Talk:Back to the Future Part III/Archive 1

Archive 1

A Question of Morality

The one thing that always bugged me was that throughout the second and third movies, Doc keeps saying that the time machine MUST be destroyed. His wish comes true at the end of Part III when it is run over by the train in 1985. But then, sometime after 1885, the Doc builds another time machine using a steam train.

It wasn't the first time Doc changed his line of thinking on a moral question. He re-taped up his letter from Marty to learn of his impending death after ripping it up. Robert K S 19:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I guess he figured "what the hell?"

There was no way Doc could have left Marty or Einstein behind. Plus he said "THE time machine must be destroyed" - he didn't say anything about future time machines! {81.158.187.231 03:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)}

Clayton ravine continued

There is no plot inconsistancy with Marty refferring to Clayton Reveine as such, because Marty would have heard that story at school before Doc had gotten stuck in the past and changed history.

Since its been established that characters memories (those who travel through time anyway) do not change when they change the future (or their past, as proven when Marty is surprised by his home when he returns from the past in the first Back to the future movie) Marty would still remember his school mates telling each other that story even if he prevented those stories from ever occurring.

So, if Marty had not gone back in time to save Doc, and had then asked his classmates about Clayton Raveen, they would have no idea what he is talking about, as he is from a different timeline of events.

(RickO5 04:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)).

The Old Photo Of Doc

When Marty found the old photo of Doc standing beside the clock at the library in 1955, and then had his picture taken beside of Doc in 1885, then should Marty's image appear on the one he got from the library? When Marty arrives in 1985, and the delorean is destroyed, the photo is tore in half, with the side of Doc showing. RobertCMWV1974 15:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Marty's image probably did appear on the photograph, but since it was torn in half, we didn't see that part. That's why it's all the more dramatic when Doc returns in the time train and gives Marty a copy of the photo. Of course, in theory, the Hill Valley library probably had that photo in its archives in 1985.

What always puzzled me was...Doc was still in the past when Marty's copy of the photo was torn and burned in the deLorean wreck. So how did the Doc know he needed to bring Marty a replacement? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is forum material -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Clayton ravine

The following was added to the article by 162.84.240.23:

"Despite very careful work on the part of the producers to avoid any incongruities in the trilogy, one very big and noticable, error occurs in this movie. When Marty recieves the obituary it says that Doc is survived by "beloved Clara." However, there is, at the same time, the legend Marty relates about Clayton ravine to Doc Brown, about how Clara Clayton was supposed to fall into the ravine, and both apparently exist in the same future. So, either the Clara in the film is not the Clara Doc was supposed to love, or this is simply an overlooked point in the movie."

This is incorrect, as is explained on the Back to the Future DVD. The easiest way to think of it is this. The story Marty remembers is based on "1885A", prior to anyone traveling back in time, in which no one agrees to lead Clara to town and she falls into Shonash ravine and it is renamed Clayton ravine. When Doc travels to 1885, he agrees to lead Clara, thus she never falls into the ravine and survives Doc when he is shot. This is "1885B". When Marty travels to 1885, he convinces Doc not to lead Clara but they end up saving her from falling into the ravine. The events of the movie transpire, and the ravine becomes Eastwood Ravine. This is "1885C". So, the story Marty relates is based on "1885A" (the 1885 he would remember) and the tombstone is based on "1885B".

It's confusing but logical. I'm going to remove this paragraph.

Just realized that someone else pointed the same thing out in here, but I'm going to keep my explanation as well.

X-Mack 03:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Continuity Errors" and "Violation of…" sections

I removed these two sections from Trivia.

