Talk:Back to the Future timeline/Archive 1

Twin Pines Mall / Lone Pine Mall - time ripples
Near the end of BTTF I, when Marty runs over to the mall, sees the Libyans shoot Doc, and hears the other Marty hollering at the Libyans, should it yet read "Lone Pine Mall"? Marty hasn't gone back into the past yet, so he hasn't gone back to cause the changes. One might think that the change in the sign wouldn't happen until after the De Lorean disappears and the Libyan van hits the photo stand. The director could then have taken a long shot, showing Marty looking at Doc then running over to him, with the mall sign in the foreground then changing before our very eyes.

On the other hand, the fact that Marty arrives in 1985 11 minutes earlier, then comes running over to the mall about a minute or two before his departure, gives "assurance to time and space" that he will, in fact, undertake the time trip exactly as the week-older Marty now can remember.

Does anyone else have opinions to share about this?

It is a good thing that Marty didn't run down and show himself to the younger Marty, thus affecting younger Marty's actions and thoughts while he was in 1955, or even before he drives fast enough to hit 88.

GBC 03:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point considering they showed the newspapers and stuff changing in BTTF II & III, maybe they realized their mistake...Dannybu2001 22:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not a mistake. It's consistent with the way they set up the rules of time travel for the movie. Basically, they didn't show the sign changing at the beginning of the movie because they wanted to leave it as a surprise joke for the audience at the end of the movie. Exactly when it becomes likely enough that Marty will travel back in time and create an alternate timeline with a "Lone Pine Mall" is deliberately left ambiguous for moviegoers to discuss after the movie. The discussion board at www.bttf.com is a more appropriate place to discuss this at length. GUllman 20:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The change causing the sign already occurred at an earlier point in the movie, it is not contingent on Mary McFly Version 2 going back, Version 1 already caused the change. Doc's theories on the result of paradox is wrong, because if he was right the photograph from part III would have caused a destruction resolution. Because Marty in 1955 wouldn't have taken the photo and gone back to save Doc from being shot. I frown on causality errors in BTTF because they assume allot about the nature of time travel. --68.109.92.47 09:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Lawyers
When referencing Marty Jr. being tried, convicted and sentenced in a short period of time, Doc says, "The justice system works swiftly now that they've abolished all lawyers." He doesn't say when, but perhaps this fact could be listed as an unknown date?Dannybu2001 22:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

