|
This page uses content from Wikipedia. The original article was at Back to the Future timeline. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with Futurepedia, the text of Wikipedia is available under the GNU Free Documentation License. |
Split?[]
I think we should split this page, creating a separate page for each timeline. - Sikon 11:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well the links go to different timelines on that page, however splitting them might result in having to repeat the information from Timeline 1 and other information that hadn't changed. I like how it's set up. -- Riffsyphon1024 12:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Sourcing[]
This page is a mess. I cannot verify half the things that they put here from Wikipedia. But at the same time I don't want to chop the page up either. Several inconsistencies keep showing up and it bugs me as to whether something happens one year or the other. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then just keep it as a archive of rumors, and don't let it happen at Futurepedia. Document your sources here! If you want to borrow something from this timeline that sounds suspicious, verify it in an original source before copying it, or put it on the article's talk page for someone else to verify. Western Union 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Video Game Canon[]
Do you think we should add the events of the BTTF video game by TellTale into the timeline? FlapjackStantz 17:35, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
- (nods head up and down) User:E-124 Poldege
- (shakes head left and right) IMHO, the video games are even further removed from Gale and Zemeckis' plan than the animated series (produced by Gale) or the ride (produced by Universal). I consider the video game (written by the folks at Telltale but apparently story ideas could be vetoed by Gale) very good fan fiction, but fan fiction nonetheless. Just because it could happen in an alternate universe doesn't mean it is part of the BTTF universe. See Canon for Gale's opinion of BTTF spinoffs. Western Union 01:23, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
French Version Clothing Magnate Nickname[]
In the French version of Back to the Future, Marty is called "Piere Cardin" (b. July 7, 1922) instead of Calvin Klein. Should the timeline be noted with this distinction? —Unsigned comment by Jonah Kyle (talk • contribs).
- I don't believe so, since this timeline reflects the English version of the films. Other languages of this wiki may decide however to incorporate that alternate history into their timeline. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:18, February 26, 2012 (UTC)
Timeline 9[]
If it's true that "every time travel jump into the past depicted in the Back to the Future saga "destroys" a current timeline and "creates" a new one", then there is a 9th timeline created at the very end of Timeline 9. As stated, Doc and his family travel from 1889 aboard the new train timeline, to some point beyond 1985. Only *after* that do they return to 1985 to visit Marty & Jennifer. That is, they jumped *backwards* in time to 1985. According to the rules stated in this article, that creates a new timeline. In the original timeline 8, Marty and Jennifer return to the crash site and lament Doc's being trapped in the past. In timeline 9, Marty and Jennifer return to the crash site and find out that Doc invented a new time machine. MrItty 01:30, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with this.
- I personally also think that either jumping forwards, or departing a timeline must also create a new timeline, since the 2015 shown in Part II is logically a future where Marty had not travelled to the future, since he apparently doesn't remember that was coming.
- For this reason it's probably best to just stick to what is shown on-screen. -452 (talk) 04:25, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
- I have now altered the article to remove any mention of Doc and his family traveling to 2015 or later to get the hover conversion done on the train. As stated above, it would create a Timeline 9 at the end of the film. I thought hard between splitting it off into a Timeline 9 in the article rather than simply removing the mention of it, but I decided removing it works better. The idea that they traveled to 2015 or later is pure speculation (at least as far as only considering the films as canon is concerned). Doc had been to the future "years earlier" so to speak, and would likely already have remembered how to do a hover conversion. He wouldn't necessarily need the technology as he could create the technology himself. Even without that, he did have a hoverboard that he could possibly have used parts from.
major issue for this whole project[]
Major flaw in timelines
There is a major flaw in timeline 3. It is a subtle point but destroys the whole trilogy! The person who constructed timeline 2 correctly and carefully plotted the post 1985 events of that timeline. It made good sense as the timeline runs up to 2015 even if events are not directly shown in the movie. So Marty and Jennifer get married and have kids - and in 2015 the Doc appears and sees the trouble the kids are in.
He then goes back to 1985 creating timeline 3 to bring Marty and Jennifer back to the future.
But the thing is. 2015 in Timeline 3 would look nothing like 2015 in Timeline 2.
Plot the post 1985 events of this timeline if you don't believe me.
- 1985 Doc arrives from 2015 to take Marty and Jennifer to the future.
- 1985 Marty and Jennifer appear to go missing. Never seen again
- 1990s Marty and Jennifer do not get married
- 1990s They do not have kids
- 2015 Marty and Jennifer arrive in the future and discover an alternative future where they had gone missing in 1985 and were never seen again.
In bringing Marty and Jennifer to the future to enlist their help in fixing their children, the Doc has brought the only 2 people in the universe who cannot help. Any other people he could have chosen would have made more sense.
In short, if you travel to the future you cannot see your future self because you have not yet travelled back to your own time - and if you do travel back to your own time you are creating an additional timeline. (Unsigned: User:Breed3011 14:39, November 8, 2013)
- I think we can safely assume that old Marty in 2015 doesn't remember travelling to the future, and that the "ripple effect" means that Marty+Jennifer's departure from 1985 hadn't rippled forward yet.