Continutiy Errors

It's not unreasonable for an ancestor to look more like a great-great grandson than more immediate kin. I might suggest removing this reference from the section, while keeping some mention of the fact that Marty's great-great-grandmother is played by the same actress who plays his mother, which is more of a true continuity goof. count_lawrence 17:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

While the paragraph certainly is not Wikipedia-friendly and could use a clean-up, these are not continuity errors or goofs, but simply observations and opinions of an alternative view of what the filmmakers see as correct. To address the last item, at no time did the filmmakers believe that a great-great-grandmother would have any relation to Lorraine, but chose to cast Lea Thompson anyway. The writers say, Obviously, Maggie McFly and Lorraine Baines cannot be blood relatives. But we did come up with a satisfactory answer: It's a well known adage that "men are attracted to women who remind them of their mothers." Clearly then, when Seamus married Maggie, that insured that the McFly men would have a genetic trait that attracted them to women who bear a resemblance to Maggie or Lea Thompson (even Jennifer is the same physical type!) [1] —Fitch 16:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it genetic or just classic Freudian psychology? And wouldn't the similarities in appearence between Maggie McFly and Lorraine Baines indicate that they could be genetically related? After all, Hill Valley was a small town back in 1885, it's possible that Marty's parents were distantly related, and that he a Jennifer are also related.

As the producers rightly said: they couldn't have made a BTTF movie without Lea Thompson.

Indeed, to the producers, trying to make a BTTF movie without Lea Thompson, was like trying to make a "Blues Brothers" movie without John Belushi. Glickmam 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Violation of California Statute by Characters

While it is true that both drivers violated the law, that does not preclude anyone from filing a civil lawsuit. Since Marty was racing, it should be obvious why he would be sued. Violation of laws has no bearing on who can sue whom. The movie only claims that Marty was sued and broke his hand from a car accident. I see no reason to bring up this point plot in the article. —Fitch 16:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Other notes

Ethanol (the form of alcohol found in beer, wine, liquor, etc.) could have been used in the DeLorean's tank, as an internal combustion engine can run on it as well as gasoline. No explanation for not using it is ever given.

I removed this note because I believe there was a scene where Marty and Doc tried to use liquor from the saloon, but it ended up blowing out the catalytic converter(?) and Doc said that it would take him months to fix UnfriendlyFire 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The item blown out was the fuel injection manifold, if I remember the movie correctly. --FlatEric521 01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was the fuel injection manifold. Blowing out the catalytic converter wouldn't do anything but give your car some extra kick! Mcflytrap 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually they would have had gasoline

I think they would have had a source for gasoline, as there should be the timemachine in which Doc arrived in the past. They could have used the gasoline which was left in it. As Marty wouldn't have needed any gasoline in 1955 cus there are gas stations. Drem 172.203.141.121 22:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Doc had already buried that machine in the mine, and he most likely would have drained the gasoline to prevent it from turning to varnish and corroding the gas tank.

That DeLorean had been hover-converted and had presumably not used gasoline for some time, drawing its power from the Mr. Fusion plant. No? Robert K S 19:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

To answer my own question: No. Doc explains that Mr. Fusion is only ever used to power the time circuits, not for the car's locomotion. Robert K S 07:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever tried to use gasoline that's been left in a machine for 70 years?!

As of September 1885, the DeLorean had been walled-up in the mine only a few months. If the fuel was still in the tank, it would have been good to use. If Doc had drained the tank, he would have the fuel safely stored somewhere, as it would be out of character for Doc to waste a useful item. Either way, the intelligent and resourceful Emmett Brown should have remembered the existence of the other DeLorean and its fuel. It is a plot loophole. Darcyj 04:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if Doc had saved some gas or left some in the tank, it would not be suitable to push the DeLorean engine to its limits due to loss of chemical stability in about 60 days. Undoubtedly, Doc would have the knowledge to make and add fuel stabilizers, but this only increases life to a maximum of 2 years (minus however long it took to create the stabilizers). And this is assuming the Delorian had fuel from the 1980s. Amy 50s fuel in the tank would increase the stability problem and also have a performance problem. 1885 gas existed, but it was probably not chemically suitable to push the DeLorean to its limits even if it managed to start it. Not to mention, it wasn't an item at the general store and would have been hard to come by on such short notice. And don't forget how old the 'Marty DeLorean' is after being buried in that mine so long. The movie is pushing believability to have the thing run at all. Its possible that Doc broke it down and cleaned all the parts for pristine storage, leaving only minor corrosion to age it, but in that case, there'd be too much to acquire and do on such short notice (air filled wheels, fluids, etc..) . But, then again, it couldn't handle the whiskey (age of the machine seems a reasonable explanation). This brings us to a very good reason not to mess with the 'buried DeLorean'. Marty used the old decrepit repaired-with-primitive-electronics thing to come back to rescue doc. Damage it, or simple interfere with its future, and Marty might vanish from the 1800s. Or the oft mentioned by Doc, universe shattering catastrophic paradox would finally occur. Finally, you are forgetting the most important reason they did what they did instead of doing anything else. Any other solution would have left no reason to drive a blowing-up train off a cliff. It makes for a spectacular climax for a movie. Can you think of something better? brought to you by --Original Research 51:75, 95 March 4070 (UTC) --75.109.250.150 (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And it is original research. TomTheHand 13:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The natural gasoline available in 1885 as a kerosene byproduct would not have been suitable for use in the 1980s engine in the DeLorean due to very low octane ratings. Modern gasoline is usually chemically cracked to increase octane ratings to what is necessary for modern, high compression car engines. --FlatEric521 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How does Doc get the Delorean to fly using just gasoline??? Also, I'll bet if he just pushed it over the edge of the Grand Canyon, it'd get up to 88mph before smashing into the canyon floor. johnpseudo 15:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

