The Back to the Future II Accuracy Check and Review

The movie starts where its predecessor left off: with Doc Brown (time travel expert and resident mad scientist complete with Einstein-esque hair), Marty McFly (the fumbling teenage protagonist with a penchant for knee-jerk reactions), and Jennifer Parker (Marty’s girlfriend who, up until this point, hasn’t had much of a role) adventuring off to the future to save Marty and Jennifer’s children from an unknown but supposedly disastrous fate.

Released in 1895, the “future” for the characters takes place in 2015, a year we are coming upon quickly.  The depicted setting is more fantastic than our current reality in some ways, yet behind in others.  A thorough study of the movie has picked up on several technologies and trends as well as where they stand at the moment.

Mr. Fusion: A device that takes trash and can apparently generate 1.21 gigawatts of electricity from it.  Let’s put it this way: the average nuclear power plant, which is the size of a large neighborhood, puts out about one gigawatt (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Nuclear-Power-2462/2008/10/energy-nuclear-plant-generate.htm).  It would take a gigantic nuclear power plant to put out the amount of electricity needed to power the time-traveling DeLorean.

Flying cars: They are not the commodity predicted.  What we have right now is this.

Sleep-inducing alpha-rhythm generator: The equivalent of knock-out gas, but with lights.  We do not have this, either.

A weather service that can actually control the weather:  No.  Not even close.

“The justice system works quickly in the future now that they’ve abolished all lawyers”: It is highly unlikely that, in the next two years, all lawyers will cease to exist.  In America’s current economic state, we need more jobs, not less.

Power laces: Shoes that tie themselves.  We have the technology for this, just not the need.  At the moment, though, the idea makes for a great gag because 80s Marty wears converse and, almost thirty years later, we still wear converse.

Ridiculously colorful and patterned pants and shirts: Check.

Doc’s invisible tie: Not yet, but maybe.  I know a few people who would wear this.

The double tie: Numerous characters wear two ties around their neck rather than one.  Both ties are the same pattern and assumed to be part of the same mechanism.  I have not seen anyone wear this in public and hope that is not something that will change within the next two years.

Hologram movies: In Back to the Future II, there’s a holographic Jaws shark preying on pedestrians from the front of the theater.  Believe it or not, this is actually something we do have, though not in theaters.  In Japan, a concert was held in which an animated holographic image was set on stage.  The concert was for Miku, who is not a real person, only a collection of computer generated sounds.

Videogames that don’t involve hands: I describe it as this because the device is not actually seen, only mentioned by two children who complain about an arcade game that does involve the use of hands.  This could take on two different approaches.  Either it could be like the Kinect, which is motion-sensitive and now widely spread across the game-playing culture, or it could be more similar to the Emotiv EPOC, which is an interface that uses the brain as its controller.

Sound effects vest: One of the antagonistic minor characters wears a vest that looks to be made out of metal and is covered in buttons that emit different sounds, one of which is a chicken, used to goad Marty into a fight.  In present day 2013, these do exist (and are sleeker), although are more often worn by preteen boys than young adult thugs.

Hoverboard: We don’t specifically have a board, but we have created hovercrafts.  Still, they are a long way off of what’s in the movie.

Digital camera:  We have this!

On-the-spot DNA identification: We…do not have this.  Labs are still necessary.

Dehydrated food: This kind is not the strange substance given to astronauts.  Rather, it’s a mini-pizza that can be stuck in a hydrator and transformed into a full-size pizza.  We’re behind on this one.

Media glasses: In the movie, Marty’s kids both use visors that can intercept phone calls and are possibly connected to other media outlets.  The devices accurately represent the kind of dinner table distraction that can be seen today with teens and texting.  Other than this, their role isn’t very clearly defined, and thus it can’t be said whether they are more archaic or advanced compared to our current technology.  Google Glass may trump even the more advanced assumptions, though.  Set to be released in 2014, it is a computer that can be worn on the eyes, inputting information into our visual field.

When the movie first came out, these gadgets were probably seen as more “cool” than “funny.”  It’s the recent comparisons that add the humor.  Even without this, though, the movie is still hilarious for three main reasons.

Reason #1: The expressions.  Christopher Lloyd (Doc Brown) and Michael J. Fox (Marty) have, arguably, some of the best reactions in movie history.  Their faces contort to cartoonish degrees.

Reason #2: Michael J. Fox playing both of his children.  The first, his son, Marty Jr., is a complete wimp with a whiny voice and a snarky attitude.  His hair is greasier and usually worn under a hat to make him look different.  What’s funnier, however, is that Fox also plays Marty’s daughter, Marlene.  Yes, that’s right—he slaps on a wig, adds some dark eye make-up, fills out a curvy figure, and pitches his voice higher.  After realizing that it is the same person playing Marty, Marty Jr., and Marlene, this becomes one of the best things ever.

