Question: Doc Brown's workshop at the beginning of the movie strikes me as highly reminiscent of the one belonging to Caractacus Potts in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, right down to the elaborate food-dispensing mechanisms. Potts also had a dog named Edison in that movie, just as Doc has one named Einstein. Were these similarities intended as a deliberate homage, or are they just similar expressions of the "mad scientist" trope?
Answer: Not to mention in both movies there is a flying car :).
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: During one scene in 1955, Marty mentions John F. Kennedy, and nobody has any idea who he's talking about. Would Kennedy really have been a totally unfamiliar name to most Americans in 1955? True, he wasn't President yet, but he was a popular Democratic senator from a prominent family.
Answer: He was both a war hero and a senator, but unless Lorraine's father followed politics closely he might not have recognized the name, especially since Kennedy wasn't a senator for their state.
Plus it would be unheard of to name a street after a living politician from across the country.
Answer: Keep in mind, there was no TV news in that house (they just got a TV). And I don't see the dad being one to read any further than the sports page, or listen to anything but comedy on the radio.
Question: Why was Eric Stoltz replaced by Michael J. Fox?
Answer: Gale (the writer and producer) characterized Stoltz as "a good actor in the wrong role" with Stoltz displaying the character too seriously and heavy, also utilizing method acting that annoyed the crew. He was fired when they found a replacement. Stoltz himself later said he was not a comedian and did not know why he was cast.
Question: I have a question and this has bothered me for years. How did Doc know the exact date and time to wear a bulletproof vest by reading Marty's letter? We see what Marty wrote and it says "The night I go back in time" before he puts it in Doc's pocket but it never said the exact date or time of when the terrorists would attack Doc after Marty came back in 1985?
Answer: The answer is right in your question. The letter states "The night I go back in time." Doc helped Marty get back to 1985 at the exact date and time that he left. He set this date and time in the Delorean. We know that Doc has a penchant for remembering dates as one of the ways Marty proves he's from the future is that Doc told him the exact date and events of when he got the idea for the flux capacitor.
Answer: Doc sees the video tape recording of the first part or the test so would know it was after that time, so he took precautions to protect himself from that point forward. Knowing it could be at any time from the test till later, he wore the vest to the test, and presumably would have continued wearing it after the test if that wasn't when it happened.
Question: When Marty arrives back in 1985 in the first movie, he leaves the DeLorean behind near the clocktower to chase after the Libyans because it stalls on him. There are now two DeLoreans in 1985; the one at Lone Pines Mall that gets used for the rest of the series until its eventual destruction, and the one near the clocktower. What happens to the latter?
Answer: The Lone Pine Mall DeLorean goes to 1955, then returns to 1985 with Marty, and he leaves it at the clock tower, runs back to the mall and sees the point in time when he first went back to 1955. The "clocktower" DeLorean is then the one Doc takes to the future and gets converted to hover. So the DeLorean goes 1985 > 1955 > 1985 > 2015, in this movie. (And then in the subsequent films the "wrong" 1985, back to 1955, then to 1885, and returns to the "right" 1985 when it's destroyed by the train).
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.
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: What is George's working status with Biff at the end of the film? George mentions in the beginning that Biff is his supervisor so I assume Biff is George's boss but at the end of the film it is implied that Biff seems to be working for George or is George still working for Biff, but Biff is no longer bullying George?
Answer: At the end of the film, Biff owns his own auto detailing company (probably a nod to the fact his car kept getting filled with manure and needed cleaning) and George is his customer. Although it seems Biff will still try to con people, but George stood up for himself to make sure Biff did the job correctly. Before the present changed, Biff was his supervisor that still bullied George into doing his work for him for an unspecified company.
Question: I was watching the documentary on the trilogy. What exactly does Robert Zemeckis mean by "the ending with them going to the future was a joke?" What exactly is so funny about Marty and Jennifer going to the future and helping out their future kids from getting into trouble?
Answer: The original film was not written with sequels in mind. The sequels were only created after the overwhelming box office success and popularity of the first film. The ending is a "joke" because of how much more absurd the story has become, and the fact the audience doesn't actually see the future. Of course the joke is ruined somewhat because sequels were eventually produced and we did actually see the future, Marty and Jennifer as older adults, and their kids. When viewed in the context of a stand-alone film (and in the four years audiences had to wait until the sequel was released) this ending was indeed quite funny at the time.
Question: What is the principal's problem? Why is he taking it out on a 17 year old?
Question: Why is it Doc Brown and Principal Strickland both look the exact same age in 1955 and 1985?
Answer: Doc doesn't really look the same age; his hair is shorter/blonder, and he doesn't have as many wrinkles. Christopher Lloyd was only in his mid-40s when the movie was made, so they actually used makeup to age him for the 1985 sequences. As far as Strickland goes, it's a joke in the film... Marty even asks, "Geez, didn't that guy ever have hair?" when he first sees him in 1955.
Answer: Technically you CAN see an age different in Strickland. First seen in 1985, he is FULLY BALD, and has some wrinkles and looks of retirement age. Then seen in 1955, he is mostly bald but still has some hair on the sides and does look younger (like 35 or 40) - no wrinkles.