He has special flying circuits installed in 2015. And yes, the DeLorean probably would get up to 88 MPH on its way to the ravine floor, but anyone in it would be severely injured or killed when it hit in 1985. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 19:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

He he, your not thinking 4th-dimensionally Johnpseudo. --75.109.250.150 (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is, how could the flying circuits still rely on gasoline to get the car to get up to 88 mph? The engine isn't turning any wheels... what is it doing that allows the car to fly? johnpseudo 16:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering this is a fictional hypothetical futuristic engine we're talking about, it's not completely (in a sci-fi sense) inconceivable that the engine burns the fuel to cause some sort of force strong enough to project the vehicle, like a rocket with better navigational control. Really, if we knew exactly how all these devices worked, we probably would've invented them by now, so don't try to read too deeply into it. - Ugliness Man 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that Mr Fusion also powered the flying circuits, as well as the time circuits, though this is never mentioned because by the time the discussion comes around about what Mr Fusion powers, the flying circuits are destroyed, so Doc never brought it up. I'd imagine that all vehicles in the future (2015) were powered by a Mr Fusion unit, with only antiques such as the Delorean and that flying Jeep we see in 2015 being run on old style internal combustion. After all, why would you run a vehicle off anything other than fusion, if you can build a fusion unit the size of a coffee maker and it runs on garbage?--X 0 12:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

When you have time travel involved... who is to say that he did not simply deliver himself some gasoline from the future... its a paradox... and also a movie... let it go 71.239.147.154 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the Bill & Ted time game. I seem to recall that this mentioned in BttF 2, but Doc dismissed it due to the creation of to alternate timelines (whenever place you want to go to get materials or repair mistakes won't exist until you use those the materials or repair said mistakes). Marty tried to play the time game (without really making a willful effort), nothing happened, Doc explained why it wouldn't work.

Rush to get Home

Doc says during the movie that Marty and he could use the DeLorean on ice to make it past 88 mph, but ice wouldn't appear until winter. However, after Buford Tannen is put in jail, they could have waited as long as they want, but the argument of the movie was that the train was the last and only hope.

I've always interpreted this as Marty and Doc as having gotten a "go-fever". At one level the return to 1985 just became less urgent when Buford was arrested, but they had been running for about 5 day on the assumption that they had to "Get out of Dodge". Also, Doc might have figured with everything set up and ready to go, and since in the orignial plan, he wasn't going to be around to deal with the consequences of stealing, then destroying the train; it was worth it to go with the original plan. 204.211.254.71 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Even without the time constraint, the ice idea is extremely silly, born out of Doc's desperation. Assuming there was a long, sloping surface that would ice over (hardly guaranteed), it's highly unlikely that sliding on it would accelerate to a higher speed than the horses. I think a better question is what about 88mph triggers the flux capacitor, and can it be done through other methods?Seantrinityohara (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the best question is, why are we trying to figure out alternate methods of fictional characters getting home in a time machine which does not actually follow any existing laws of physics :-p

