Talk:Back to the Future timeline/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposal for formatting - Use table

Ok, I obviously don't want to get too far into this without consensus or help, but I'm wondering if anyone has ever tried to present this in a table? It seems like it would flow very naturally for those who want to read chronologically or by timeline (even a simple sentence like that makes your head hurt, doesn't it?). It would also allow us to use the suggestions of color coding in a very natural way.

I put together a sample table using a few sample dates just to get a feel for it. You can see the code by editing this page. It's not pretty, but I'm betting that if you all like the idea, then we can get a more talented Wikipedian to write a template for us that would make it a little easier.

The idea is that there's a table with a column for each timeline. Each timeline has a color code for events that first occurred in that timeline (in other words, if something happens in TL1 and nothing alters it until TL6, then the event would span TL1-TL5 and would bear TL1's color). Obviously, I just randomly picked some colors and I would probably spend a little more time picking out good ones and sequencing them attractively.

Note: I do think that this approach would require the elimination of non-notable entries (like the publication of Jules Verne books or births of Marty's ancestors that are not altered by any of the timelines). If these are deemed to be important, I'm sure we could find a way to work them in, but I would vote to exclude them.

Let me know what you think. If there is some consensus, we can create a subpage here to build the table over the course of the conversion, which I imagine would take a little while. --Robb0995 01:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Jump To:	1880s	1950s	1980s

Events in each of Back to the Future's timelines

	Original Timeline	Marty's trip to 1955	Doc's trip from 2015 to 1985	Biff's trip from 2015 to 1955	Doc, Marty, and Jen's trip from 2015 to "Alternate" 1985	Doc and Marty's trip to 1955	Doc's accidental trip to 1885	Marty's trip to 1855 to rescue Doc
Date	Start of BttF1	BttF1	End of BttF1	BttF2	BttF2	BttF2	End of BttF2	BttF3
1880s
Date	Timeline 1	Timeline 2	Timeline 3	Timeline 4	Timeline 5	Timeline 6	Timeline 7	Timeline 8
09/01/1885							Doc buries Delorean for Marty's 1955 use and writes letter to Marty to be delivered via Western Union in 1955.
09/04/1885	Clara Clayton is killed in her fall into Shonash Ravine						Clara is saved by unknown means	Clara is saved by Doc and Marty
09/05/1885							While dancing with Clara at the Hill Valley Festival, Doc is shot by Buford Tannen	Event erased
09/07/1885							Doc dies of his gunshot wounds and is buried by his beloved Clara	Event erased
1950s
Date	Timeline 1	Timeline 2	Timeline 3	Timeline 4	Timeline 5	Timeline 6	Timeline 7	Timeline 8
11/12/1955	George takes Lorraine to the Enchantment Under the Sea dance	Marty takes Lorraine to the Enchantment Under the Sea dance
03/26/1958				Biff Tannen turns 21 and use the sports almanac to win his first million at the track		Event erased
1980s
Date	Timeline 1	Timeline 2	Timeline 3	Timeline 4	Timeline 5	Timeline 6	Timeline 7	Timeline 8

The table does have the advantage of making it easy to track changes from one timeline to the next (left to right), while keeping the simplicity of reading an entire timeline (up to down). The problems I do see are that it'll be harder for people to update the page, and we'll lose the table of contents. Also, I don't understand why you want to eliminate events that don't change at all, like the birthdates or historical events mentioned in the movie. They'll simply be a line that covers the entire table; we can also make them a different colour, like white. -- Ritchy 03:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Great point about the TOC. See above. I tried to add something to accommodate a TOC (that would actually replace the system-TOC. As far as making it harder to edit, I agree which is why I'm hoping someone could make a template for us (I don't know how). I think there's got to be some sort of way to package up an "Add a date" template that someone could use to add a new one. Worst case scenario is there is a section at the end for new dates/events to be added where people can add new dates simply and then wait for another editor to come back and move it into the table. --Robb0995 03:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the way that it can be used to track info down quickly and agree that it would work best "stripped down" (without all the trivia). I do prefer the the more long winded format that is currently on the page as I feel it is a more natural way of reading things (particularly for the tourists to the page) - and i think it would be harder to add a new column/row/field if someone wanted to contribute to it. But I don't see why it can't be included as well as the other format. Breed3011 09:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd much rather see both - a handy-dandy table of key events plus the longer text timeline listings - than one or the other. Karen | Talk | contribs 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I put a couple of hours into this (I'm sick and avoiding real work this weekend.) I have updated the chart for Timelines 1-3. You can see it (and play with it if you like) at User:robb0995/Bttf proposal. It absolutely is hard to edit. Does anyone know of an article that has anythign simialr where it's too hard for a new reader to edit. What article and what do they do?