2015A
According to the Bob Gale, Biff didn't return to 2015, he would have returned to 2015A. The area just hasn't changed at all. --68.109.92.47 09:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * More specifically, Biff did return to 2015 (not 2015A) so the DeLorean could be returned to Marty and Doc. Then, (from Marty's point of view, as it is throughout the movies) 2015 fades into 2015A as Biff erases from existence. GUllman 03:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Queen Diana?
I noticed my blurb about the unlikelihood of Diana becming Queen, even if she had lived, has been removed. Does it work differently if a male has the throne? I mean Philip is currenlty the Queen's Consort, not a King. (EmiOfBrie 23:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Prince Charles will still the Queen's son, isn't he? His official website states that he holds the position of "Heir to The Throne". GUllman 20:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If Prince Charles were to become King, then his wife would become Queen, as is the way it goes. If a Queen becomes ruler (like Queen Elizabeth II), her husband would not become King, as King out ranks Queen. That's just the way they do it. JQF 21:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Prince Charles would become King (whatever name he chooses, that's the right of the monarch - George VI was called Bertie by his family before he became King in 1936). In the alternate time line of BTTF, Diana was still alive and still his wife, so she became "queen consort". Charles succeeded his mother Elizabeth II, who was "queen regnant". There evidently is no such title as "king consort", but who knows how things could change in the future. Elizabeth II's mother, who was Queen Elizabeth when George VI was King, would have obtained the title "queen dowager" when George VI died, but she rejected that title and became the "queen mother". So, possibly in future, if a daughter inherits the throne, she might decide to let her husband become "king consort". Just not expected to happen at this time. But in BTTF2, the Queen Diana is merely the consort of the reigning king Charles. GBC 01:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Since this page is being vandalized with alarming frequency, it needs to be protected from editing for a little while. --Dynamite Eleven 01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The "old" timeline
To whoever reverted it earlier: The old timeline was very confusing. For one thing, it made no difference for which events occured and which got errased. For another thing, it put everything into a single timeline, while Doc's explaination in Part II clearly says that alternate timelines are created everytime. This new timeline is far supperior. -- Ritchy 23:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but the original one was linear; it was sorted consistently by decade, instead of breaking up the whole thing into little sections. Try to see it from the viewpoint of an outsider. Maybe the "multiple timeline" should be moved to a subpage. In any case, we should reach a compromise. --Dynamite Eleven 01:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the problem, it was sorted linearly by decade, while the movie does not happen linearly by decade. By putting it linearly, you end up superposing many different events. That's why it doesn't work. As for seeing it from the point of view of someone who's not familiar with the movie, once again, such a person would be confused trying to figure out what happened and what didn't happen in a linear timeline. On the other hand, with the multiple parallel timelines, that person can just follow the sequence of travels and see the events change. -- Ritchy 02:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. What I'm saying is, it was linear to make it easier to go through. Everything is in sequence. You can jump ahead to the 2010s, or back to the 1920s, without having to peck around looking for something. Besides, I don't recall Doc ever saying anything in Part II about "every time a time-traveler changes events in the past or the future, they create an alternate timeline and their original timeline is erased." Doc only mentioned the timeline being "skewed into this tangent" and that they had to fix it to get back to the "real 1985". --Dynamite Eleven 02:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to tell you. Have you seen the movies? Go watch them. You'll see the timeline be erased and replaced with a new one several times. In Part I, when Marty makes his mom fall in love with him instead of his dad, we see the picture of the McFly kids get erased, and when Lorraine falls in love with George again we see the picture get restored. In Part II, when Marty goes to the future to keep his son from being involved in a crime by Griff, we see the USA Today headline of the next day's paper change. Then when Marty burns the almanac, we see the matchbox cover and two more newspaper front pages change. And in Part III, the picture of Doc's tombstone Marty takes into the past is constantly changing. I didn't think anyone who saw the movies would argue that time travelers' actions are not constantly erasing timelines and creating new ones. It's the basic premise of the movie, and is made abundantly obvious.
 * Timelines are constantly being split up when time travelers change things. Doc explains it in Part II, and even makes a graphic on his blackboard. Granted, in that explaination he was talking specifically about the 1985A timeline Biff created by going into 1955, but if you take it to mean that Biff is the only time traveler to have ever affected the timeline in such a way you're way off. You're missing the point of the entire movie. In fact, even in Part III, Doc repeats several times that he wants the time machine destroyed because it has already caused too much damage to the space-time continuum. Clearly, he can't be talking about the single trip Biff took, the effects of which they undid.