But that said, there are a few arguments which could be made besides it being a plot hole. First, perhaps it would be hard to get the DeLorean off the tracks once on, and they didn't want to risk it being seen (a stretch probably). More likely, Doc just wants to get the hell out of there now that he's see how badly he can affect the timeline and more than he already had (saving Clara, getting Beuford arrested, etc. - hence his desperation to destroy the DeLorean when he gets back; with Marty a sorta-hero, he could influence the whole town's history if he stayed). Maybe they don't want to risk Beuford getting out of jail or sending someone to kill them. Who knows. It's just safest to get out of there. I think the bestest question is why getting beuford arrested doesn't seem to affect biff's present at all. You'd think that Beuford going to jail would have a trickle-down affect on his family to the point that it would change Biff's history even a little. Maybe it's a sign that Beuford never did much time in jail and might have come back to try and kill Doc and Marty had they not left. It's all speculation though.TheHYPO (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Doc wanted to visit the old west, not live there. His 1950s ideals of the west, demonstrated effectively be his choice of outfit for Marty, is not the reality he encountered. But, he ended up stranded. He was willing to stay considering the alternative. Their bumbling around in time had proven risky to them and indeed, all of Hill Valley. And it wasn't so terrible a fate where he was. He was comfortable. Forgetting about his impending shot in the back for the moment; once Marty was stuck in the past with him, with a now semi-working time machine, everything changed. It was important to get Marty back to his time, which btw, is the main reason Doc didn't try harder to use the time machine to leave in the first place. Sealing it in the mine, away from outside influences that could change the 50s where Marty was stranded and the 80s where he belonged, was Marty's best chance to return to the 80s. And beyond that, he is obligated to remove himself from the past if possible, to prevent his further interfering in history. But in the end, he falls back to his known self flaw best expressed as "What the hell". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.250.150 (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a paradox!

I edited the page, since the following has been proven in BTTF.com to be wrong:

• Clara is mentioned on Doc's tombstone before Marty travels back to 1885. However, it is unlikely that Doc would have been visiting the canyon and saving her from falling unless Marty took him there, establishing a time paradox. It should be noted, however, that Doc had volunteered to meet Clara at the train station, so it is entirely possible that he could have altered Clara's timeline before Marty got there (in the 1885 where Doc is killed). With Marty there, he was preoccupied with the time machine, so he forgot to meet Clara (we even see her walk behind Marty and Doc at the station as they're looking at the map). Since Doc's original intervention never took place, Clara resumed her original fate, thus leading Doc and Marty to rescue her from falling into the ravine.

Now I am going to explain pont by point:

Clara is mentioned on Doc's tombstone before Marty travels back to 1885.

This is correct.

However, it is unlikely that Doc would have been visiting the canyon and saving her from falling unless Marty took him there, establishing a time paradox.

This is a misinterpretation . Hell, the poster even corrected himself/ herself in the next lines.

It should be noted, however, that Doc had volunteered to meet Clara at the train station, so it is entirely possible that he could have altered Clara's timeline before Marty got there (in the 1885 where Doc is killed). With Marty there, he was preoccupied with the time machine, so he forgot to meet Clara (we even see her walk behind Marty and Doc at the station as they're looking at the map). Since Doc's original intervention never took place, Clara resumed her original fate, thus leading Doc and Marty to rescue her from falling into the ravine.

This is right. Doc altered the timeline when he got there.

Original timeline: Doc is not there. Clara Clayton comes to town, no one goes to pick her up, she rents the mobile which leads to her doom. The city hall names the ravine after her.

Second timeline, and probably the one where 1955 Doc and Marty start at the beginning of BTTF3: Doc gets trapped in 1885, gets the mission to pick Miss Clayton, nobody falls to the ravine and it retains its original Native American name. Doc gets killed a week later by being shot in the back with Bufford's derringer.

Final timeline: Doc and Clint Eastwood (LOL) steal the locomotive for scientific purposes. Eastwood supposedly falls into oblivion with it, then he gets the ravine named after him, the hero who defeated the Mad Dog.

