Question: The ending of Back to the Future, Marty says he's not going to the lake as the car is 'wrecked'. All the family react as if he's talking about the BMW. They rush out and see it is fine. But they know Marty has the Toyota truck - why would they not think he meant his car is wrecked'? I know he says car not "truck" but he's talking about going up to the lake - he wouldn't be going in his Dad's BMW. So is this a mistake or bad script writing? (01:49:00 - 01:51:00)
Answer: It would've simply been down to the pure shock of what Marty was saying. The second he said "The car's wrecked", they dropped what they were doing and went to check. They didn't even care about the first part of Marty's sentence at this point, as all that was going through their heads would've been "Has something happened to the car?"
Question: Given that the entire McFly family's circumstances have changed at the end of the movie due to Marty altering the past, shouldn't Marty's whole life have gone down a completely different path from childhood on? What are the odds that he even still knows Doc and Jennifer in the revised 1985 (let alone has the exact same date planned with Jennifer for the very same evening), given that everything else has changed?
Answer: The suggestion is given that he was the only "normal" person in the family and when he changed the past his parents and siblings became more "normal" people as well whilst he stayed as he was, despitegrowingup with different parents and siblings, since he was "normal" anyway. This totally ignores the linear timeline idea given during the entire movie, but it's obvious that was the idea.
You're absolutely right about Marty being the only "normal" one in the family, but that doesn't ignore the linear timeline idea. There are two different Marty McFly's by the end of this movie. There's the one we follow, who grew up with unhappy parents, and then there's the other Marty McFly who grew up with cool parents. We see the 2nd Marty go back to 1955 when Marty gets back to the Twin Pines mall. The idea isn't to ignore the linear timeline idea, but rather to imply that unhappy parents or not Marty will still always be Marty.
Except for the fact Marty kept being in danger of disappearing if his parents wouldn't get together. If his old self would disappear from his parents not getting together then so he should if his entire life is different and he would be a different Marty just like his siblings. Even if it's only memories rather than an entire personality.
Answer: It's definitely a paradox. Marty actually goes back to the life of 2nd Marty, but if that's the case then original Marty should have still faded away since he created a new timeline when he gave George confidence. Original Marty shouldn't exist anymore at all, he should have faded completely away on the stage. I've said it before and I'll say it again: time travel movies are a mess.
The new Marty isn't a different person entirely; he's just the same guy who was raised in a slightly different environment to the original timeline. Marty's actions in 1955 have ensured that his parents will have three children, and he will be one of them. His existence is completely secured in the timeline.
Corrected entry: Do you honestly think that Marty's parents wouldn't think it was the slightest bit odd that their son happens to look and talk and dress EXACTLY like the boy that hooked them up in high school?
Correction: Ever realized all of a sudden that someone you know bears a resemblance to someone you knew a long time ago? Sure - it happens... (either Marty's parents haven't reached that point yet, or they simply never noticed - it's been 18 years, remember...)
It's been 30 years and Marty was only around for a few days. Can you remember everyone you only saw for a few days 30 years ago? I've got a great memory and I have a hard time remembering someone I met even a few years ago.
True, I went to school for 7 years with one guy who was in all my classes but didn't recognise him when my mother pointed him out 5 years after we went to different secondary schools.
Question: Near the end of the movie, George and Lorraine say that if it hadn't been for Biff, they never would have fallen in love. Shouldn't they really be thanking "Calvin 'Marty' Kline" for getting them together?
Answer: I agree with you, but the idea is that, if George hadn't rescued Lorraine from Biff in the parking lot, they wouldn't have fallen in love. It's dark as hell to wax nostalgic about an attempted r*pe, but there you go.
Totally agree with your answer. Would add that Lorraine already knew who George was but was unimpressed and had mostly written him off as a goofy nerd. It was George saving her from Biff that totally changed Lorraine's perception. Otherwise, Marty's attempt to push them together probably would have failed.
Question: At the end of the film when Marty sees Doc get shot at the mall the second time why is he crying when he runs over to check Doc? Couldn't he have just grabbed the plutonium that was sitting next to Doc's van, run back to the Delorean with it and travelled back much earlier to warn Doc?
Answer: Technically he could have done so, but that doesn't make it any less distressing to see his friend murdered.
Next to that he doesn't know how the DeLorean works, he doesn't know how to put the plutonium in (or doesn't want to risk using it wrongly, having only seen it loaded once) and he and Doc from 1955 have tampered with it to have it be powered by lightning so it probably wouldn't work properly anyway.
Question: Why do Marty's brother and sister get erased from top to bottom, and Marty just fades? Why can't they just all fade?
Chosen answer: The way I understand Doc's explanation, Dave and Linda were both erased completely because Marty interfered with their parents' meeting; thus the three children were erased from existence, from oldest to youngest. Marty only begins to fade because the timeline corrects itself before he gets erased completely.
Super solid explanation, but I think the original question is asking why Dave and Linda literally disappear from top to bottom in the photo: in other words, Dave's hair is erased, then his whole head, then his feet, and Linda also disappears similarly. When we see Marty start to disappear in the photo, it is his whole body that starts to fade all at once, instead of vertically like his siblings.