I'd also like to know what the table looks like on lower resolution screens. I realized that I'm on 1400X1050 and it might even be too hard to read at 1024X768. Thanks--Robb0995 01:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the tables but also the existing timelines. I would suggest that your table should be an article in itself with a link to it at the top of the existing timeline article. The title could be Back to the Future side by side timelines.

- Chbs 07:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Travel forward in time should not create new timelines

There are three occasions shown on the diagram on which individuals travel forward in time, and for two of them they create new timelines, but I don't see why. What is the difference between any two of these timelines? In one of them, the person simply disappears forever when they travel forwards in time? That doesn't make any sense. Einstein going forwards in time should not create a new timeline - thus timeline 0 can be removed safely, simplifying matters. (Compare with TL2 where Marty goes forward without jumping timelines at all.) Nor should Doc, Marty and Jennifer at the end of Part I. (However, missing from the timeline is Doc travelling to the future at the end of Part I, then RETURNING, which DOES create a new timeline. So we need Doc going to the future (still in TL2), Doc returning from 2015 (now in TL3), Doc, Marty and Jennifer going to 2015 (still in TL3)).

This makes perfect sense in my head, if that helps. -- SamSim 19:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the trip Doc, Marty and Jennifer take forward does create a new timeline. It changes from the timeline in which Marty Jr. is arrested, to the timeline in which Griff and his gang are arrested. The trip Einstein takes forward though, that one wouldn't change the timeline. Or if it did, we don't know how, since we had no knowledge of what the timeline was like before the jump. So I guess, from that point of view, we could make a case for eliminating Timeline 1.

The timelines shown are the ones seen in the movies. Although Doc obviously travelled back and forth several times, those trips aren't seen on-screen, and thus not included here. -- Ritchy 19:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We also don't know what adventures he's had with Clara and their kids! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 04:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that there is a major change between timelines 0 and 1. Were the flux capacitor to malfunction, then I'd have to say that the future of timeline 0 would include the police finding Marty and Doc Brown dead after being struck by the DeLorean doing 88. The car skidded as it came out, so it may have been programmed to do that, so Einstein would likely survive, until the Libyans arrived. They might've shot Doc and Marty a few times to be sure, but then they'd probably reclaim anything salvagable and take off. The basis: Doc rather daringly stands in the path of the DeLorean as it makes its time jump. If it failed ... for once, the dog turns humans into roadkill. (And, on a side note, if Doc didn't set his watch alarm, he and Marty would've been timekill instead?) IL-Kuma 05:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)IL-Kuma

But as has already been discussed, it makes more sense to only worry about timelines we see on screen.

More to the point, the chart is nice, but clearly wrong. When Doc, Marty, and Jennifer travel forward in time, they are not creating a new timeline, they are looking at their future (ostensibly in an attempt to know what needs to be fixed in the "present"). You cannot travel "forward" into a new timeline. Additionally, when Doc, Marty, and Jennifer return to 1985 from the future, they return to the timeline that Old Bif created when he went backward, not to yet another new timeline. (Of course, Old Bif also should not have returned to the same future he came from, stranding the trio in the future; this is one of the most glaring departures from the usually observed rules in the series.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.41.171.146 (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree with you. However, here is a possible explanation for the "glaring error": The timeline doesn't change until some action is taken based on new information brought into said timeline. In the case of the Biff timeline, he came back and gave the almanac to his past self then left before the younger Biff actually used said information. Therefore, old Biff could get back to the same timeline from which he left. Why he went back to where he left (from his point of view) was because he had a simplistic view of time travel (even moreso that the writers) and didn't want the theft of the time machine to be discovered. Of course the plot reason is so that the protagonists have the opportunity to "set right what once went wrong." Val42 05:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's my solution:

Additionally, when Doc, Marty, and Jennifer return to 1985 from the future, they return to the timeline that Old Bif created when he went backward, not to yet another new timeline.