 * Finally, what's this about a "real" 1985? Biff's 1985A is as real as Marty's 1985 in which Biff waxes cars. Remember, in the original timeline, the one seen in the begining of Part I before everyone started jumping through time, Biff was George's superior and George was a wimp. The timelines (as there are many - for example, one in which the ravine is called Clayton Ravine and another in which it's Eastwood Ravine) in which Biff waxes cars are as artifically created as 1985A. They just are closer to the original (the changes seem to only affect the McFlys and Biff) and more morally acceptable (the evil Biff got what he deserved and the good George is rewarded).
 * I don't see what basis you have for your position. Merging all the timelines in one contradicts what is said in the movies - that in itself is reason enough to reject that approach. But furthermore, it makes no sense, as many different and contradicting events from different timelines get mixed up. And it's unreadable for someone who's not familiar with the movies, as they can't follow the actual sequence of events. Going 1955 -> 1985 -> 2015 is great in the real world, where events occur chronologically, but it breaks down completely when time travel is involved and the sequence of events goes 1985 -> 1955 -> 1985 -> 2015 -> 1955 -> 2015 -> 1985 -> 1955. Instead, they learn about the actions of time-travelers in the past before learning about time travelers in the present going to the past, which makes understanding impossible. And it gives no information on what events end up happening and which are changed or erased from the timeline. And that's not my opinion, as you say. It's the facts.
 * For these reasons, I'm reverting it back to the multiple timelines. Ritchy 03:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen the movies. I'm a BIG fan of the movies as a matter of fact. You misquoted Doc...didn't you read my response? Go back and watch that scene in BTTFII if you doubt me.
 * Try not to think of this as a timeline, but as a collection of facts gathered from viewing the movies, arranged in timeline form. I've seen some confusing multiple scenario timelines around the internet, and yours is VERY confusing the way you have it. It's easier to navigate the page the way it was before. Trust me.
 * But I do see your point about multiple realities. I don't want this to turn into a needless edit war, so I recommend a compromise. Perhaps the timeline could remain linear, but the font describing each alteration to the timeline could be color coded. The events true to all timelines (i.e. the characters' birthdays, the invention of Diet Pepsi Free, etc.) could remain black, the "Lone Pine" reality could be green, the 1985A could be red, etc.
 * This is a team effort. We need to reach a compromise. I'm RVing the page back to the way it was, and I request you leave it alone until we reach an agreement. :)  --Dynamite Eleven 04:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A compromise would be great, but easier to reach if you actually did something towards it. So far, all you seem intent on doing is reverting the page, ignoring all arguments against your version and repeading over and over and over that yours is "easier to navigate". How is it easier to navigate? "Trust me", you say. I don't trust you. I don't even know you. Until 3 hours ago I had no idea you even existed. If you've got a point to make, make it based on something other than trying to inspire trust in others.
 * Even if we put aside the multiple timeline stuff for a moment, we still have the fact the movies are organised in a 1985 -> 1955 -> 1985 -> 2015 -> 1955 -> 2015 -> 1985 -> 1955 -> 1885 -> 1985 sequence. This is the natural way the page should be organised. Yet you claim that somehow mixing in all into a huge 1885 -> 1955 -> 1985 -> 2015 mess is somehow "easier to navigate". You're wrong. It's not easier to navigate, and it's most definitly not easier to understand. Following the sequence of events as it happened in the movies is easiest and clearest, both for people who've seen the movies and more importantly for people who are not familiar with the movies. And you don't need to trust me on that, it's just an obvious fact.
 * "Try not to think of this as a timeline" is a nice sentiment, but kind of hard to do when the title of the page is "Back to the Future timeline" and there's a timeline at the bottom of the page. Maybe you should create a new page "Back to the Future collection of facts"? It seems closer to what you're looking for, and you'd avoid the problem of having to follow the timelines.
 * I'm reverting the page to its correct order. I would also like to avoid a revert war, so before you change it back, I would appreciate you give actual reasons for prefering your all-in-one timeline mix. These reasons should address the points I detailed in my previous post. To summerize, the problems with your approach is that (1) it does not follow the order of events in the movies (2) it contradicts the movies (3) it's impossible to understand for someone who did not watch the movies (4) it makes no distinction between events that finally happened and events that were erased from history (5) it makes no sense to read, as we learn of the actions of time-travelers in the past before learning of the travelers going into the past. And please note that the answer to none of these issues is "trust me".
 * Like I said, I would love a compromise. But before one is possible, you've got to accept to defend your position with something more substantial than "trust me", and actually address arguments against it instead of ignoring them like you're currently doing. Ritchy 05:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This goes both ways, my reluctant friend. I may have ignored you, but you have ignored my arguements as well. You are also guilty of "reverting the page, ignoring all arguments against your version", so don't try to justify yourself by saying that. If you have any issue with me personally, you should reserve it for my talk page.
 * It's not *MY* version to begin with. Several people wrote this article over the course of its existence, and not ONE came close to suggesting something like your page. No one took issue with it until you did, and it was wholly YOUR edit. YOUR flow.