Reason #3: Miscellaneous humor.  This is going to be a category all on its own.  Slapstick comedy receives the most frequent usage.  The bad guys are always slamming into solid objects.  Add to this a few comedic sound effects and you have yourself a laugh.  Next up is situational humor.  There are some things that are just inherently funny, such as having two Martys.  One is sassy enough.  Then, there’s the ironic humor, presented from the contrast between two events.  Specific examples can’t be given here for fear of real spoilers.  Lastly, there is the verbal humor, carrying all of the snappy lines and exclamations of “Great Scott!”  My only protest here is that Marty’s “Hey, what’s that?!” gag starts getting a little stale.

That joke in particular has been carried over from the first movie.  There’s true benefit in watching both within close proximity of each other.  If nothing else, doing so lets you understand the truly ridiculous proportions of continuity.  The second movie makes many references to the first, but uses different angles to attain another viewpoint on the situation.

Due to involvement of past-selves and future-selves at the same time, there are numerous moments of “double acting”: two versions of the actor on screen, talking to each other.  The timing is impeccable.  All of the reactions are spot-on and the result makes it highly believable.  One case of “triple acting” is evident, too, when Fox had to play those three characters simultaneously.  Despite the complication of the filming for this kind of effect, it wasn’t reduced by any large amount.  If anything, it was flaunted.

That’s another thing: this movie flaunts what it’s got.  Aside from a few exceptions, like awkward stunts, the special effects are magnificent.  There were very few moments where I thought, “That is so fake.”  Considering how many futuristic devices are involved, such as the flying cars and other levitating objects, that is a matter of serious importance.  Bad special effects certainly could have damaged half the movie.  I only say “damaged,” though, and not “ruined” because the storyline is still very strong.

Everything speeds forward—ban g, bang, bang—twisting consecutive complications together in a raging stream so that there’s no time to get bored.  Once one problem is resolved, another one rises, and there’s never nothing going on.  When people are talking, it’s active, it’s relevant, and it’s revealing.  As a result of this non-stop, machine-gun tempo, Back to the Future II tends to juggle a few plot lines, almost making it seem like it was meant as two or three movies.  The first half hour seems like its own storyline at first, then works almost as prologue for the rest of the movie, making it difficult to summarize in brief what the main point is.  Regardless, things stay interesting and, if nothing else, the logic sticks.

I would highly recommend this movie, even to those who are not fans of science fiction.

What Is and Could Be: Popular Science Magazine Review

“The future now”—you may recognize this bold phrase as the tagline for Popular Science magazine.  Released monthly, Popular Science—or PopSci—focuses on the latest innovations in technology and the most recent of discoveries (like a robot that not only has an organic heart, but uses it to propel itself).  However, you don’t need to be a scientist to understand it.  PopSci walks the fine line between dumbing things down and keeping them smart.  Terminology isn’t always explained, but if it is not, it is put into context where it can be comprehended.  This may be one reason that the magazine has been around for so long.

An Abbreviated History

Founded in 1872, Popular Science has followed the major advancements of humanity.  In the last part of the 1800s alone, it covered the electric light, telephone, phonograph, and automobile.  It also followed the newest of thought processes.  Famous people who wrote articles for this magazine included “[p]assionate luminaries like Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, T.H. Huxley, and Louis Pasteur” (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2002-07/history-popular-science).

Popular Science included more information about automobiles as they enhanced (and, to this day, will always have one page in the “What’s New” section dedicated to a car).  They interviewed Henry Ford, creator of the Model T.  During World War II, battle technology was surveyed.  Then, in the 1950s, PopSci not only told about the latest inventions, but also handed out DIY instructions (i.e. “PS Builds a Laser... and So Can You”).  During the ‘70s, when everyone was in a panic about energy, it investigated green and alternative energies.  In May 1979, the magazine released an article by Arthur Fisher, who, as the Science and Technology Editor of the magazine, decided to research Soviet nuclear power plants.  He called them dangerous.  On April 26, 1986, Chernobyl happened, just nine years after Fisher’s warning.  Technology became something to fear as much as revere.

The ‘80s brought with them computers, the ‘90s—the Internet.  After following the trials, errors, and innovations of the Internet for years, since it was Arpanet in 1969, PopSci released its own website in November of 1996.  Since then, its digital presence has only expanded.

As of now, Popular Science is the “the fifth-oldest continually published monthly magazine in existence.”

 

The Who and Why of Reading

Popular Science makes a clear impression as to where humankind is going by keeping us up to date about where we are now.  It’s not always just about what is on the market.  It’s also about what will, can, and could be released soon.  I wouldn’t exactly recommend it for Christmas shopping ideas, but I would recommend it for anyone who likes to keep tabs about what technology is being developed, especially if they want to feed that curiosity in an educational and entertaining way.

