wouldnt that be a huge turnoff? can a woman really love a manlet?

Height wasn’t a big issue until the advent of electronic dating. Plus, Marty had swag.

He had purple underwear

when will they learn?

It's a fictional story.
The bad guy was a tall guy who was always getting beaten and humiliated conclusively at the end.

Good bet the guy who made it is a manlet as well.

It's implied that she checked out his cock while he was passed out and that she goes crazy over for how hung he is and becomes obsessed with his dong

Big flux capacitor

The actress who played Lorraine (Lea Thompson) actually had a crush on 6' tall Crispin Glover. She was mad when he was replaced in Part 2 and she was standoffish to his replacement.

Also, Eric Stoltz, the original Marty (before they were able to secure Fox), was 6' as well.

Sorry manlets. better luck next time.

LOL at Marty's incestuous mom trying to rape him.

Dem emotional wounds don't heal.

Although this type of thing could be a plot for a 2023 leftist propaganda film citing the benefits of incest.

Ph@ggit lib filth would surely love it.

Also don't forget George employed Biff even though he tried to rape his wife.

always said it, the whole movie is a big Freudian wet dream.

It’s a movie.

bump

These

The film has a loads of hidden red pill moments. Lorraine who is depressed and looks with disgust at George during dinner when they are poor, but is all over him when they become Rich.

Because Steven Spielberg the one who wrote this fantasy is only 5'7", copium filled fiction story.

She thought he was in the Coast Guard which is similar to the Navy so of course women liked him.

In real life Michael J Fox was considered a sex symbol, I grew up in the 80s and 90s and he got leading man roles for a reason because a lot of young women found him hot even though he was only 5'4

they had to pay her to date a manlet

let that sink in

Lorraine was a whale at the beginning of the movie, so her opinion is irrelevant.

Plus at the beginning of the film Marty's sister was a femcel/female miscer but at the end she was a turbo slut/female miscer

He had Rizz.

[QUOTE=Uhyeahokay post_id=1686277793]These

The film has a loads of hidden red pill moments. Lorraine who is depressed and looks with disgust at George during dinner when they are poor, but is all over him when they become Rich.[/QUOTE]Pretty interesting you say that. That’s basically the reason that Crispin Glover (the actor that plays the dad) didn’t return for the sequels

[QUOTE]AVC: Do you feel personal qualms about being in a Charlie’s Angels or an Alice In Wonderland, where you’re clearly forwarding that kind of good-vs.-evil dichotomy you worry about?

CG: Well, yeah. It started with Back To The Future. That was the film that I still have questions about. Essentially what led to me not being in the sequels—I haven’t talked about it a lot until recently. The reason I’m starting to talk about it, specifically, there’s a person named Bob Gale who was a co-producer and co-writer on it who’s been lying about me, as to why I wasn’t in the second film. He’s been saying that I asked for the same salary that Michael J. Fox was getting. Total fabrication. The reason he’s making that up is because he does not want to talk about what he did that was—he is probably the prime architect as to that illegal thing that happened. [Glover won a landmark lawsuit over use of his likeness when the filmmakers replaced him with previously shot footage and an actor in prosthetics for the sequel. —ed.]

The reason that that happened, essentially—it’s more complex than this, but when we were working on the first Back To The Future, Michael J. Fox wasn’t the original actor. It was Eric Stoltz. He was fired right before Christmas vacation. We had shot about six weeks. I’d shot most of my character with Eric Stoltz playing it. And the last thing that we shot with Eric Stoltz was the alternate return to the future. In the original screenplay, I won’t say what it was, but there was a slightly different element in the ending. And I’m sure I wasn’t the only person that said something about it, because it did get changed. But I said, “Look, if we have this in our characters, if this happens, it will not be liked by people at large.” They did change that element. But I went on beyond it, because it was related to this subject matter.[b] I had a conversation with Robert Zemeckis about it and I said, “I think if the characters have money [in the updated timeline at the end of the film], if our characters are rich, it’s a bad message. That reward should not be in there.” People love the movie, and of course who am I to say—I was 20 years old, though. And again, I was stepping into it from a time period of questioning. But Robert Zemeckis got really angry. Essentially, he did not like that idea. He was pissed.[/b]

We’d shot a slightly different interpretation of how I played the character, in the returning alternate future. Eric Stoltz was fired, and the next thing we shot with Michael J. Fox was that alternate future. Robert Zemeckis had been nice to me in between [those shooting segments]. But he made it very clear to me that he was not happy with how the character had been played. I was 20 years old, and of course they had just fired another actor. The lead. So I didn’t want to get fired! I wanted to work! I was scared when we shot that alternate future. Essentially, I would call it acting from the spinal cord. It was different from how I had interpreted it initially, and essentially, I was re-auditioning. I felt that if I didn’t do it exactly as I was being instructed, that I would get fired—which is fair enough. But I was acting from a point of view of fright, basically, which is not exactly my favorite way to work.