 * My main problem is that you didn't seek a consensus on this talk page, ergo the main reason I've been RVing. You only raised cain about me undoing your edits when I did it the first time. I would have liked a vote from everyone first, before any big changes were made.
 * I've given you my reasons about why I liked the old version better. In my opinion, you're overcomplicating the page by trying to explain alternate timelines. One thing I've learned in journalism school is that you should avoid overcomplication. I'm just trying to help ease the flow of the article by making it linear. Remember, anyone who wants to see how things change in the movies can read the movies' respective synopses on their respective pages, or even the Timeline of the DeLorean's travels section in the original version, which you also seem to have edited out (and which DID have the whole "1985 -> 1955 -> 1985 -> 2015 -> 1955 -> 2015 -> 1985 -> 1955 -> 1885 -> 1985" business). Please try to think of how confusing this must be to an outsider who HASN'T seen the films. It's like baseball, as was noted in Blast from the Past -- you have to see it to actually understand it.
 * Finally, please get your facts about BTTF straight. Doc NEVER mentions multiple timelines being created every time someone travels through time. Right before they travel back to 1955 in Part II, Doc says that they have to destroy the almanac to restore the "real 1985", a quote that I've already mentioned. Go watch BTTFII, and listen closely. Visit the BTTF.com message board and ask them for their thoughts there (they're all nice folks).
 * I'll leave this page intact until an agreement can be made or a consensus can be reached, which may take a while. We're both rather stubborn. :) --Dynamite Eleven 07:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to explain alternate timelines. I'm only listing them in the order they occured in the movie. The only explaination I give is that when someone changes something in the past or future, a new timeline is created and the old one fades away, which is a fact demonstrated MANY times in the movies (I've already given specific examples).
 * The article is linear the way I made it. It follows step-by-step the sequence of events of the movies, without forcing readers to jump back and forth in time or learn about events out of order like your timeline does. And it comes with a nice graphic that illustrates the points of departure and arrival of each time journey (and the names of the travelers, in a new version of the graphic that should be available soon). So readers can just start from the top and follow the red arrows to see what's going on. It's very simple and linear.
 * You talk about not overcomplicating the page. Maybe you should take your own advice. How is it simple or clear for readers to learn that, say, a town meeting took place in 1885 to decide to pick up Clara Clayton and simultaneously, no one volunteered to pick her up and she fell into a ravine, Doc volunteered to pick her up and did so she didn't fall in the ravine, and Doc volunteered to pick her up but didn't but did unwittingly rescue her moments before she fell into the ravine? Do you really argue this can be understood by anyone who didn't see the movies?
 * You keep saying that your all-in-one timeline mix is "easier to read" and "linear". It's not. It's just not. I've said so many times, but you keep ignoring my arguments and going back to saying that it is. But it's not. Listen to me: it's not. Using your timeline, people have to (1) keep jumping back and forth in time to try to follow the sequene of events, or if they don't, they learn about events completely out of order, (2) sort and figure out how many contradicting events keep happening at the same time, and (3) order the events to figure out which ones occured first and were erased when later events occured. You call that "easy to read" or "linear"? It's not. It's simply not. Now don't go around ignoring this and saying that your way is "easier" and "linear" again without providing a single argument. Because it's not.
 * And don't get me started on the "Timeline of the DeLorean's travels" section. That graphic was small and all black, with arrows cutting each other and overlapping and numbers thrown in all around. It was impossible to make out. Surely even you will recognise that my new, bigger, colourful, non-overlapping graphic is superior to that old thing. -- Ritchy 15:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're trying to justify yourself by saying that I'm ignoring you. Don't give me that. You've been ignoring me too. You're so convinced that your version is superior that you won't accept any other alternatives. I admit that I've been like that too, but at least I offered a possible compromise. Yet still, you blasted me for not taking action and you kept your version.
 * I see where you're going with your version, with the time flow through the movies, etc. It's a very interesting concept, but I urge you to consider the timeline at this site.
 * I said I'd like a consensus on what needs to be done. I'll be satisfied with that solution. I'd even be willing to help improve your version's flow if that's what everyone decides on. But I'm ending this 'debate' because it's over something so trivial. I'll be unbiased when presenting the case. --Dynamite Eleven 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Type of timeline
A consensus needs to be reached on what kind of timeline will be used. The original version had the events in the timeline presented in a linear fashion like a regular timeline (straight flow of years from past to present to future). User:Ritchy has explored a different possibility, using the time travellers' experiences as seen in sequence in the trilogy to create a timeline (as seen in the current revision). Both are interesting, but only one can be used. Any votes/suggestions/comments? --Dynamite Eleven 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Three suggestions
I prefer the old style page, where everything was listed by decade and was in a linear fashion. However, I do realise it doesn't distinguish the timelines that clearly (apart from the A-timeline in Part II) so perhaps a compromise as such is needed.