Corrected entry: In the first scene from 1955, November 6th, where Marty watches the mix of people in Courthouse Square, there is a shot where a boy in mustard yellow pants, standing next to a man, under a tall tree, is "bouncing" down the sidewalk on a pair of spring-laden shoes. These shoes were called "rocket shoes", and were not invented until the late fifties/early sixties, not 1955.
Correction: There were a few different versions of these sprung shoes from different makers, and went by similar names like moon shoes, satellite shows, and rocket shoes. They were all inspired by the space race going on in the 50s and 60s. And they do date from at least 1955, since there is a 1955 pair on display in the Brooklyn Museum.
This correction slightly contradicts itself. If the ones you could find from 1955 were in New York then they must have been released to the public in the same year in the Northeast States. However, Hill Valley is in California, a western state. This means that the product probably wouldn't be there until 1956 onward.
True, but the fact is that they still existed. We don't know what that character did offscreen before the date shown in the movie. He could have gone on a vacation to New York and bought the shoes there for all we know.
Without you providing a specific company and evidence of a spring shoe sold (either nationwide or California) the mistake is valid since the shoes you mentioned were patented in 1968.
Correction: The original poster claimed the shoes were not invented until well after 1955, so I gave an example of ones from 1955 that demonstrated the claim was wrong. Also, your logic is off since 1) that doesn't mean they were only first invented in 1955, just that they were provably invented BY 1955, and 2) being in a New York museum doesn't mean they were only released in the Northeast in that year. There is no contradiction in my post.
There's no evidence that any type of spring shoes were invented and sold by 1955. Unfortunately when you just Google things like "satellite shoes" or "rocket shoes", you get results from sellers like on Etsy who claim they're from the 1950's or 1950's inspired, but no date is ever given. And the Brooklyn Museum never makes a claim the shoes they have are from 1955. In fact, they say the shoes that have were patented in 1968. So, no, you didn't actually give an example of a spring shoe from 1955.
Question: If Marty and his brother and sister are fading from the photograph because they are being erased from existence, wouldn't that mean that the moment when the photograph was taken would also be erased from existence? If so, why doesn't the photograph itself disappear instead of just the people in it?
Chosen answer: The photo itself didn't disappear while the people were fading because the people in the photo were still in the picture. First, Marty's brother was erased, followed by Marty's sister, followed by Marty himself. Since, Marty's brother was erased, his sister and himself would have remained in the photo until they were erased. So really, the photo wouldn't have disappeared until all the people had been erased, since no-one would have been in the picture.
Completely agree with this answer. However, as far as the photo itself is concerned, I don't think it would have disappeared, strictly because of what we have seen in the series. Two examples I can think of: the picture of the gravestone, and the fax that Marty got saying he was fired (both instances in BTTF3). When time was altered, the things on them disappeared (the gravestone, and the "you're fired!" printing), but neither the photograph nor the fax paper itself disappeared.
Question: At the beginning of the movie, the brother is a loser who works at Burger King. At the end, he wears a suit and work at an office. As a presumably successful business man, wouldn't he have moved out of his parents' house?
Answer: Who says he didn't? Perhaps he lives close enough to come over for breakfast each morning. There isn't enough information in the scene to show that he still lives there; he is simply sitting at the table.
Answer: Even though the brother now has a steady career and would normally have his own place, this is a movie-plot device using a "suspension of disbelief." The audience needs to be able to see Marty's reaction and surprise as to how every McFly family member has changed for the better. We just accept the premise.
Answer: If we presume he's living at home, wearing a suit to an office job doesn't really reflect on his success or wealth, and he's still just 21 or 22 years old. He may still be in college and just working on the weekend and living at home to save money.
Question: I have seen a different ending to this film. Every now and then when it airs on TV the movie ends with Doc in 1955, standing at the site where Marty just went back to 1985, and then Marty comes running up to him and says "I'm back" (or something similar). I seem to remember that this is the standard ending to the second film. Why is it occasionally used to end the first one?
Answer: That's actually the beginning scene in Back to the Future 3. It would make no sense to end the first film with that sequence, as at that point Marty hasn't returned to 1955 after getting home the first time.
Correct. Just for completion: This scene, opening part 3, is also shown at the end of part 2.
Question: What is the significance of having four tardies in a row? Is there a special penalty of some sort for that?
Answer: In some schools I've worked at, 3 tardies equalled 1 unexcused absent. This school may have a similar policy, where a set number of unexcused absents results in detention.
Answer: Well first, it implies that Marty is irresponsible, and it also doesn't do any favors for his reputation since people already doubt him. And second, at least when I was in school, having too many tardy-slips or unexcused absences could get you into more serious trouble. (Suspension, etc).
When I was a kid, four tardies was grounds for detention. Marty might not have got a detention for being late four times since he's later seen with Jennifer after band auditions but there's always a possibility he might get detention or temporary suspension if he was late one more time.
His detention could also be on Saturdays, as was practised in Shermer Illinois in the 80's.
Answer: Why wouldn't he go in the BMW? Going to the lake doesn't mean off-road driving, it might be a nice paved road all the way to a touristy spot. I don't think it's a mistake or bad writing.
Actually, Biff comes up to him with the keys to his truck, saying it is ready for his trip. So he was going with his truck.
lionhead