It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Some Back to the Future gripes/questions.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:32 PM

6, in part 2 in the future, Marty is not doing so well in his life. Why didn’t he simply ask the Doc to help him out with some time travel? Perhaps see the lotto numbers for next week, or travel back and sort things?

Part II doesn't really concern me. But I am willing to ponder about this.

Doc's mentality clearly is that time travellers should remain in poverty, rather than use their knowledge of events to make a profit (though where Doc got all that money from different eras seems to contradict this moral - if you are not to affect events, and not to change anything, why remove so much money from circulation? And why is that not just as immoral as using a lotto or something similar?). He refused to help Marty get rich in the past (in the present time of the future Marty that you are talking about, to be exact, but a future to the viewers and the younger Marty), he will refuse to help him in the future as well (or did refuse, in the 'past/present', depending on your point of view).

Doc might not be alive anymore in Marty's future - we have to remember he must have been pretty old in 1985 already, having aged 30 years since 1955.

And for all we know, he DID ask, or has asked.. but as others mentioned, doc could have helped him at least by telling him not to drag race with Needles - but then again, perhaps he thought it's better that Marty realizes it himself, and thus is responsible for his -own- life and decisions. What kind of a life is it when someone makes our decisions for us, not letting us learn from our mistakes and grow as human beings? And future-Marty's life didn't seem that bad. He had food on the table, a loving family, bigscreen television, a relatively large house (compared to the ones they live in in poor countries, for example - or even in richer countries, like Japan), his parents were still alive, he had a respectable job, and so on. Not that I would consider any of these things to be marks of a 'successful life', but most of the world seems to, so the only 'not so good' part of is life was his selfish, greedy dream of becoming some kind of a rock star with the guitar.

I mean, even if he could play the guitar perfectly in the future, what would he do with the skills? Isn't his family responsibilities anything anymore at that point? I mean, if he's so selfish to abandon his self-chosen responsibilities just because he can play the guitar, then does he really deserve to have that skill? Perhaps fate had a reason to removing that skill from him..

Of course movies never ponder these things this far, but that's why movies usually shouldn't be taken too seriously or thought about too much. Because the writers never did, so if the audience does, it will simply just ruin the movie experience, which might otherwise have been good.

Back to the Future is one of those marvelous 1980's gems, truly enchanting in many ways, atmospheric and amazing - one of those movies that only get worse when you really start thinking about them. It's better to enjoy this movie despite it's plot holes, flaws, and other pretty thoughtless parts. Basically it's just a silly teen comedy movie, with wonderfully executed time travel theme - it doesn't really utilize the time travel-part very well, and it's non-predestination version of time travel creates more questions than a large group of skilled philosophers could satisfy.

As for the so-called "Parts"... well, I can't enjoy them, and as they are just artificial "add-ons" (complete with a tacky, boring and completely unneeded 'romance' for the doc - a mark of a movie that can't succeed on the strength of it's own plot, and of producers and directors that want conform to the generic moneymaking rules, rather than create an innovative story), instead of natural progression of the plot, I'd seriously recommend not mentioning them together with the name "Back to the Future".

That movie is not a "part". It's a full movie, with full story, and whatever came after it is just pathetic production line copying - garbage, that should never have been made.

And most people don't realize this, and will defend that garbage with angry passion. They seriously consider it a "trilogy" (because the corporation says so!), and will always talk as if there were three parts of "Back to the Future". So be it.. how else could it be in a world of lying apes?

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:53 PM

Of course, then again, why use gas when you have a nuclear reactor onboard, but you know...?

I could be wrong, but didn't that Mr. Fusion device get fried when lightening struck the Delorean at the end of part 2?

Hm, I might have messed the quotes a bit. But that doesn't matter.

The whole Mr. Fusion-thing is quite interesting. The thing is, there has always been a nuclear reactor in the car, since 1985. I mean, it uses a "nuclear reaction to get the 1.21 Gigawatts", as the doc explains. But the car needs to run at 88 miles per hour for that reaction to be able to transport the car through time.

So there is a

a) Nuclear reactor for travelling through time
b) Gas-powered engine to get the DeLorean to 88 Mph

Things only change when doc returns from the future. What an odd choice the doc makes by replacing the old-fashioned nuclear reactor (a) with Mr. Fusion, that can feed on any garbage, but still having the car use polluting gas to move about. Although at this point, it's pretty unclear whether the engine to actually power the car (b) also runs on garbage, or whether it's still gas-powered. One thing is for sure - the car engine is -radically- changed, because now the car can fly.

Why would they have such an advanced technology as to use Mr. Fusion (what is that thing anyway, and why would there be such thing in cars, if it's not meant to power the WHOLE car - not all cars are time machines in 2015, after all, and that seems like a factory-manufactured, trademarked reactor - of course it could be some kind of "all-purpose reactor", but it still begs the question - - - if such is easily available in the future, why would ANYTHING ever run on gas?), and not use it for everything?

I mean, what did the doc do to the DeLorean in the future?

1) He changed the engine so that the car can fly, but it still uses GAS.
2) He changed the engine so that the car can fly, and take all the needed energy directly from Mr. Fusion.
3) He only added a flight-capability without changing the engine at all, whatsoever, and Mr. Fusion only gives energy to time travelling, but nothing else - the car still uses GAS.

Before Marty's time traveling, things were simple and clear. There were TWO power sources in the car. The first one moved the car about, normally (a normal car engine), and the second one was a nuclear reactor to move the car through time (a visionary invention).

But after Doc returns from the future, everything is messed up. The car HAS a gas tank, gas, normal car engine and all that, after the lightning struck the DeLorean, and destroyed it's flight circuits. So the car will "never fly again".

It just seems a bit silly, that if you can create a nuclear reactor into a car, and then improve it so that it only needs garbage to create 1.21 Gigawatts of energy, AND in addition add an ability to fly, you are completely stumped when it comes to changing the original car engine into something more environment-friendly and free. It kind of attacks the viewer's suspension of disbelief. Why would such an ingenious doctor, who can do all these things, be completely incapable of creating an electric engine or something?

This is of course not completely clear in "Back to the Future", but those "so-called sequels" kind of raise these questions on the table and make them into problems, that they never needed to be. I never really liked the last bit anyway - the whole flying car-thing is too silly to begin with, and everything is so materialistic and "perfect" in such a sugary-syrapy way, that it's pretty obvious that the last bit was written by a woman. It just doesn't really fit the rest of the movie's atmosphere.

But in any case, I haven't yet seen a movie that couldn't be picked apart in this way, so it doesn't matter - Back to the Future is still a great classic, and indeed THE movie that I would show anyone who has been in coma for 100 years or just came to this planet and doesn't know what a "movie" is.

The other thing though is, where the heck (other than salt flats) are you going to find terrain that would even allow a car to get up to 88mph anyhow? At some point, you just have to make allowances for the story.

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in