So, it's not a flop in the movie, it's actually covered. The flop is in the mind of the poster, who didn't get it right away. I know I did, and I was 9 the first time I saw it.--Kim Kusanagi 05:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Scenes

There was only one deleted scene in Part III, which explained why Tannen was arrested by a different sheriff then Strickland. Apparently, in the delete scene Tannen disarms the Sheriff and then orders him to walk away, in which Tannen shoots him in the back and leaves him to die with his son holding his hand.

Since it's the only delete scene, would it be worth mentioning?

--MrDopple 15:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it's the only deleted scene, that probably makes it MORE worth mentioning, rather than it being one out of many. 24.99.231.40 23:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. many movies have deleted scenes on the DVD, and the significance of these scenes varies wildly, but while the first two BttF movies had several deleted scenes (or scenes which were much shorter in the final cut), the third only had one, and its impact on the movie would have been immense. The commentary says, among other things, that one of the reasons they cut it was because if Tannen had killed Strickland, the audience wouldn't have wanted to see him "get away with it" by being arrested rather than shot. Also, having someone die like that was just too "heavy" (George died in the second movie, but we don't see this death, and it gets erased when Marty and Doc fix things anyway). - Ugliness Man 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

75th Anniversary Universal logo

I disagree about stating that the Logo was first used in BTTF part III when it was part of BTTF II. I am deleting that section due to lack of sources. Sawblade05 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what edition of the trilogy you're watching, but in the DVD trilogy that was released recently, the anniversary logo was not used for part II, and they even talk about Universal insisting on having the logo premiere in part III on the commentary... unfortunately audio commentary isn't something you can cite as a "source" without some form of copyright violation, so it currently stands as your word against mine and whoever added that factoid in the first place. - Ugliness Man 08:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

per WP:SW, a spoiler warning is to allow a reader who hasn't seen the movie "to avoid reading the spoiler before fully experiencing the work". Warning that "Plot details follow" in a section boldly entitled Plot is unnecessary, redundant and ugly. --Stormie 03:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The DeLorean pulled to 88 MPH by horses an idea?

After just seeing the movie again yesterday, it occurred to me that it doesn't seem that Doc had ever believed that horses could actually pull the DeLorean to the required 88 MPH (although an optimistic Marty believed it). Rather, the horses were used to get the DeLorean out of the cave and into town, as the ripped fuel line prevented any other way in 1885 to retrieve the DeLorean in a timely manner. The 1955 Doc explicitly stated that he had Marty travel to 1885 at a location far from Hill Valley (and thus the railroad tracks that led into Hill Valley) to "avoid running into a tree or something that existed in the past," thus it would have been too far to use any other means of transport without requesting assistance. It probably just seems that they were seeing if pulling it would work due to that scene appearing right after Doc is informed of the ripped fuel line.

Also, Doc and Marty are on top of the DeLorean when it is being pulled; they probably would have been inside the car had Doc actually expected pulling it to work.

Bottom line: I think that the part about "pulling it with horses didn't work" should be removed and replaced with "After getting the DeLorean into town by having it pulled with horses..." or something similar. 71.254.83.4 17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is another one of those "it's just a movie" things. For the sake of the plotline, the horse thing was one of their ideas for getting the car to go fast... in the commentary, it's stated that the writers knew damn well that Doc would be smart enough to know that the horses would never get the car up to 88, but the shot was too good not to use. Also, this is conjecture on my part, but with Doc's fascination with the Old West, it's also a possibility that he just wanted to have fun. As for Doc and Marty being on top, the time circuits probably weren't activated, it was probably a "dry run" to see if it was possible to get that fast, they weren't concerned about a time jump at the moment. - Ugliness Man 17:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Syphon

Couldn't they just have syphoned the gas from the car Doc buried? Left it in there cause else it would have not been uncovered in 1955 for Marty to go BACK to 1885. And it would have save them a whole lot of trouble... and avoided such a terrible ending...

should we maybe put this possible COA on the page? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.186.110 (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2007