How about we go back to the old style page, BUT have different colours for the different font styles? For example:


 * 1955
 * Saturday, November 5th:
 * Marty McFly arrives in 1955 from 1985, on Old Man Peabody's farm, and knocks down one of Old Man Peabody's twin pine trees.
 * Doc Brown slips off his toilet whilst hanging a clock and has a vision of the flux capacitor.
 * While spying on a girl changing through her window, George McFly slips and falls out of a tree into the street right in front of Sam Baines' car. Baines takes him in, and his daughter Lorraine takes care of George. The two fall in love. Lorraine will tell her kids about this someday.
 * Marty interferes with the first meeting of George McFly and Lorraine Baines.
 * Marty finds the young Doc Brown and shows him the time machine from thirty years in Doc’s future. Its plutonium is depleted, however, rendering it useless for time travel.

Where blue is the TP timeline, red is the LP timeline and black is an event common to all timelines. More colours can be used for timelines such as the A-timeline or the Eastwood timeline.

Failing that, perhaps a table would be useful. One column/row for the TP timeline, one for the LP timeline, one for the A-timeline and another for the Eastwood timeline for example. Maybe something like this:

.....although I am sure someone else will be able to format the table a lot better than I can. ;-)

And my final suggestion. Both versions of the page have their pros and cons. Perhaps the BTTF timeline page could be a disambiguation page, linking to both the linear timeline by decade and Richey's version by timeline, both of which would have their own page? That way, the user could have a choice as to which timeline they decide to use and which one they might find easier/more interesting/useful etc. Both timelines could link to each other as well so users are aware there are 2 ways of seeing things in the BTTF universe.

Thoughts on my suggestions? HillValleyTelegraph 2.28pm BST, May 25, 2006.


 * The problem with the first suggestion is that, with 8 different timelines, we'd have 8 different colours of text getting mixed up. I fear it will become confusing to read, and people will have to remember which colour mean which timeline, or which colour occurs first in the movie. The table thing could work, though, using timeline numbers instead of the more descriptive but more confusing names you gave them, and with some tweaks on the format. The third option, having two BttF timeline pages... it would mean having two pages with the same info and different only by their layout. Then again, it's not uncommon in Wikipedia. There are plenty of pages of "list of something by Y", like "list of cities by population", "list of cities by area", and so on. We could have "BttF timelines by timeline" and "BttF timelines by date". Also, "timeline" in the page name needs to be plural! -- Ritchy 15:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We would end up with about 6-8 colours depending on all the various timelines, but it was just a suggestion. Personally I'd prefer my final 2 suggestions. The table thing would work, and I think your idea of using timeline numbers and a better format are good. I only made a basic table as an example, the final thing would of course be much better than that. ;-)


 * The two pages idea would also work, as that way we could keep your version (which despite being possibly confusing, is very well done). They wouldn't quite be the same one - your one would concentrate on the timelines and time travel aspects, and the other one would concentrate on the events through time.


 * HillValleyTelegraph 6.09pm BST, May 25, 2006.

UPDATE: Comment on the timeline “at this site”.
This presumably fan-developed BTTF chronology is demonstrably incomplete, and also bears copyright dates of 2002 prominently (abandoned, or buried waiting to be picked up in the future?). A flaw I spotted very quickly in its 1885 section regards the arrival of Clara. The excerpts below are as they appear, with ellipses (plural?) to show material omitted(don’t involve Clara): 

 SEPT 3 THU

...

