takes intelligence
to enjoy satire, but I never realized that it took so much intelligence just to
*recognize* it!  Apparently you are not alone in lacking that, as many on this
net have missed the blatantly obvious.

-Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc. (Who not only doesn't CARE about Kelvin Thompson, they corpor-
                 ately have never even HEARD of him!)

"Tell me more, *Future Boy!*"