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: 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.
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: Are we ever given any suggestion as to what offence Lorraine's brother was incarcerated for?
Answer: Not in any official, canon source. In the Back to the Future comic books published by IDW he is an aspiring member of Biff's gang and gets arrested breaking into the home of Doc Brown's mother in an attempt to steal a large sum of money. It must be reiterated that the comics are non-canon and this should be taken with a grain of salt.
The comic books are so skewed from the movie events, they cannot be considered canon. "Jailbird Joey" was only a baby in a playpen when Biff and his gang were seniors in highschool. Unless Biff and his highschool buddies were still recruiting gang members into their mid-30s, there is no way Jailbird Joey would be trying to join their gang.
While the answer does state the comics aren't cannon, it's the only place that really delves into Uncle Joey's criminal history since the film's didn't need to spend time discussing the exact nature of his crimes. However, it would not be unreasonable (or even unheard of) for Biff to be recruiting members for his "gang" at 35. Plus, Joey wanting to be part of Biff's gang wouldn't necessarily require Biff or his high school buddies to be personally involved in recruiting young Joey.
Question: Was it ever revealed in this film, or in either of the sequels, what crime Joey was actually in prison for?
Answer: In film, no (or at least not that I saw). But USA Today released a special "front page wrap" for Oct 22, 2015 with some changes to the movie prop. For example, they expanded the article of Marty Jr.'s arrest, which for the prop was just repeated paragraphs (as newspaper props often have). On the side of the paper under Newsline (which as far as I can tell wasn't part of the original movie prop) it says "Parole Denied Again for Joseph "Joey" Baines, 61, currently serving a 20 year term for racketeering at Folsom Prison. Baines, originally from Hill Valley, has spent some 2/3 of his life behind bars. This is his 12th consecutive parole hearing to end in denial." In the comic book "Back to the Future: Time Served", by Bob Gale, he writes that Joey wanted to join Biff's gang. Biff had Joey break into Doc Brown's mother's home to steal money from her. Joey was caught and arrested for stealing $85K. Since Joey refused to give up Biff, he got a longer sentence.
Question: When Marty and Jennifer are sitting in front of the clock tower in the park and Jennifer asks Marty if his mother knows he is taking her up to the lake, during Marty's response, he seems to put something in the inside pocket of his jeans jacket with his left hand. What was he doing or what did he put into his jacket pocket? (00:10:00 - 00:11:00)
Answer: There's a mistake entry about the scene where Marty is holding the tape in his left hand and then disappears in the next shot, so Marty's hand is empty at the point in question. To me, it honestly looks like Michael J. Fox rehearsed the scene so many times when he was putting the tape into his jacket that he did the same movement without the tape to stay consistent.
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.
Question: In this film, Marty suddenly appears and spends one week in 1955. So, how does Marty freely roam the hallways and cafeteria at Hill Valley High School (even getting into a physical altercation with another student) without challenge from teachers and administrators such as Mr. Strickland? All the kids are talking about Marty, but nobody in authority questions the fact that he's not enrolled, he's completely undocumented, he doesn't attend any classes, and he's apparently a troublemaker.
Answer: High school in the 1950s was different from today, which has tight security and students are more closely scrutinized. Not every teacher, and even Strickland, knows every student, so Marty would not necessarily be immediately suspected as an outsider. And though the students are talking about Marty, that doesn't mean the adults are aware. Teens have their own closed-off society. Being as Marty was only in the past for a week, and he isn't at the school all that much, he could conceivably move about mostly unnoticed. If he was there any longer, the school would eventually wise up about him. Also, it's a movie, and suspension of disbelief is employed here. The audience just accepts the plot's premise.
Thanks. But I also remember (giving away my age) that teachers and administrators back then were very much aware of students "playing hooky" (skipping classes and wandering around the halls and off-campus during school hours). Back then there were even "truant officers" who patrolled the streets looking for school-age kids skipping school. With all of the attention to 1950s detail in this film, I was really kind of surprised that no-one apparently suspected Marty of truancy.
I also remember those days. As I mentioned, since Marty was only briefly at the high school during the one-week period he was in the past, he hadn't yet attracted enough attention to be considered a problem or a truant. It can be seen that Strickland notices Marty, but had not yet considered anything as being amiss.
Question: At the dinner table in 1955, Marty's grandfather is there. It has always appeared to me that there is something off about his appearance. He seems to appear as if he was not actually there, and that he was spliced into the footage from another movie. The lighting on his face, his style of hair, the quality so to speak of him, just seems off from everyone else. He almost seems like he is from a black and white movie, spliced in and colorized a bit Is it supposed to be that he was to look this way, or did they actually take this actor's scene from another movie and splice it in?
Answer: I just pulled up this scene on YouTube, and I think it is just the lighting. The shadow from his wife's head is casting onto his right shoulder in a realistic way, which suggests the actor was there for filming. It would also be impractical logistically and economically to insert him after the fact, because they could simply hire another actor for the part if he was unavailable.
Answer: It's definitely a deliberate homage. The similarities between the two characters don't end there...in fact, both share the line "I've finally invented something that works!"