Page 1 of Another Back to the Future Question!

Right dont get me wrong but I love the BTTF trilogy but when I recently bought the box set and watched them in all their glorious DVD wonder I noticed a BIG hole in the plot.

In BTTF 2 there is a scene where Doc tells Marty about how the Biff stole the Delorean in the future and went back in time with the Sports Almanac and gave it to young Biff and Marty says ``lets go back to the future and stop him`` or along those lines, but Doc says no that they would go into the alternate future where Biff rules but my question is,
If Biff went back in time and gave young biff the almanac then surly the time line would have been disrupted meaning that when Biff returns to the future in the Delorean he would have went to the future where he was Rich and not leave the car back for Marty and Doc to get back to 1985.

Please help me out is this right or am I just half cracked?

cheers
cutz2000

HOLY SHAMOLAE !

Are you mental ? I got a headache just reading that.
HOWEVER.......You are correct about the plot.

BUT...........you are 3/4 cracked if you managed 3 BTTF in a row.

I would need therapy.
And you do now. Nutter !

Awrabest.
Rigga.

I aint even getting into that :)

Better to leave Time Paradox` alone, it will turn your brain to mush if you think about all the different time threads that could/would/have/may/might be(en) unwound form the BTTF Trilogy.

Well, it drives me mad just thinking about it.


Axel

There are loads of plot holes like that when you think of it, although I`d never noticed that one before.

The one that always annoys me is how Marty goes into the future to see his future self, but in truth he got into the car in the past, so his life would never actually take place after that point, there would just be a gap where he didn`t exist.

Drives you mad doesn`t it?!

Guys.............ITS A MOVIE............It isn`t real man!!!!

There`s two ways of looking at the theory of time travel, one of them is the straight line theory, where there is only one timeline. This is weird to explain, but basically some of the events of the first film could not happen because of this.

In the film, marty causes the meeting of his parents to be interrupted, thus setting in motion the events of the film and Marty`s `hilarious` attempts to get them back together. Near the end of the film, marty starts to fade out of existence, as his brother and sister did in the photograph. However, herein lies the paradox.

If marty never existed, he would not have had the opportunity to travel back in time and stop his parents from meeting. I think that sums it up nicely.

The other train of thought (and the theory I like to agree with in FICTIONAL films) is the BTTF2 theory. Where if an event happens in the past which changes the normal timeline, the timeline you originally came from still carries on without you, unless you manage to get back to it. Marty went back to BEFORE the timeline changed (Biff on his 18th birthday) and corrected everything.

As to the original start of this thread, no, because old biff returned to the future before Young Biff had changed the timeline. This is also why they deleted the scene where Biff disappears on his return to the future. (Marty and Doc went straight to 1985, long after Biff had started winning)

as to the point made by bigfan, if you look at both of these theories, there`s no plot hole there. Even though Marty got into a time machine and left for the future, he returned, and thus, was able to set up home with Jennifer and have kids. If, however, he`d been killed during his adventures in the past and the wild west, then yes, he wouldn`t be able to see himself as an old man, indeed, he wouldn`t have existed, he wouldn`t have had kids and Doc, after going to the future, wouldn`t have had to return to 1985 and take Marty (and Jennifer) to the future, Marty wouldn`t have bought the almanac, Biff wouldn`t have stolen it and given it to his younger self....... do you see where I`m going here??



There are a few more holes however, if we take the first theory as `fact` (for the sake of this thread); here`s the most obvious one.

1. In Back to the future 3, after Doc saves marty from being hanged, he tells him "Marty, I gave you express instructions to go straight back to 1985" but if the younger Doc from 1955 helped Marty to travel back to 1885 to see the older Doc, surely Doc would remember helping him, and indeed remember why he helped him? (He shows surprise at the photo of his own gravestone) He`s still the same Doc!


However, there is one theory that holds absolutely true. Time travel will never exist.

How do I know this?

Because if, in the future, time travel is possible and widely available, why hasn;t someone come back and told us? (unless you follow the 2nd train of thought, and they have told us. We`re all just living in the `original` universe)

This item was edited on Tuesday, 14th January 2003, 22:59

S***!! i`ve got too much thinking time on my hands

Look just humour them .

Another cup of tea time for your walk with matron...thats right put your trousers on .....yes those are your tablets dear.

my head hurts, and i thought they were just nice films?!

I see where you are going with this,
you mean that in order to change the future in the past the same amount of time you have from interupting the past has to carry out from where you left the future/present untill it changes both timelines,
for instance if I were to go back and change the past thre would be a certain amount of overlap time where the old and new timelines co-exist which may explain Marty fading and not just instantly vanishing

hmmmmm
turns your head to mush this
dont it