MovieChat Forums > Innerspace (1987) Discussion > Why this was not as big as Back to the F...

Why this was not as big as Back to the Future?


One is a classic, one is almost obscure.
I know Innerspace very well, but I also know that if you ask around non film buffs, they don't. I loved it as a kid, but 30 years later it seems it's left out in the darkness.
They are very similar movies, but one is ingrained in our collective memory, the other is not.

My take is that Innerspace is aimed at a younger demographics than BTTF, or a less refined one. That's its mistake.
It pushes the adventure aspect of it too much, too far away from science and into fantasy: face transformations; dream sequences that are real; a one armed snap tool henchman; escapes that don't make sense; coincidences that are unbelievable.
There were too many "come on?!?" moments in it for smart kids that had nothing to do with miniaturization. It's like the writers wanted to add any "cool" sci fi idea possible to make it a rollercoaster ride. I think they went overboard and audiences rejected it.

For instance, the whole movie takes place in 24 hours, and for no good reason two improvised double agents are able to locate the chip and retrieve it from weapons traffickers that quickly...come on!?!

reply

Don't know. It was a family favourite and watched every time it came around on TV. But when I came across a cheap copy recently was not interested in buying it. Possibly it's because of the 3 leads involved the only one I find watchable these days is Dennis Quaid?
In contrast I was happy to pick up and rewatch Flight of the Navigator and other old favourites for the same era.

reply

Well, I don't like Quaid anymore. I guess I prefer Short nowadays, he's still ok.
Anyway, I agree that they didn't age that well, but in this one they are all in top form: Meg Ryan has never looked better, nor Quaid, nor Short. And they have great chemistry.

I think the bad guys were weak.

reply

" only one I find watchable these days is Dennis Quaid? "
"Well, I don't like Quaid anymore."

So would that stop you watching films with actors you no longer like , that were filmed back when you did like them?


or is it a case of "Mel Gibsons become a dick in recent years , so i cant watch Lethal Weapon anymore."

reply

No, I didn't say that. Where did you get that idea?
I think Quaid is rarely watchable nowadays, he totally is watchable in old movies.
So is Mel Gibson.

reply

ok , just checking, couldve gone either way.
In fact in for me i think its a case by case scenario , depending what the actor has done / become ... like Spacey for example

reply

Yes but the usual suspects for instance, it's still awesome, difficult to say "he turned out to be a piece of shit, I'm not liking this anymore".
Hitler and Mussolini have done some good stuff, are we gonna get rid of all of it as a block because they were aboninable people? I like Volkswagens (well...not really, but you get my point).

reply

I am old enough to see Innerspace as a modern update to Fantastic Voyage, and hoped the story was as simple as that, with the added novelty that the host was not on an operating table but walking around, conscious AND a hypochondriac! For the most part it was fine and did some interesting things, but it was the whole chase around the chip, the cowboy, the bionic man and the weird sight of the villains at 50% normal size that ruined it for me. This is a GREAT reason why BTTF is seen as better.

reply

Yep, I had the same exact feeling as you, and I also wish they limited it more to that premise, which is very interesting and could have been explored better.

reply

Just guessing here:
Could it be that Michael J. Fox was the "IN" guy at the time and they publicized the hell out of BTTF? Innnerspace used a lot of established actors and depended on their fandom to bring in the sales so they didn't push it as much.

reply

One could ask the same for coccoon.

reply

BTTF is a phenomenon. People are still talking about it like it's a family member. As another reply stated, they promoted the heck out of it. It was all over MTV, radio etc. The characters are memorable, there was an iconic car and there were two more moves to help ingrain it into our lives. Plus the 50's vibe has always been appealing. Was it better than Inner Space or other great movies from that era? Who knows...Kind of like the Kingsmen "Louie Louie" isn't that great of a song IMO but it will be played and referenced again and again as long as there is a human race.

reply

Back to the Future has the cooler and more timeless premise. I think people are fascinated with time travel and being able to go back in the past and alter it, in the way that this film presented it with the iconic Delorean time machine reaching 88mph, bumping into your parents when they were young etc.. Especially back in the 80's when time travel movies were fresher and not as much was known about the concept.

All in all though I do believe Back to the Future is the better made movie with more memorable characters and a funnier, cleverer script that still holds up well today, whereas Innerspace is rather of its time, even if I enjoy that film too.

reply

I don't agree that going back in time is inherently more interesting than being miniaturized to enter the human body as a premise, but I agree with everything else you said: BTTF was the better made movie on every aspect and in every direction.

I like that you picked on the Delorean: the vehicle in innerspace is as lame and uninteresting as it gets, it should have been the character in the movie exploring the human body, instead they focused on unimportant stuff like the bionic henchman or the cowboy.

reply

Agree to disagree then. Time travel is always a popular topic of discussion and always has been, and the age old question of 'Can we go back in time?' comes up often. Look how many sci-fi films deal with this subject and compare it with those that deal with miniaturisation.

reply

We can agree to disagree but let me explain my point: time travel is more popular, but that doesn't mean it's more interesting.
It kinda makes it less interesting, because it's so overdone that, when you see it nowadays in places like the avengers you think "time travel...again? Come up with something else already!".

I think that altering space is as interesting a premise as altering time.

reply

It's a poorly executed movie. That's why it never became big.

Martin Short was an odd choice as an everyman thrust into unusual circumstances.

The movie was too all over the place tonally. It didn't know what it wanted to be; it was a weird mix of goofy slapstick, high concept sci-fi, romance and serious thriller. (I get the sense that it was trying to do what MIB succeeded at doing years later, but failed because everyone was still trying to figure this type of genre out.)

Also, I haven't seen this movie in years but I remember being turned off by Dennis Quaid as the leading man. He comes across as so self-serious and unlikable. Looking back, he's like the poor man's Harrison Ford in this film.

Lastly, I remember the movie being completely over produced, like it had way too much money and special effects put into it than necessary.

reply

I guess you are right, but I wonder who's to blame for the final result.
I think it's Joe Dante's fault for not being a stronger director: he often cares too much about his toys and fx but not enough about the movie as a whole. He should have seen that, like you mentioned, the tone was a bit too mixed up, and some elements didn't belong here while others needed more.

I don't agree with your take on Quaid, he was a bit unlikable but I think he was going for the 80s asshole (see Tom Cruise in top gun), who was a very popular hero at the time. I totally respected his character as a kid.

reply

Well a large part of it comes down to marketing budgets. You probably could have gotten either one to either make money or fizzle into obscurity based solely on how much marketing and how good the marketing for either one was. Remember these were the times of Porky's which was by any account a crappy very low budget movie that made lots of money because they marketed it perfectly. Marketing can make or break a movie and often can make a average movie into a blockbuster.

Now why are some movies marketed well and others not? It usually comes down to a few people in the studios that decide if they think a movie has potential or not... For whatever reason they didn't see any potential in Inner Space, probably because it seemed like a bad rip off of an old movie Fantastic Voyage from the 60's. In the end whether movies make it or not comes down the opinions of a few key people that control the marketing budgets.

reply