- Which means that even without missing the Rolls Royce, when Marty+Jennifer get to 2015 "the slow way", they were always going to remember and do things differently, which Doc kind of explains in his final advice at the end of Part III.
- So, Doc could have saved a lot of time, and timelines, if he'd just told them to remember to be better parents. -452 (talk) 04:31, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
- ...but Old Biff does remember. There goes that theory. -452 (talk) 04:49, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
- There's an official Back to the Future FAQ which was written by Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis (probably mostly by Gale since he's always the one addressing these time travel questions elsewhere) at http://bttf.wikidot.com/official-bttf-faq and question 1.13 at http://bttf.wikidot.com/official-bttf-faq#toc12 addresses this issue: 1.13: When Doc takes Marty and Jennifer out of 1985 and brings them to the future, how can Old Marty and Old Jennifer (and their family) even be in the future? Wouldn't their disappearance from 1985 instantaneously erase their future? A: To be honest, yes, it very well should erase their existence from the future. This is, in fact, the ultimate paradox of Back to the Future Part II. We really thought about this one for a long time, but we finally decided that after the set-up of Doc saying "Something's got to be done about your kids," the audience would feel cheated if we went to the future and found out they didn't exist. You could, however, argue that existence of Old Marty, Old Jennifer and their kids in the future automatically proves that young Marty and Jennifer will eventually get back to 1985. The flaw in this reasoning is that Doc repeatedly tells us that the future isn't written, so why would this part of the future be "written?" Ah, but Back to the Future Part III may contain the answer to this question after all. When Doc spots the tombstone in 1885 and sees that the name on the photograph of the tombstone has vanished but the date remains, he says "We know this photograph represents what will happen if the events of today continue to run their course into tomorrow." That's a pretty big "if." And it suggests that time travel to the future always takes you to a future based on the events of the time you left — a logical extrapolation of what the future of that moment holds. Of course, the existence of free will allows for the possibility of infinite futures, which is what Doc says at the end of Back to the Future Part III: "Your future is whatever you make it." But time travel into the future takes you to the most likely future of the moment you left. Hypnosifl (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Cubs winning World Series[]
The Cubs probably won the World Series on Tuesday, October 20. First off, the guy trying to save the clock tower appears to have already KNOWN about the win, so it clearly wasn't breaking news. Secondly, back in the 80s when the movie was made, the World Series ALWAYS started on Saturday. That would make a 4 game sweep end on a Tuesday. And finally, the time doesn't match up. By the time this movie came out, Wrigley had already installed lights. And while they didn't play nearly as many night games in the first few years as they do now, they definitely WOULD for the World Series. So the earliest the game could have been over would have been 10:00 Eastern Time, or 9:00 Chicago time, or 7:00 Hill Valley time. This scene takes place not too long after they arrived at 4:29 PM so there is no way a game was played already.Lakawak (talk) 14:04, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
Removal of Timeline 9[]
I have removed Timeline 9 because it was a short film produced in 2015, and not part of the original Back to the Future trilogy. Let's try to keep this page based on the original 3 films. Nothing from the animated series, videogames, or short films need to be on this page. Damian001 (talk) 04:43, January 8, 2020 (UTC)
- I do not think it is appropriate for a user with 9 edits to wipe a huge section of a page, particularly when that information was added by a user with 3,680 edits.
- 452 12:53, January 8, 2020 (UTC)
- Number of user edits is irrelevant because most of those time-stamp entries on this page were mine, added back in 2007 when this timeline page was originally on wikipedia. Those numbers arent going to show up here. At least I've citated every edit on here. Damian001 (talk) 04:37, January 25, 2020 (UTC)
- This is the "Back to the Future Wiki", not the "original Back to the Future trilogy AND NOTHING ELSE Wiki".
- The main page description clearly says: "Futurepedia is the Back to the Future Wiki, and we are dedicated to providing detailed information on the movie trilogy, the animated series, and all other continuity. "
- Futurepedia:About clearly says: "Futurepedia, the Back to the Future Wiki, is a wiki all about Back to the Future, the film trilogy, the animated series, the games, comic books,"
- The content you deleted falls within the scope of the wiki.
- Just because you do not like "the animated series, and all other continuity." does not give you the right to wipe a huge portion of a page without prior discussion.
- "Back to the Future: Doc Brown Saves the World" was produced and distributed by Universal Studios, so it is an "official" production, even if it's not part of the OT.
- 452 11:33, January 25, 2020 (UTC)
- This edit also incorrectly removed my Marty's Timeline section, which is totally unrelated to Timeline 9 and based only on the original trilogy. I have restored it. Bawbgale (talk) 16:11, January 8, 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree with your opinion, and find it to be very relevant to the topic at hand.
- You say "Something like that deserves a separate page.", but that isn't what you did - you just deleted it.
- 452 11:33, January 25, 2020 (UTC)