Talk:Back to the Future Part III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Article This article is a Article.

Contents

[edit] A Question of Morality

The one thing that always bugged me was that throughout the second and third movies, Doc keeps saying that the time machine MUST be destroyed. His wish comes true at the end of Part III when it is run over by the train in 1985. But then, sometime after 1885, the Doc builds another time machine using a steam train.

It wasn't the first time Doc changed his line of thinking on a moral question. He re-taped up his letter from Marty to learn of his impending death after ripping it up. Robert K S 19:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I guess he figured "what the hell?"

There was no way Doc could have left Marty or Einstein behind. Plus he said "THE time machine must be destroyed" - he didn't say anything about future time machines! {81.158.187.231 03:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Clayton ravine continued

There is no plot inconsistancy with Marty refferring to Clayton Reveine as such, because Marty would have heard that story at school before Doc had gotten stuck in the past and changed history.

Since its been established that characters memories (those who travel through time anyway) do not change when they change the future (or their past, as proven when Marty is surprised by his home when he returns from the past in the first Back to the future movie) Marty would still remember his school mates telling each other that story even if he prevented those stories from ever occurring.

So, if Marty had not gone back in time to save Doc, and had then asked his classmates about Clayton Raveen, they would have no idea what he is talking about, as he is from a different timeline of events.

(RickO5 04:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)).

[edit] The Old Photo Of Doc

When Marty found the old photo of Doc standing beside the clock at the library in 1955, and then had his picture taken beside of Doc in 1885, then should Marty's image appear on the one he got from the library? When Marty arrives in 1985, and the delorean is destroyed, the photo is tore in half, with the side of Doc showing. RobertCMWV1974 15:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Marty's image probably did appear on the photograph, but since it was torn in half, we didn't see that part. That's why it's all the more dramatic when Doc returns in the time train and gives Marty a copy of the photo. Of course, in theory, the Hill Valley library probably had that photo in its archives in 1985.

[edit] Clayton ravine

The following was added to the article by 162.84.240.23:

"Despite very careful work on the part of the producers to avoid any incongruities in the trilogy, one very big and noticable, error occurs in this movie. When Marty recieves the obituary it says that Doc is survived by "beloved Clara." However, there is, at the same time, the legend Marty relates about Clayton ravine to Doc Brown, about how Clara Clayton was supposed to fall into the ravine, and both apparently exist in the same future. So, either the Clara in the film is not the Clara Doc was supposed to love, or this is simply an overlooked point in the movie."

This is incorrect, as is explained on the Back to the Future DVD. The easiest way to think of it is this. The story Marty remembers is based on "1885A", prior to anyone traveling back in time, in which no one agrees to lead Clara to town and she falls into Shonash ravine and it is renamed Clayton ravine. When Doc travels to 1885, he agrees to lead Clara, thus she never falls into the ravine and survives Doc when he is shot. This is "1885B". When Marty travels to 1885, he convinces Doc not to lead Clara but they end up saving her from falling into the ravine. The events of the movie transpire, and the ravine becomes Eastwood Ravine. This is "1885C". So, the story Marty relates is based on "1885A" (the 1885 he would remember) and the tombstone is based on "1885B".

It's confusing but logical. I'm going to remove this paragraph.

Just realized that someone else pointed the same thing out in here, but I'm going to keep my explanation as well.

X-Mack 03:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Continuity Errors" and "Violation of…" sections

I removed these two sections from Trivia.

[edit] Continutiy Errors

It's not unreasonable for an ancestor to look more like a great-great grandson than more immediate kin. I might suggest removing this reference from the section, while keeping some mention of the fact that Marty's great-great-grandmother is played by the same actress who plays his mother, which is more of a true continuity goof. count_lawrence 17:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

While the paragraph certainly is not Wikipedia-friendly and could use a clean-up, these are not continuity errors or goofs, but simply observations and opinions of an alternative view of what the filmmakers see as correct. To address the last item, at no time did the filmmakers believe that a great-great-grandmother would have any relation to Lorraine, but chose to cast Lea Thompson anyway. The writers say, Obviously, Maggie McFly and Lorraine Baines cannot be blood relatives. But we did come up with a satisfactory answer: It's a well known adage that "men are attracted to women who remind them of their mothers." Clearly then, when Seamus married Maggie, that insured that the McFly men would have a genetic trait that attracted them to women who bear a resemblance to Maggie or Lea Thompson (even Jennifer is the same physical type!) [1] —Fitch 16:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it genetic or just classic Freudian psychology? And wouldn't the similarities in appearence between Maggie McFly and Lorraine Baines indicate that they could be genetically related? After all, Hill Valley was a small town back in 1885, it's possible that Marty's parents were distantly related, and that he a Jennifer are also related.

As the producers rightly said: they couldn't have made a BTTF movie without Lea Thompson.

Indeed, to the producers, trying to make a BTTF movie without Lea Thompson, was like trying to make a "Blues Brothers" movie without John Belushi. Glickmam 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of California Statute by Characters

While it is true that both drivers violated the law, that does not preclude anyone from filing a civil lawsuit. Since Marty was racing, it should be obvious why he would be sued. Violation of laws has no bearing on who can sue whom. The movie only claims that Marty was sued and broke his hand from a car accident. I see no reason to bring up this point plot in the article. —Fitch 16:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other notes

Ethanol (the form of alcohol found in beer, wine, liquor, etc.) could have been used in the DeLorean's tank, as an internal combustion engine can run on it as well as gasoline. No explanation for not using it is ever given.