The Mayor reminds Doc that he needs to pick the new school teacher up from the train station tomorrowPART 3 Doc and Marty try to get horses to pull the De Lorean up to 88 miles per hourPART 3

SEPT 4 FRI

QUOTE 	Doc Brown: "Damn. We blew the fuel-injection manifold."PART 3

10:04 AM

As Marty and Doc look at the railway map at the station, Clara can clearly be seen standing in the background waiting to be picked up. The clock for the clocktower is also waiting there.PART 3

... SEPT 5 SAT

...

QUOTE

Doc Brown: "Alright, Marty. Once more, let's go over the entire plan and layout. I apologise for the crudity of this model -"

Marty: "Yeah, I know, Doc. It's not to scale."PART 3

This recalls a similar scene in 1955 with another model - how to get Marty back to 1985.PART 1

...

QUOTE

Clara: "Hello? ... Emmett?"

Doc Brown: "It's Clara. Quick, cover the Delorean." PART 3

 It strikes this writer as very odd that Doc and Clara’s accidental but providential meeting is omitted from the timeline at this old website, and the backstory that Marty carries around about Clara Clayton and the ravine for whom she is named is also omitted. Otherwise how does Clara know who and where “Emmett” is in the above entry? It is illuminating that Doc ought to have met Clara along with the clock’s arrival at 10:04 (is it already running?), and doesn’t because he changed his mind, only for providence to bring them together anyway.

I think it’s valuable to realize that at the end of Marty’s incredible experiences in BTTF, he has three sets of memories about “Clayton Ravine” (the name he has known until the autumn of 1985):


 * 1) It’s called Clayton Ravine, named for a schoolteacher who never got to teach because she was killed the day she arrived in Hill Valley;
 * 2) It’s called Shonash Ravine, because Clara wasn’t killed (or so he thinks the case will be before he returns to 1985);
 * 3) It’s called Eastwood Ravine because he pseudonymously (soo-DON-uh-muss-ly) ran a loco into it and vanished without a trace.

Doc also is aware of the alternate histories he must have lived through, living or dying, finding love or remaining alone, because he has glimpsed fleeting evidence of it with his own eyes. How else to document it but with a sequential list of alternate histories? (end of update)

Just a brief comment while I take a break from my real job (I’ll amplify later on by editing this comment):

I don’t have the trilogy (on DVD or otherwise) at hand, as I write I’m relying on my recollection of the rich BTTF saga.

About Ritchy’s TL
I enjoy it more, of course, but it’s not for the faint-of-heart. Ritchy’s POV is that of the privileged observer. I would entitle his chart (or list if you will) “BTTF Implied Alternate Timelines” because while some alternate outcomes are not directly depicted in BTTF, they’re implied by remnant or anecdotal evidence. It seems to me that Ritchy’s Timeline 1 continues to the right with a dead Doc Brown and a missing Marty, because Marty departs TPM (sic) parking lot at 88+ mph and never returns, and the dead Doc has no foreknowledge via a note from the past, and no vest (as I seem to recall). It nevertheless fades away because it’s overwritten by a “later” timeline. It’s a valid timeline in the storytelling at that point in the narrative because from Marty’s POV, that’s the situation as he believes it to be as he’s suddenly departing 1985 (the very first time). He hasn’t yet taken actions to change the future he just left.