The entertainment comes from the brief bouts of humor incorporated.  They are light and interspaced enough to make reading more pleasurable without overriding the professional feel of the piece.  Better yet, the jokes remain simple.  Their enjoyment is not exclusive to people with a PhD in that particular field.

Note: There are many fields.

PopSci is variety.  Instead of being singularly mechanical science or chemical science or any other type of science you might wish to define, it keeps a balance.  In this way, it appeals to a wider audience.  It’s worth it even if you want to skip over the pieces about space and focus on those concerning the newest pharmaceutical.  However, having so many options gives you the opportunity to broaden your horizons.  Maybe you do prefer pharmaceuticals over space exploration, but learning a little about the other can be interesting, especially with the way the articles are written.

Have you ever sat in a class and thought, “How could I possibly use this is real life?”  Question, meet Answer.  PopSci offers ways that the discussed development can relate to the consumer’s everyday life.  Sometimes, it is more direct, like a product.  Other times, it is a technological advancement that would affect the world as a whole rather than any single purchaser.  The hook is this: the science applies to you.

It is a prospect to contemplate.  If you’re a fan of sci-fi, you may be reminded of a story or, hey, maybe it could inspire you to write one.  After all, technology is grand and possibility is profitable.  PopSci picks subjects that can create major impact.  The ones with the most potential impact usually end up on the front page.  Their promise is baiting and you could be further reeled in by something even as simple as the practical structuring of the magazine.

Articles are rarely continued in a different section.  That is to say: there aren’t often any articles interrupting the start of the article being read and the end of it.  This keeps the reader’s attention on the page because of an obligation to finish what was started, where the break-up introduces a stopping point.  As a method of motivation, it works well, as does the usage and spacing of the images.

Images can compel or repel.  They can teach or explain.  There are a plethora of images in this magazine, all bright and eye-catching and relevant.  Some pictures are those of inventors and inventions, some are those of far away galaxies and fantastic gadgets, some are great machines and powerful ideas, and some are the diagrams to explain them all.  When this is combined with all other aspects, it becomes a solid technique to get information across.

Sections and Specials

There are four sections in every regular issue of Popular Science.  Below are their titles and brief descriptions along with the occasional pro and con.

What’s New:

This section is filled with the newest gadgets and gizmos to grace the market—and some that haven’t yet.  It’s broken down into two segments: items that are immediately purchasable and items that are in-the-works.  In the first segment, each item comes with a picture, a description, and a price.  It’s a little like a short, techy version of SkyMall.  The downside is that about half of the merchandise extends up into hundreds of dollars.  In the second segment, each item has its own article detailing the invention and its benefits.

Headlines:

Big, recent, scientific and technological advancements are discussed here. These are the creations that can affect the world and the new frontiers out there for us to face.  In the March 2013 issue, Popular Science covered a possible cure to blindness using gene therapy, which is slated for human testing in 2014.

How 2.0:

It comes with the tag, “Tips, tricks, hacks, and do-it-yourself projects.”  Notably, this section tends to use more terminology and can require more foreknowledge.  In other words: it’s geekier.  Some of the projects can be complicated and expensive to the everyday person.  A fine example of this is the $800 Tesla coil gun designed by Rob Flickenger.

FYI:

Basically, a Q and A section dedicated to those who send in questions via email or twitter.  The responses come in two parts.  The first is the Short Answer, which is but a handful of words that, in their brevity, can be humorous.  The second is the Long Answer: a small article that includes more science, more explanation, and generally less humor.

 Aside from these four main sections, special issues also have their own sections.  Annually, there is a “How It Works” issue, an “Invention Awards” issue, and a “Best of What’s New” issue.

 

How It Works:

“How It Works” offers explanations on the systems of everything from spaceships to beehives.  Using diagrams and captions, the reader is given a fairly detailed overview of the topic and some basic statistics.

 

Invention Awards

This is a list of ten inventions from the year, compiled by PopSci.  Home-made inventions are selected for the ability to solve problems and go on the market.  Understandably, the majority of those selected relate to health and safety.  Each article, which spans a page, includes a short bio on the inventor(s), the general workings of the invention, and how it benefits modern-day life.  One of the winners from 2012 was a “modular cast.”  This cast can be removed in sections as the bone gets closer to being fully healed, reducing the long period of stiffness caused by extensive immobility.

Best of What’s New

Every December, the inventions of the year are sifted through and judged.  Out of them all, only the top 100 are chosen to be featured.  Popular Science claims that this is their best-selling issue of the year.

 

In Conclusion

Popular Science is an educational, intriguing, up-to-date read that stays true to its title and deserves its longevity.  If you are a scientist, an engineer, a wannabe, a sci-fi geek, or someone who carries enough curiosity enough to kill ten cats, this is something to look into.  Right now.  Go.