Corrected entry: When Clara realizes her mistake, that Doc may have told her the truth, and races to catch the train on horseback, a "Kentucky Thoroughbred" at the speed of 45mph could not catch the train at the speeds the colored logs were burning off.
rswarrior
2nd Jul 2015
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
25th May 2015
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Corrected entry: When Marty time-travels to 1885 and stashes the DeLorean in a desert cave, a black bear inexplicably appears and chases him. There are no bears of any species that inhabit the desert badlands.
Correction: The fictional town of Hill Valley, California, is not in any desert badlands. In BTTF III, a railway map shows Hill Valley as being in Northern California, near the Sierra Nevada Mountains, where there's lots of bears.
Correction: They may not live in the badlands, but they do travel through them. Several years ago, a bear in New Mexico made a journey of 70 miles through the desert from the forested mountains to the Pecos River near Roswell.
14th Dec 2010
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Corrected entry: There really should have been no reason for Marty to risk going back to 1885 to rescue Doc. Obviously, 1985 Doc being killed by Tannen, did not negate his eventual existence (as evidenced by 1955 Doc still existing). It's understandable Marty would want to prevent his friend being murdered, but when they learned of this fact in 1955, this event had already happened 70 years ago. 1955 Doc surely would have realized the pointlessness of Marty going to rescue his future self in the past when 1955 Doc would eventually become 1985 Doc again through the natural course of time. In light of this, surely 1955 Doc would have explained to Marty there was no reason to go back and possible cause more damage to the Space-Time Continuum.
Correction: You're missing the point; if Doc is killed in 1885, there will be a paradox. 1955 Doc wouldn't know that he went back to 1885 yet, so wouldn't know he could be killed, so wouldn't think to warn Marty in 1985. Besides, Seamus would have been killed because of Doc's influence in 1855, so Marty never would have existed either. There were plenty of valid reasons to go back to 1885.
Actually there wouldn't be a paradox. First, even though Doc is killed in 1885, the 1955 version is his younger self and not warning Marty of anything. He doesn't warn him of anything actually. Second, Seamus wouldn't have been killed because of Doc's influence. Where does that even come in? There really isn't a reason for Marty to risk going back there other than wanting to help his friend.
20th Nov 2010
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Corrected entry: Doc begins telling Marty about his accident with Rolls-Royce, before stopping himself and telling Marty it's better that he doesn't know. How exactly did Doc find out about the Rolls-Royce incident in the first place? When Doc was in the year 2015, he didn't actually talk to Marty or any of his family or Needles, so who told him about the Rolls-Royce incident? At that point, it had happened 30 years prior, so it's doubtful that a minor car crash from 1985 would still be the talk of the town in 2015.
Correction: In BTTF Part 2, they are there to rescue Marty's son going to jail, which in turn puts his daughter in jail. Doc said he did some research and found that the McFly family gets destroyed, that he traced the fall of the McFlys to that incident of Marty Jr committing the crime with Griff. He obviously found out about the accident while doing the research. Even Jennifer found out about the accident by overhearing family chatter, so it was no secret amongst the McFlys. Also keep in mind, in part one Doc does go to the future, but he is back before we see what he was up to. Marty did tell Doc to look him up when he gets there, so maybe he did speak to Marty.
Correction: A Rolls Royce is hardly a minor car to have an accident with. They are such a rare car, one being in an accident in Hill Valley would be unusual enough to be news.
20th Nov 2010
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Corrected entry: When Seamus McFly goes to comfort his crying baby son William, we can see that he is a very affectionate father. This was practically unheard of in the 19th century. Children were routinely beaten for even the smallest infractions at the time, it was the norm. Since William was only an infant, I doubt he would be beaten, but his father would not be so kind towards him either. His attitude would be more like "shut up kid, what are you crying about now?". The whole concept of being affectionate towards one's children is more of a 20th century idea.
Correction: And yet people are different, no matter the age or cultural norms. Some people are just nicer than others, it has nothing to do with some preconceived notion of how societal norms were for any given time. When my father was a child, it was acceptable to give a wife a backhand if she "got out of line", but he never did.
Correction: It was not unheard of in 1885. Showing affection to children became a trend as early as the 1850s.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Correction: The colored logs didn't begin firing off until Clara reached the train. In fact, the first one fired off just as she grabbed onto the rear handrail, causing her to be jerked horizontally.
rswarrior