About D. XI’s TL
This timeline is better ‘glued’ to the film as it is, and moves forward in time just once, and more slowly, accommodating the alternate outcomes in italics instead. All well and good, but I would entitle this chart or list “BTTF Depicted Timeline (and Alternates)” because it seems to minimize alternates that are only implied by remnant evidence. It seems to be incomplete, however, regarding the alternate (i.e. “patched-over”) 1955 that results (and is depicted) at the conclusion of BTTF Part II. By this I mean the “1955A” (if I may) with Part II Marty nearly undoing Part I Marty’s efforts as he strives to remain hidden from his slightly younger self.
 * I don't see why Einstein's trip one minute into the future in timeline 1 creates a separate timeline, while Marty's trips to the future in timeline 2 and timeline 8 are not. In these movies, the act of travelling to the future shouldn't change the timeline at all (since Marty and Jennifer can still see themselves in the future as if they never left), but it inevitably does. If 1985 Biff's knowledge of a flying DeLorean disappearing in timeline 2, and the townspeople losing their hero Clint Eastwood in timeline 8 are not enough to create a new timeline, surely Einstein's trip which was conducted in secret would not affect history. GUllman 00:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, you could say they create new timeline every time they do anything (step on a bug and create a new timeline!); they just check the current status of their actions whenever they visit a new time period and look around, or watch a newspaper or photo changing. GUllman 00:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So, there are many more than eight alternate timelines depicted in the movies. (For example, the timeline after Dave fades from the photo when Linda is the oldest in the family; the timeline after Linda fades and Marty is an only child; the timeline in part 3 in which Clint Eastwood's tombstone replaces Doc's in the cemetery; ...) GUllman 20:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply: it’s a valid point, there’s indeed a myriad of “invisible” timelines suggested by photos and headlines morphing. Richy’s limit of 9 refers to what actually happens on the screen “concretely” or is described anecdotally (by the time-trotting Doc) or by occupants of alternate timelines, rather than inferred peripherally and briefly in a changing photo. As Yoda says: “always in motion is the future”. Jennifer Parker is privy to a great deal of past exposition from her future mother-in-law in 2015 while trapped in Hilldale, so this validates the encapsulation of this info in an alternate timeline chronology, even though it doesn’t actually happen on the screen. Zemeckis and Gale also do this with the Tannen Museum, a clever prop to quickly deliver backstory, hence a validated alternate history, well-developed but not directly presented. I've gotten a hold of DVDs of parts I & II, but I suppose in Part III Marty explains the history of “Clayton” Ravine, which is never actually shown on the screen either.

I'll admit that when Marty great scott! the timeline's been altered!! no, just the graphic...anyway, I'll admit that Marty's horizontal return to 1985 in timeline 2 ought to qualify as an alternate timeline, except that Doc shows up immediately to remove him from it the next morning, and he has no time to actually affect it. Something the chart doesn't show is when an alternate future is erased, and that might require a whole new design--Doc says one has to think 4th-dimensionally. Schweiwikist 05:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * After much thought, I've realized that the premise for the timelines system does make sense, even the reason why Einstein's trip to the future is a separate timeline but not Marty's trips. It would take too long for me to explain the reason in this space. I did, however, add a mention of the two additional timelines that were created and reverted. GUllman 22:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

General Observation
D. Eleven’s list is easier but less fun, for me at least. The difference in POV here I think highlights the basic problem in time travel storytelling where the flow of the narrative is so disconnected from the flow of chronological events. It’s hard to have it both ways.

Or can you? This is Wikipedia, after all. What does Doc tell Marty & Jen at the very end of the story?

Like I said, more later...in the Future. ;)

Schweiwikist 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

When Doc Got Shot
Doc wasn't supposed to have been shot at the festival and killed. He was shot in the back by Buford on Monday September 7, which killed him instantly. RobertCMWV1974 20:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, he was shot by Buford at the festival. If Marty wasn't there to stop it (which was the case in Timeline 7), the shot was going right into Doc. Buford said that someone shot with that kind of gun took two days to die, and that was two days before the date indicated on the tombstone. That isn't a coincidence - that's how Doc died the first time around -- Ritchy 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Buford was facing Doc when He shot at him at the festival. He could have just grazed him then.  The gravestone said He was shot in the back.  Clara may have danced with Buford originally too.  RobertCMWV1974 23:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Doc thought he was safe at the festival, since he told Buford he was "early", until Buford tells him that his bullet would cause death in two days. Then, he thought he'd be safe if he dared Buford to shoot him while facing him, since Marty showed him the tombstone photo that said he was shot in the back. In the previous 1885 timeline, he didn't know enough to turn around and was shot. GUllman 00:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly, given Doc's cavalier, confident attitude towards Buford's threats during the hanging scene, he didn't give much though to Buford's talk of shooting him during the dance the first time around (without Marty), but given the information that he had, in fact, died during that scene, gave him reason to react to Buford, while the last time, he may have acted less confrontational, and simply tried to walk away from Buford's taunts, like he always tried to tell Marty to, thus getting him shot in the back and dying on Monday, two days later. --X 0 04:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer's father's birthdate
I states on the article for the year 1910 "Date unknown: Marty's grandfather and Lorraine's father, Sam Baines, is born." Yet you can clearly see him in 1985... so he was 58 when he had jennifer, and 75 when we see him in 1985. He seems younger than all that. Am I incorrect?