Several other people asked this very question of the people involved in the making of the series, and in the commentary, there are 3 explanations given. First, when storing a car you intend to leave buried for several years, you would drain the gas tank to prevent damage and possibly explosion. Second, 1885 Doc would be reluctant to return to the location of the car and risk disturbing it, since any damage to the car, minor or otherwise, could risk damaging the timeline. Third, it's a movie, and such an obvious solution would remove the conflict, and conflict is essential to good storytelling. I'm not sure who informed you that it was a "terrible" ending, since the staff and production crew seem pretty satisfied with it. - Ugliness Man 17:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the conflict part, but I doubt seeing as that several major components were already damaged and as 1955 Doc was given instruction how to fix them using parts from his period to fix them, that unless the car was completely crushed by a cave in (I doubt doc would put it in such a bad location) it's not gonna affect it too much. I agree on the gas though. I don't know why you think I was "informed" of the ending... I saw it and it was extremely cheezy, a floating car? Ok thats fine, a floating train? Cmon... --70.71.186.110 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Time travel is a fragile thing, the tiniest disturbance could have a ripple effect and change the future in unpredictable ways. You can say "it's not gonna affect it too much", but the fact is we don't know, and Doc didn't know either, and he probably figured it was just too risky. As for the ending, that's entirely a matter of opinion (or in this case, your opinion versus the opinion of the people actually involved in the making of the series), and not really something that needs to be discussed here. And, really, on both points (why they didn't uncover the car and the merits of a flying train), it call comes back to "it's just a movie". - Ugliness Man 04:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well yes time is a fragile thing, yet doc decides to steal a train, and drive the engine off a cliff... I seriously doubt that going and stealing a preserved can of gas (if he found a way to preserve it properly) and putting it in the recovered car from 1955 would be more of a risk.

and yes i agree on the other points that "it's just a movie" so we're talking time travelling only now. --70.71.186.110 08:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the time machine, after being stored in a mine for so long would be in alot worse shape than it was found in.

Seventy years is a long time, even sealed up in a mine it would show some signs of rust or something. . . Sorry, wasn't logged in.

It's a movie. And unless Stephen Hawking revises the script, there isn't a movie without some kind of impossible situation out there methinks. But hey, you're right, in real life it would. (Oh and do try to sign your posts in the future m'kay?) --Kaizer13 13:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The body of the De Lorean DMC-12 is stainless steel, so its exterior won't rust. I think the engine was aluminum. Nevertheless it would certainly take some time and effort to get running again, which is pretty much what happened in the movie. TomTheHand 13:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The engine block may have been aluminium, BUT the piston rings would have probably been IRON. After a few years without the engine being turned over, let alone run would have resulted in the pistons being seized solid in their bores.92.16.106.42 (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Final Entry in "Other Notes"

"After Marty arrives in 1885, why did Doc Brown not remember that he allowed Marty to go back to 1885 to save his life?"

Doc did in fact remember that he had enabled Marty to travel through time, as evidenced by the fact that he never asked Marty how he returned. However, in his letter from 1885, Doc had specifically instructed Marty to return directly from 1955 to 1985, without any trips to 1885 for the purpose of rescue. Doc was actually asking Marty why he disobeyed these instructions.

I noticed the answe to the question is in quotes, so i'll leave it for now in case there was a specific source it came from. --Smckittr 08:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: I completely misread what you posted and thought you were asking the question you were replying to. You can ignore my reply, but I thought I'd leave it in in case it helps anyone else with its explaination - sorry - TheHYPO 19:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC):

The method of time travel explained in the film seems to work in such a way that time travellers retain the memories of their original experiences in the timeline. Hence, Marty does not remember Biff being nice when he returns to 1985 at the end of Part 1. Doc and Marty don't remember the crappy 1985A they return to in Part 2, and 1885 Doc does not remember what Marty changed at the beginning of Part 3. This may create a paradox, but that's how the series portrays time travel. Doc's memories would flow as follows, for example:

1. Original memories; Marty does back to 1955 (Part 1) meets Doc and gives him the note and info about the future.
2. Marty returns to a changed 1985 (which includes the 1955 Doc he changed), and the Doc he finds there would remember the 1955 events. This Doc goes to the future, returns to pick up Marty and Jen, and takes them to the future. Biff goes back to 1955 and starts 1985A running. Doc's history from that point will have changed, and as we find out, by 1985A, he's in a mental hospital. However, this ISN'T the Doc we watch. Our doc retains the memories he had when he left.
3. Doc and Marty go back to 1985A, and then back to 1955. Again, if they changed everything, this should not have affected their memories. Doc gets zapped to 1885. The only memories he should take with him are the ones of the original Part 1 1955 events, nothing should change from that point. If Marty had gone back to 1985 instead of 1885, he should have found a Doc THERE that remembers everything from Part 3's 1955.

This is where it gets into confusion, and the creators acknowledge that they had to make some concession in order to be able to make the film. Technically, if this is all true, Marty's 1955 actions shouldn't make him disappear, becauae he shouldn't be able to affect himself (though perhaps memory and body are different.) - similarly, once old Biff goes back to 1955 and gives young Biff the almanac, technically, Doc and Marty should start to disappear, since their histories have been rewritten, as 1985A Doc and Marty clearly didn't travel to the future. It's a paradox one must concede to enjoy the films, as it would be very hard to write the films with all of that consistantly portrayed.

Another possible paradox is that if Marty DID go back to 1985, not 1885, and Doc, knowing what he knows, decided not to built the time machine, would Marty and/or the car vanish? Who knows. The only constant in the films we can say for certain is that memories can't be rewritten (don't be confused - Marty's family's memories aren't re-written at the end of Part 1 - his family actually lived the altered life starting in 1955 - Marty changed the actual events they experienced, not just their memories. Doc in 1885 never exprienced Marty going to him in Part 3, because Marty didn't do this in Doc's timeline. If he did remember, his memory would have to have been rewritten. (BTTF appears NOT to be the kind of timeline theory where it is revealed that everything that happens always happened and can never change - Marty shouldn't find Doc's tombstone if he went to the graveyard at the start of Part 1) Even through Marty is careful not to change anything in 1955 in Part 2, it should not be assumed that the second Marty is actually there the whole time in Part 1, but we never see him. Doc is worried Marty could change his own history if he changes anything from Part 1, but it's never shown that he actually would (just like Doc theorizes Jennifer seeing herself could blow up the universe, but it doesn't actually do so).

Now I'm just rambling, heh. I hope this explains everything clearly; if not, let me know and I'll try to explain whatever is bugging you. TheHYPO 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ya'll, I removed the music section, because I thought it was too much. If you guys don't think that should have been removed, tell me how to undo it if you would please? :) Thanx! --Pix88 (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Clara Clayton??!!??

This picture, which is supposedly a "Screen shot from Back to the FutureIII" Is two ladies smiling. What??? --Pix88 (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buford.JPG

Image:Buford.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ride

Is it alright to mention it is followed by The Ride in the infobox?--Snowman Guy (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I say no because the ride is not part of the movie trilogy. If we'd HAVE to put something there, I'd see more "The animated series" than "The ride". -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The ride seems to have more potential then the cartoon, though. That's just my own opinion however.--Snowman Guy (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Production

Maybe we should add Bob Gale and Neil Canton as producers instead of Steven Spielberg. For the reason that it is said on the variety homepage in the profile that they are the producers and steven spielberg and kathleen kennedy together with frank marshall are the executive producers. As far as I know executive producers are not supposed to be mentioned in this section.Sha-Sanio (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The movie credits Spielberg as the producer and so does the List of Steven Spielberg films. His name has got the be in the infobox as the producer. Your point though indicates that Gale and Canton could be added too, but I don't know about co-producers. I don't think they should be mentionned, but I'm not sure. Good question. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In the article about part 1 of the trilogy both executive and regular producers are mentioned, so maybe it is the best when I add all of them, including Kathleen Kennedy and Marshall. Sha-Sanio (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Replacing plot section entirely

If you are not subscribed to the BTTF (film series) article, please read and comment on the following section: Talk:Back_to_the_Future_(film_series)#Plot_sections_are_ridiculous. I plan to start working on this tomorrow unless someone objects. -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1