I removed this note because I believe there was a scene where Marty and Doc tried to use liquor from the saloon, but it ended up blowing out the catalytic converter(?) and Doc said that it would take him months to fix UnfriendlyFire 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The item blown out was the fuel injection manifold, if I remember the movie correctly. --FlatEric521 01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was the fuel injection manifold. Blowing out the catalytic converter wouldn't do anything but give your car some extra kick! Mcflytrap 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] actually they would have had gasoline

I think they would have had a source for gasoline, as there should be the timemachine in wich Doc arrived in the past. They could have used the gasoline which was left in it. As Marty wouldn't have needed any gasoline in 1955 cus there are gasstations. Drem 172.203.141.121 22:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Doc had already buried that machine in the mine, and he most likely would have drained the gasoline to prevent it from turning to varnish and coroding the gas tank.
That DeLorean had been hover-converted and had presumably not used gasoline for some time, drawing its power from the Mr. Fusion plant. No? Robert K S 19:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
To answer my own question: No. Doc explains that Mr. Fusion is only ever used to power the time circuits, not for the car's locomotion. Robert K S 07:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever tried to use gasoline that's been left in a machine for 70 years?!

The natural gasoline available in 1885 as a kerosene byproduct would not have been suitable for use in the 1980s engine in the DeLorean due to very low octane ratings. Modern gasoline is usually chemically cracked to increase octane ratings to what is necessary for modern, high compression car engines. --FlatEric521 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How does Doc get the Delorean to fly using just gasoline??? Also, I'll bet if he just pushed it over the edge of the Grand Canyon, it'd get up to 88mph before smashing into the canyon floor. johnpseudo 15:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

He has special flying circuits installed in 2015. And yes, the DeLorean probably would get up to 88 MPH on its way to the ravine floor, but anyone in it would be severely injured or killed when it hit in 1985. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 19:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say is, how could the flying circuits still rely on gasoline to get the car to get up to 88 mph? The engine isn't turning any wheels... what is it doing that allows the car to fly? johnpseudo 16:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Considering this is a fictional hypothetical futuristic engine we're talking about, it's not completely (in a sci-fi sense) inconcievable that the engine burns the fuel to cause some sort of force strong enough to project the vehicle, like a rocket with better navigational control. Really, if we knew exactly how all these devices worked, we probably would've invented them by now, so don't try to read too deeply into it. - Ugliness Man 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rush to get Home

Doc says during the movie that Marty and he could use the DeLorean on ice to make it past 88 mph, but ice wouldn't appear until winter. However, after Buford Tannen is put in jail, they could have waited as long as they want, but the argument of the movie was that the train was the last and only hope.

I've always interpreted this as Marty and Doc as having gotten a "go-fever". At one level the return to 1985 just became less urgent when Buford was arrested, but they had been running for about 5 day on the assumption that they had to "Get out of Dodge". Also, Doc might have figured with everything set up and ready to go, and since in the orignial plan, he wasn't going to be around to deal with the consequences of stealing, then destroying the train; it was worth it to go with the original plan. 204.211.254.71 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is not a paradox!

I edited the page, since the following has been proven in BTTF.com to be wrong:

  • Clara is mentioned on Doc's tombstone before Marty travels back to 1885. However, it is unlikely that Doc would have been visiting the canyon and saving her from falling unless Marty took him there, establishing a time paradox. It should be noted, however, that Doc had volunteered to meet Clara at the train station, so it is entirely possible that he could have altered Clara's timeline before Marty got there (in the 1885 where Doc is killed). With Marty there, he was preoccupied with the time machine, so he forgot to meet Clara (we even see her walk behind Marty and Doc at the station as they're looking at the map). Since Doc's original intervention never took place, Clara resumed her original fate, thus leading Doc and Marty to rescue her from falling into the ravine.

Now I am going to explain pont by point:

Clara is mentioned on Doc's tombstone before Marty travels back to 1885.

This is correct.

However, it is unlikely that Doc would have been visiting the canyon and saving her from falling unless Marty took him there, establishing a time paradox.

This is a misinterpretation . Hell, the poster even corrected himself/ herself in the next lines.

It should be noted, however, that Doc had volunteered to meet Clara at the train station, so it is entirely possible that he could have altered Clara's timeline before Marty got there (in the 1885 where Doc is killed). With Marty there, he was preoccupied with the time machine, so he forgot to meet Clara (we even see her walk behind Marty and Doc at the station as they're looking at the map). Since Doc's original intervention never took place, Clara resumed her original fate, thus leading Doc and Marty to rescue her from falling into the ravine.

This is right. Doc altered the timeline when he got there.

Original timeline: Doc is not there. Clara Clayton comes to town, no one goes to pick her up, she rents the mobile which leads to her doom. The city hall names the ravine after her.

Second timeline, and probably the one where 1955 Doc and Marty start at the beginning of BTTF3: Doc gets trapped in 1885, gets the mission to pick Miss Clayton, nobody falls to the ravine and it retains its original Native American name. Doc gets killed a week later by being shot in the back with Bufford's derringer.

Final timeline: Doc and Clint Eastwood (LOL) steal the locomotive for scientific purposes. Eastwood supposedly falls into oblivion with it, then he gets the ravine named after him, the hero who defeated the Mad Dog.

So, it's not a flop in the movie, it's actually covered. The flop is in the mind of the poster, who didn't get it right away. I know I did, and I was 9 the first time I saw it.--Kim Kusanagi 05:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Scenes

There was only one deleted scene in Part III, which explained why Tannen was arrested by a different sheriff then Strickland. Apparently, in the delete scene Tannen disarms the Sheriff and then orders him to walk away, in which Tannen shoots him in the back and leaves him to die with his son holding his hand.

Since it's the only delete scene, would it be worth mentioning? --MrDopple 15:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/c/Talk%7EBack_to_the_Future_Part_III_c317.html"