This is not true - they return to a near identical timeline to the one that old Biff created back in 1955 - the difference being that they are now in it, which is only a small difference, but enough to be credited as being a new timeline.

The glaring error you write about with Biff returning is nothing of the sort. Old Biff returns to 2015 and promptly dies as he no longer exists in this timeline (speculation is rife that he dies in the 1990s). Not only does he die but the entire timeline in 2015 is about to collapse when the ripple effect filters Biff's time travel exploits. Marty, Doc and Jennifer don't realise it, but when they leave 2015 it is within the nick of time as the timeline is collapsing about them. Breed3011 18:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of a new Timeline (& why Einstein's jump doesn't count)

In an effort to be more precise with our explanations of new timelines being created, I think it pertinent to define what constitutes forming a new timeline as I agree with the theory above that travelling forward in time does not constitute creating a new timeline.

A new timeline is created only when someone travels into the past, not the future. When Doc of timeline 2 travels to 2015 he is not creating an alternate timeline - he is simply moving forward along timeline 2. The timeline page correctly records this point.

Thus, when Einstein travels one minute into the future he is also NOT creating a new timeline - he is simply moving forward within the same timeline he is already in.

Think of it as cause and effect. In the normal scheme of things, something happens (effect) because something has caused it to happen. The thing which happens, happens AFTER the event which caused it. Einstein is sent to the future (Cause) Einstein arrives in the future -(Effect).

When a new timeline is created (when someone travels to the past) the thing which happens, happens BEFORE the event which has caused it to happen. (Marty arrives in 1955 (effect) but he set off in 1985 (cause).

There seems to be some confusion on this matter and the wikipedia timeline page ERRONEOUSLY states:

According to Doctor Emmett Brown in Back to the Future Part II, whenever a time-traveler alters key events occurring in the past or future, they effectively bring an alternate timeline into existence at their point-of-entry, and their original timeline is erased, even though its events are not forgotten by the time-traveler

The reality is that Doc (at the blackboard scene in 1985A) only said that new timelines are created by going into the past. When Marty suggested they travel to 2015 to stop old Biff ever getting his hands on the Almanac, Doc tells him that it wouldn't work as they would be travelling forward on the 1985A timeline to 2015A which would be a completely different 2015 to the one they came from... He doesn't say it would create a new timeline.

I will now address some of the above criticisms of this theory.

Ritchy wrote: Well, the trip Doc, Marty and Jennifer take forward does create a new timeline. It changes from the timeline in which Marty Jr. is arrested, to the timeline in which Griff and his gang are arrested.

This is not true. It wasn't Doc, Marty & Jennifer travelling forward to 2015 which created this alternate timeline. It was Doc travelling from 2015 to 1985 to get them. Had he not travelled to the past the timeline 3 would not have been created - Doc, Marty and Jennifer merely moved forward along this timeline.

But in 2015, while Doc tells Marty of all the bad stuff about to happen to his children, he shows Marty a future newspaper article of Marty Jr. being arrested. That headline only changes after Marty causes Griff and his gang to crash into the courthouse mall. Clearly, that's the point where the timeline changed - when Marty's actions in the future changed history. If your theory is true, shouldn't the newspaper have changed the second Doc, Marty and Jennifer got into 2015? -- Ritchy 19:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the newspaper article does change in this manner, I think we are going to have to accept that BTTF is a film and subject to artisitic license. According to the Doc in Back to the Future Part II, whenever a time-traveler alters key events occurring in the past, they effectively bring an alternate timeline into existence at their point-of-entry, and their original timeline is erased. A new timeline is created at the point of entry, and then a ripple effect flows through the new timeline cleansing the old one in its wake. It is elements of the ripple effect that are subject to artisic license. Why would Jennifer be holding a blank fax? Why wouldnt the fax disappear? Not only would she not have ripped a blank fax from a machine but that timeline has been destroyed! Why would a newspaper article change from Doc committed to Doc commended - a little coincedental that the Doc made the front page in the new timeline too! We just have to accept these are examples of artisitic license and not the basis of uncanonical theories. Doc created timeline 3 by going back to 1985 from 2015 - Doc, Marty & Jennifer move forward along this timeline.

