Nirvanna: the Band the Show the Movie is the Perfect Adaptation of Back to the Future

When the "Did The Adaptation Get It Right" challenge came out on Peliplat, my immediate instinct was to write about either Pride and Prejudice (obviously the 2006 version), or Twilight because that's on brand with me. But, then, I happened to watch Nirvanna: The Band the Show the Movie and completely changed my mind.

In case you're wondering, no, Nirvanna: The Band the Show the Movie is not about the actual band, Nirvana (yeah, I thought I was in for some "In Bloom" vibes, too).

It's not.

Still, the movie is a lot cooler than I thought it was going to be. And it all has to do with Back To The Future.

A lot of people have mentioned that Nirvanna: The Band the Movie the Show pays homage to Back To The Future; however, I have to disagree. The movie isn't only paying homage– I mean, it is, but I think it is better defined as a quote-unquote adaptation of it, and not the "Wuthering Heights" kind.

Although the character names and general premise are not at all the same as the Back to the Future franchise, everything about the movie reeks of it. Matt plays the perfect Dr Brown, and Jay is the equivalent Marty McFly. The two face a major conflict in their relationship and end up time travelling to the past on this sketchy af machine (an RV instead of a car). No, there is no creepy mother-son romance subplot, but what Nirvanna does well is translate the basic essence of the movie into its own variation. An adaptation, if you will.

"We wanted to make a Back to the Future movie." - Matt Johnson

Okay, so for those who are curious, here is what Google has to say:

Right. So, Nirvanna does both. There are literal scenes in the movie that pay tribute to the Back to the Future movies. For instance:

1. The actual time machine

In both movies, the time machine is a car that needs to reach the speed of 88 mph to time travel. The car needs electricity to work and shoots out two fiery tracks when it time travels. In Back to the Future, the device is called a "flux capacitor," in Nirvanna the unnamed machine works after Matt accidentally spills his Orbitz drink on it.

Both RV and Delorean produce the same lightning explosions and tracks of fire, and the machine in Nirvanna was actually replicated using the same parts as the original.

2. Crashing into the streetcar when they time travel might be an allusion to the third Back to the Future when Doc returns on his time travel train; if anything, Matt's hat is a definite nod to Doc's attire

3. Marty's chase sequence trying to evade the Libyans is very reminiscent of Jay being chased down by the cops

4. The Final Scene: Just like Doc, Matt had to climb up a building to reconnect the wires in time for the time machine to work. There's even the clock allusion incorporated in Nirvanna as a nod to the clock tower in Back to the Future. And! And, the shot pans to a homeless man who reacts to the events unfolding in front of him, and yes, newspapers are involved.

5: Actual dialogue: At points in Nirvanna the characters actually recite lines from the actual Back to the Future movie itself. Bear with me, all of these are vaguely conjured up from my memory.

The literal only one I can conjure vaguely from my memory is them repeating each other's names when they

"Don't talk to anyone. Don't touch anything. Don't interact with anyone. And try not to look at anything."

6. Marty's son gets arrested for theft in the second Back to the Future movie; Jay is plastered all over the news for murder

7. Music: Jay plays the actual theme song Back to the Future

There's probably way more, but you guys get the point, right? Right?!

Back to the Future is a huge franchise, and to make an adaptation of it is risky as hell, but Nirvanna did it whether it wants to admit it or not. Sitting in the theatres, I was grinning tooth to tooth as the events unfolded. Watching them disappear into this hyper-aware, mockumentary style version of BTF worked because it didn't feel forced.

What really made this movie stand out, in my humble opinion, is the way that it exemplifies what an adaptation should be. Nirvanna isn't a remake, but it is basically the original movie that inspired the story. Not only do we get the chaotic bro-friend duo, but we get literally the same plot, minus parents. The characters have their fight, they mess with time, things go awry, and finally friendship brings them back. Yet, apart from the ending scene which was nearly identical and the homage to the famous guitar playing scene (Jay's concert), a lot of the movie is still its own.

It is clear that the cast watched the movies multiple times. They had the courage to play around with form and style, and they were committed to having fun. Even sections in the movie where it felt like they were precariously tiptoeing the lines of copyright infringement never felt disrespectful because Nirvanna never played with the integrity of the original. For instance, climbing up the CN Tower to parachute into the Rogers Centre, sadly, never made it into Back to the Future, but it was reminiscent of the trouble that Marty and Doc got into. The same way Marty and Doc never actually walked into a Canadian Tire to buy pliers for their shenanigans, but again, the characters and vibes stayed true to the original.

And, let me tell you, they walked that copyright line hard. This movie is loaded with references, new and old. So, it really did feel like a translation of the original movie targeted towards newer generations. I mean, that one scene where Jay and Matt are walking and they are astounded by the fashion styles of 2010, I think says it all. It's what shocks Marty when he travels back to 1955, except that scene works for today's audience while also appeasing the original fanbase of Back to the Future. The same thing when the theatre chortled at an offensive joke and that was what made Matt clue into the fact that he'd travelled back in time. Both of these scenes closely follow what happens in Back to the Future without it deviating from the story so much that it feels like an attempt at rewriting the original entirely. They didn't use the same names or title, but the themes and character arcs were there. That was enough. The inherent panic, the snappy dialogue and yelling, the petty fights and arguments all brought back a movie so many people cherish without aggravating either fanbase. So, I didn't feel like I bought yet another ticket to watch a movie I'd seen before; Nirvanna brought something completely new and entirely old to the screen.

That's what makes Nirvanna so perfect; an adaptation doesn't have to be a word-for-word, shot-for-shot replica of an old movie, neither should it be an entirely different story with the same names and titles (ahem "Wuthering Heights"). Funnily enough, I'm just now noticing that they added an "n" to Nirvanna– a clever quotation mark equivalent, perhaps? In any case, I love it because it highlights exactly what the movie is supposed to be; an alternative universe to a beloved movie.

Full disclosure, I am still flailing around in the throes of "Wuthering Heights", so I might come on a bit strong about what an adaptation should be. Can you blame me? Fennell really played a number on us with that "adaptation." Nirvanna was a serious palate cleanser. If you're also suffering from the rage of watching a genuinely incredible story be shredded in its adaptation, Nirvanna might just remind you of all things good. It's also super wholesome... so, a definite must-see.