I don't see how you confuse Jennifer with Lorraine. Jennifer is Marty's 1985 girlfriend (and 2015 wife). Lorraine is Marty's mother, who's father (Sam Baines) we see in 1955 after he hits Marty and later, at the dinner table. In 1985 we see JENNIFER'S father come to pick her up in the car before Jennifer and Marty's onscreen kiss. They're not the same person. If they were, Marty's Oedipus theme would be even more twisted and strange. --X 0 14:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We never see Lorraine's father in 1985. We only see him in 1955, in Part I, when Marty pushes George out of the way of his car, and later that night at dinner. He looks like a middle-aged man in 1955; 45 doesn't sound like an inaccurate age to me. -- Ritchy 02:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to add: The date for Sam Baines' birth was taken from the novel, which gives his age as 45 years old in 1955. The actor was probably that age when filming in 1984/5 as well. HillValleyTelegraph 2.31pm BST, May 25, 2006.


 * Don't use the actor's age as evidence of when the character was born. You should know that especially in the BTTF series, an actor can play any age the script calls for, up to a 60 year range. If it isn't written or spoken in the film or other canonical work, then don't mention it in the article. GUllman 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Doc alone to 2015
The timeline illustration is missing Doc's solo visit to 2015 at the end of Part I. It should be a two-headed arrow on Timeline 2, since Doc went mainly as a spectator and the visit had no real effect on the timeline. It therefore wouldn't have created a new one. --Zpb52


 * It wasn't just one trip to 2015. Doc made several trips to 2015 to pinpoint the point on the timeline when Marty's family went wrong, the arrest and conviction of Marty's son.  There were also the many trips that he had made to get the hovercar conversion, the Mr. Fusion and all of the cash that he had in the briefcase.  All that we can say is that he made one trip to 2015, several indeterminant trips, then returned to 1985 (presumably from its future). Val42 03:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Walkie Talkies
Since Doc had one of the walkie-talkies with him in the delorean, and then left it in the delorean for 70 years, then how was the 70 year old walkie-talkie able to still work? RobertCMWV1974 03:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Who said he left his walkie talkie in the DeLorean for 70 years? My guess is he kept it in his blacksmith shop, and didn't bury it with the time machine. So it was only 9 months old when he was using it in 1885. -- Ritchy 15:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Young Doc handed Marty both walkie-talkies with fresh batteries before Marty headed to 1885. It was obviously left in the time machine.  RobertCMWV1974 21:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Maybe they were a new pair of walkie-talkies? Marty realised how useful they were to keep in touch in Part II, and anticipated that they would not have any means of communication in 1885, so he went out and bought a new set of talkies before leaving. -- Ritchy 21:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The radio shack archer walkie talkies wouldn't have been available in 1955 to buy. If they had been, they wouldn't have needed huge cat-9 batteries strapped to them with tape.  One was with Marty as the delorean got struck, so that one was only a weeks old, but the other had been with doc and is now over 70 years old.  Since the dry, subterranean mine preserved the electrics of the delorean itself (with the exception of the pre-burnt flight control chip and time control chip) it's not out of the realm of sensibility to think that it would have also preserved the circuitry of the radio for this long. --X 0 14:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They're identical in Parts II & III. And it's yet another a visual joke made by combining items from two time periods -- small 1985 walkie-talkies taped to oversized 1955 batteries. GUllman 05:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)