tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13848504.post1113154234640607313..comments2023-09-09T04:03:00.560-05:00Comments on The Fortress of Soliloquy: Something I first wondered years ago...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13848504.post-76287932414385089312008-06-13T01:54:00.000-05:002008-06-13T01:54:00.000-05:00Funny, because originally the Back to the Future t...<B>Funny, because originally the Back to the Future time machine was going to be a modified refrigerator.</B><BR/><BR/>Oh man, <I>that</I> must have been popular with the watchdog groups.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13848504.post-42308800501816338652008-06-13T01:44:00.000-05:002008-06-13T01:44:00.000-05:00"However, in the original screenplay the time mach...<I>"However, in the original screenplay the time machine was disguised as a 1969 Chevy van, and it was changed to avoid seeming like a ripoff or parody of Back to the Future."</I><BR/><BR/>Funny, because originally the <I>Back to the Future</I> time machine was going to be a modified refrigerator.<BR/><BR/>-MMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05910006954704396801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13848504.post-49250798941646244932008-06-12T19:59:00.000-05:002008-06-12T19:59:00.000-05:00LOL! I can't believe I never thought of that befo...LOL! I can't believe I never thought of that before -- but there's a good argument there. :-)<BR/><BR/>I've always been fond of the argument that James Bond (that is, the film version of James Bond) is also a Time Lord. Hence his ability to change appearance and remain relatively young-looking since the early '60s. ;-)Sea-of-Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00813600516703661200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13848504.post-86727584138617998362008-06-12T17:51:00.000-05:002008-06-12T17:51:00.000-05:00Beg to differ with my young friend: it may or may ...Beg to differ with my young friend: it may or may not be true, but there's no "of course" about it. I've wondered the same thing and looked for some definitive statement one way or the other from the filmmakers, but haven't found any. However, in the original screenplay the time machine was disguised as a 1969 Chevy van, and it was changed to avoid seeming like a ripoff or parody of <I>Back to the Future</I>. Would they have changed something to avoid similarity to one existing property only to deliberately make it a reference to another pop culture entity? Or, given how obscure <I>DW</I> was in the States circa 1987, could it be a coincidence? I tend to think the latter but would be perfectly happy to be wrong.<BR/><BR/>That said, I'm all for elevating <I>Time Bandits</I> to its rightful place in the canon.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01714171897239398438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13848504.post-66818170497342957762008-06-12T14:34:00.000-05:002008-06-12T14:34:00.000-05:00Yes, of course it is. But the movie is just a much...Yes, of course it is. But the movie is just a much dumber riff on Time Bandits anyway.sean witzkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17821166438073682827noreply@blogger.com