Why back to Future Writer believes that the Sci-Fi classic could not exist today

The question of whether a classic film could be made today or not, ultimately, is one oxymoronic. Every film ever made is the product of its age, in ways that are deliberately and completely supplementary, so the easy answer to that question is that no film could be made in another age itself and remain exactly the same. Despite that truth, people still wonder if an old movie could look in our modern lifespan, which only further states that what we are talking about is actually the differences between two different time periods. For some people, watching a classic movie with modern eyes – whether after a long period of not watching or watching it for their first time ever – has the same effect as if they had traveled back in time by accident.

The conflict of cultures between the modern past and the past that is not so rosy is the exact impetus behind Classical Sci-Fi Adventure Comedy 1985 “Back to the Future,” Written by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale and directed by Zemeckis. It’s a film about an 80s teenager, Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox), accidentally stuck in 1955, and thereupon meets his parents at the same age. In addition to the film relating to the core concept of Gale he and his own father would have been friends if they had been contemporaries, the film pokes holes on the image of the 1980s and 1950s. It is a satirical method that allows the film to be timely and non -time.

The saturation of the film in its two time periods is one big reason why you couldn’t do “back to the future” today and get it the same in the end. According to Gale, this is just one of a long list of reasons why elements of the film would not fly. Although Gale observations are objectively accurate, they are a bit responsive, and whether they are intentional or not, they hit the differences in the culture of the 1980s and our culture in 2025.

As Gale chose When talking to the Guardian (by cracking) On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of “Back to the Future,” the hope of making the film in 2025 would likely mean that it would never be done:

“Oh man, the film wouldn’t even be made today. We would enter the studio, and they would say, ‘What is the deal with this relationship between Marty and Dock?’ They would begin to interpret pedophilia or something.

Indeed, as this observation suggests, there is much to unpack in “Back to the Future” from a modern perspective. Putting aside the obvious political changes – Brown’s “Dock” Emmett (Christopher Lloyd) is sewn by a fraudulent crew of Libyan terrorists – there are a number of cultural differences between that and now in the film. Much of this stems from how critics, comedians and other cultural commentators have made Snarky observations about how strange the characters and the default of the film appear when taking them according to their face. In addition to the unusually close relationship between Marty and Doc, the incest line about Marty and his teenage mother, Lorraine (Lea Thompson), and the gag where Marty’s guitar plays in a school dance, apparently inspires Chuck Berry to create rock n ‘rolling music, giving the credit to white innovation.

Yet Gale also comes to his observation of a memorial space, as the film would not be likely to be rejected today; It was also rejected by almost every large studio in the mid -80s, for several similar reasons. “Back to the Future” is an adventure comedy, after all, and as we have seen throughout the history of cinematic comedy, it is a genre that tends to aging poorly because of the constantly changing culture and standards. Despite the film crossing the time-of-flock barrier, there is no doubt that “Back to the Future” is the product of his time.

What Gale and Thompson hit on in their recent interview is that cultural commentary is the core of “Back to the Future”. For her, Thompson highlights that the difference between 2025 and 1995 is a unique one, unlike the more surreal gap between 1985 and 1955:

“If you were to do ‘back to the future’ in 2025 and they went back 30 years, it would be 1995 and nothing would look that different. The phones would be different but it would not be the strange difference between the ’80s and the’ 50s and how different the world was.”

Indeed, while there may be enough culture shock to mining in “back to the future” made today, the immediate aesthetics shock provided by the ’80s against the’ 50s in the film would not be. The contrast and confluence of those two specific time periods is part of what makes the film so special, especially because it allows Zemeckis’s satire brand to shine. “Back to the future,” Like most zemeckis moviesIn revolutionary and slightly cynical satire in the way it highlights the empty core of the material 80s and allegedly squeaky tide (but anything but) 1950s. Not all the cultural differences in the film there are arbitrary, or just to push the envelope. Is Marty’s unintentional “device” of Rock N ‘Roll a clueless gag that rewards our American white hero by accident? Or was a reason Zemeckis and Gale were so happy to cast Fox, Then famous for playing a neo-conservative son for Liberal parents on “Family Ties,” In the role of a child who is only rewarded for making several mistakes almost unnoticed?

If there is a problem with “Back to the Future,” Zemeckis and Gale have made a film that is so fascinating and entertaining that its satire can get lost in the rustle. He certainly made for co-star Crispin Gloverand he even did with general audiences, who saw the film cliff ending gag As a promise for a sequel that Zemeckis and Gale never intended to do. So while “back to the future” will no longer act as an observation for our current culture, it is invaluable as a time capsule itself, both of the 1980s and the way the decade looked back in the 1950s. “Back to the future” could never be done today, but more than enough space for someone else to make cultural commentary is just as penetrating, sly and entertaining.