I don’t know that anybody would notice it. I’ve only seen the film once since it came out. I was working on At Close Range when it was released, and that summer, it was actually a very fast release. I saw it that one time, and[/b] I still think the same way. I know there are all kinds of people that would disagree, and people love the film and all that, and I understand that. It’s not that I dislike the entire film. There are things about the structure that are very solid, and there’s good writing behind it. But I still would argue all the things that people love about the film would still be there, and I think there would be a better message if, instead of the son character pumping his fist in the air or whatever, jumping up in the air because he has a new truck [in the new timeline], if instead the reward was that the mother and father characters are in love with each other. And that there’s the potential that money comes in. I think [equating their new riches with moral success] is a bad message. And this is aligned to those things in film that I’m saying serve the interests of a corporate element.[/b]

[b]Now, I don’t know that Bob Gale or Robert Zemeckis necessarily intellectualized that, although that conversation has started to mention, on some level—I do think there’s an intellectualization. There’s an understanding that if that portion, that kind of carrot dangled out in front of the American populace that money is going to make you happy, you should borrow money to do things, this serves corporate interests. Whereas being in love with somebody, on a pure level, doesn’t necessarily serve corporate interest. Somehow that was an understanding, a knowledge, that if that interest didn’t serve the people that were hiring the movie, that maybe it wouldn’t be as well-released by those interests. I still believe that that film, if it was just people in love, if it were released as well as it was, my hunch is that it would still have made as much money as it did. But it’s more about whether the interests were served by the people that were releasing it would be served.[/b]

AVC: So did you not come back for the next film because you were uncomfortable with the message, or did they not invite you back because Zemeckis was angry with you?

CG: It gets so complex. It would take a long time to go through all the details of what happened. But suffice it to say, the reality was that they did not want me back in the film. And it stems from that. There was an understanding that I had questions. The fact was, by the time the second film came around—and this is the lie that Bob Gale was telling—he’s saying I was the reason for it, and he wants to take the onus of the responsibility because there was a lawsuit. And because of my lawsuit, there are rules in the Screen Actors Guild that nobody can [recreate an actor with technological means] again. Bob Gale was really, I’m quite certain, the initial architect of it, because he’s the guy, if you—I listen to these things because I’m incredulous as to how much people say negative things now because of me, because he said all this stuff on these Back To The Future trilogy films which are not true, to make people have negative thoughts about me, and that it was right for them to do what they did, this illegal thing. And so this is why I’m talking about it more vocally. I didn’t talk about it at all, but I have to defend myself.

So what they did was, they offered me—I hate talking about this. It sounds so crass, but because they made it into this issue, I’ve got to say what really happened. They offered me $150,000 to be in—it was a long screenplay. Like, a 200-something-page screenplay. I could tell they would split it into two movies. But Lea Thompson was making something like $650,000, and Tom Wilson was making something like $325,000 or $350,000, so it was less than half of what my fellow actors were making, coming back for similar-sized roles. And my agents knew it wasn’t fair. It wasn’t like I was saying I needed to make more money. I just basically, at that point in the negotiation, I just wanted to be fairly compensated. Also, if you look at the character, George McFly, in the sequel, the character’s hung upside down. It’s been said that that’s an obfuscating technique. [In one scene, Glover’s character is dangling upside down, supposedly as an orthopedic treatment; it’s been claimed that the filmmakers thought it would be harder to tell that the impersonator wasn’t Glover if his face was inverted. —ed.] Well, if you think about it, when I read the screenplay, that was in there. And the character’s supposed to have a bad back, and he’s hung upside down. Why would you hang somebody upside down if they have a bad back? What was apparent to me was, if I was going to return to be in the film, they wanted to make me physically uncomfortable, and monetarily, there was a punishment too. Because I had asked questions.

I would have been okay with doing the hanging-upside-down part, if I was fairly compensated for it. I actually switched from my agency—I was at William Morris agency—and I was paranoid. I didn’t understand why there was not a normal negotiation going on. And I found out that my agent was, her roommate was working at Universal Studios, and she was, I guess, in some part of the negotiation. I switched over to a completely different agency, where I remained for 20-something years. Gerry Harrington was my agent. He called up—Bob Gale was the person doing the negotiations—Bob Gale made it exceedingly clear that they felt they had paid Lea Thompson and Tom Wilson too much money, and he even said they were paying Michael J. Fox too much money. And that they were not going to make the same mistake by paying me what they thought was too much money for Tom Wilson and Lea Thompson. The only person that brought up Michael J. Fox’s salary was Bob Gale, and I know this from my conversation with my agent. I wasn’t in on the conversation, but he reported it to me.[/QUOTE][URL=https://www.avclub.com/crispin-glover-1798229277]https://www.avclub.com/crispin-glover-1798229277[/URL]

Lorraine secretly wanted Biff (that look in her eyes). Had she married him instead, Marty could've been taller. He should've set his mom up with Biff and not George.

marty could've been chad if he got his mom to fuk biff