• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Eric Stoltz made me understand the tragedy of the ending of Back to the Future and the inhumanity of the American Dream

If Doc takes Marty and Jennifer to the future at the end of the first movie, why do the older versions of themselves still exist in 2015?
Because they are destined to return, and nothing happened that would have prevented them from returning.
 
This thread has ruined my teenage years ha as I always thought BTTF was pretty tight when it came to time travel with few plot holes :lol:
george-of-the-jungle-now-comes-the-part-where-we-throw-our-heads-back-and-laugh.gif
 
Okay, but what was "new" George successful at?
He only just finished publishing his first full length novel at the end if the movie.
Was he a short story author - or was he at the same job he held before Marty went back in time, just in a better position, because his newfound confidence allowed him to ask for a raise he otherwise might not have?
 
This is tempting me to post a poll asking which of the three films holds together the best strictly in terms of how well it handles how time travel would most likely operate if it existed on this scale.

Doc and the chalkboard in #2 is still, for me, a standout moment that really does make sense given their situation at the time.
 
Is it about wealth? Or about George McFly being a self-assured and confident person? The worst element of pre-time travel George's life was not poverty. It was that :censored: Biff's bullying him.

George's confidence was one element, yet the overall effect on the McFly family being "better off" from OT (original timeline) Marty's perspective is that he now lived with a well-to-do, happier family, where he also has a brand new truck as the icing on the cake of that "wealth-brings-happiness" message of the film's coda. The filmmakers would not even entertain the idea of George (or alternate universe George) becoming more confident, yet his economic status remained lower middle class (as if that was an impossibility), because in their minds (those behind BTTF), the best outcome for a happy ending was not just George's behavior, but material wealth

Of course not. But the film chooses to show us that they are now a "better" family through the lens of their material possessions.

Exactly. The message was intentional, because the filmmakers would not show a family who were happy and confident, yet not living with

And what are the concerns, the priorities of this new and improved version of George McFly?

"Now, Biff, I want to make sure that we get two coats of wax this time, not just one."

Indeed--alternate timeline George lacked any sort of substance, only concerned with the appearance of one of the symbols of his materialistic life...and Marty is more than happy with that.
 
I've always seen it that Marty was aware of the change at the end of the first movie; He's happy for them, happy that his adventure wasn't all a waste. He affected change. But he's the only one with any awareness that anything changed, because for everyone else, they're living their normality.

And if it weren't for Marty, well, Lorraine likely would have married Biff, and then things would have been very different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLA
If Doc takes Marty and Jennifer to the future at the end of the first movie, why do the older versions of themselves still exist in 2015? ;)
Why isn't the whole future different? If someone cannibalizes Doc's lab in 1885, he's invented refrigeration, a super-accurate rifle, and who knows what else... 100 years of technical innovation on top of that, who knows what's been developed?
Indeed--alternate timeline George lacked any sort of substance, only concerned with the appearance of one of the symbols of his materialistic life...and Marty is more than happy with that.
We saw him for... what, 30 seconds? Yeah, that's enough time for a precise character analysis.
 
that "wealth-brings-happiness" message of the film's coda
I wish people would stop saying that.

BTTF is NOT saying that wealth brings happiness. Yes, the McFlys ARE richer (not rich, just richER) in the new tiimeline. But that's irrelevant.

The McFlys are happy because they're stronger and more confident. All of them, not just George. And that added strength and confidence is the reason they're better off.

And if it weren't for Marty, well, Lorraine likely would have married Biff, and then things would have been very different.
About that bit in BTTF2 when Old Biff is visibly ill as he gets out of the DeLorean: I like the explanation that the reason he's sick and being erased from existence, because Lorraine shot him sometime in the past. :lol:
 
Last edited:
yet his economic status remained lower middle class (as if that was an impossibility), because in their minds (those behind BTTF), the best outcome for a happy ending was not just George's behavior, but material wealth
He lives in the same house.

That's not how BttF time travel works. Zemeckis and Gale have acknowledged it's a plot hole.
I still don't see why. BttF time shenanigans assume that all of the dominoes will fall and if something makes it so they will never fall then folk start disappearing. Marty changes the first domino of his parents meeting and therefore when they all fall down he doesn't exist anymore.

But Marty and Jennifer visiting the future shouldn't prevent their future selves from existing anymore than visiting Idaho would. Now if they visit the future and the time machine is destroyed? THAT should cause problems.
 
Hm. So, if they travel into the future and the time machine is destroyed and their future selves continue to exist then they can assume at some point they'll travel back in time? Nice to have the safety net. :p

I just can't take the time travel presented in these films all that seriously. It's a fun exercise, but it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense, and trying to force sense upon it will only end in heartache.
 
This is tempting me to post a poll asking which of the three films holds together the best strictly in terms of how well it handles how time travel would most likely operate if it existed on this scale.
It never passed the smell test. People disappearing from pictures as you watch? F right off with that shit!
 
But Marty and Jennifer visiting the future shouldn't prevent their future selves from existing anymore than visiting Idaho would. Now if they visit the future and the time machine is destroyed? THAT should cause problems.
Maybe, but it's paradoxical that future Marty and Jennifer had never gone to the future and learned their lessons if we're assuming they're in the future because their present selves came back from the future (and not, like, Sarah Connor Chronicles rules). On the other hand, it's the only time where we see someone go Straight to the Future instead of Back to the Future, so I guess the rule is that the future you go to is the one you'd get if you didn't leave the present (so, IDK, future Marty and Jennifer would remember the time machine crapping out when Doc flew off or something).
 
It's been a while since I've seen #2 (the sequels both pale in comparison to the original), but IIRC they lose Jennifer when they leave her asleep on a porch and change the past of that porch. When I first saw the film I couldn't see how they could get her back from that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLA
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top