Breed3011 23:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC) IL Kuma wrote: I'd say that there is a major change between timelines 0 and 1. Were the flux capacitor to malfunction, then I'd have to say that the future of timeline 0 would include the police finding Marty and Doc Brown dead after being struck by the DeLorean doing 88.

It may be the case that had the flux capacitor broke, Doc and Marty would have been killed, and this may have been tragic, but it doesn't violate any cause and effect principles and doesn't constitute creating a new timeline - it would just have been a tragic time travel accident occurring on the same timeline.

To conclude my over-long (sorry) writings. Timeline 0 and Timeline 1 are the same timeline as travelling forward doesnt create a new timeline. The Doc NEVER stated that future time travel created new timelines.

So I propose the following amendments to the timeline page.

i) That the opening paragraph deletes mentions of timelines being created by travelling into the future. Not only does Doc not say this - he acutally goes further and says the opposite.

ii) Timelines 0 & 1 should be merged as Einstein's jump doesn't count as he didn't create an alternate timeline.

Breed3011 22:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems a little ambiguous. There's always the possibility that Doc stayed behind and had another picture taken by the clock without Marty there, and the solo picture was the one that ended up in 1955. But, like you noted, the picture of Doc from the 1955 library is torn in half at the end of Part III, so perhaps we'll never know. --Dynamite Eleven 16:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The photo gives the date as the day of the festival. When Marty went back in time, He changed history by having his photo taken with Doc, thus changing the whole photo. RobertCMWV1974 23:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I'm suggesting that there were TWO pictures made the night of the festival: one with Marty and Doc, and one with just Doc. Both were probably taken within moments of each other, and both took place after Marty went back in time. --Dynamite Eleven 00:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: another possibility
It seems to me Doc ought to have torn off Marty’s half to protect himself and Marty after the latter left him behind with Clara. A photo of the mysterious “Mr. Eastwood” might create problems. Schweiwikist 16:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, 100 years would have passed since the photo was taken, there are people who look like celebrities all the time, could not hte same thing be applied to people in history?DCJoeDog 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There are indeed two pictures. The first is the one Doc took by himself, in the timeline where Marty never went back and Doc died on September 7th 1885. That's the picture Marty found in 1955, and the one seen in the train-wreaked DeLorean in 1985. The second picture was taken in the altered timeline where Marty went back to save Doc. That's the picture Doc gave to Marty as a parting gift before blasting off in his time-train. -- Ritchy 19:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Suitable replacement parts.

In Doc's letter from 1885, he says that suitable replacement parts for the time control microchip won't be invented until 1947. 1947 was the year of invention of the transistor, assumed to be the part needed. However when the replacement box was built, it was comprised almost entirely of tubes, and referred to as the "time control tubes". Any thoughts? --X 0 18:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So, I guess we're just chalking that up to theatrical devices, huh? No electrical engineers going to take a stab at making an interesting discussion about it?

This EE - and collector/restorer of antique electronics ([1]) - will. It's a movie! For Christ's sake, all science is out the window when they (including Gale and Zemeckis in the DVD extras) don't even know that it's a GIGA-watt, not a "jigawatt". And while the transistor *was* invented in 1947, they certainly weren't anything but an unreliable lab curiosity until about 1953. 216.138.194.68 08:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jigga WAS the accepted scientific pronounciation of giga prior to computers having "gigabytes" and "gigahertz". It was the computer users / designers who mispronounced the term which is now commonplace. It was such a seldom used term in science prior to it's usage in terms of computers that it was uncorrectable once it attained such widespread usage. X 0 18:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this sounds a bit sad of me, but I was thumbing through the official Back To The Future III novel out of boredom and I noticed the answer to this query. The official novels, I believe, are canon quality. I noticed a scene in the novel differs slightly to the film. The joke about the broken microchip being Japanese isnt in the book - Instead they have the following dialogue which answers your query...

"Unbelievable that this little piece of nothing can be such a big problem", he looked up at Marty with a frown. "And what's it called again?"

"A Microchip," Marty replied with a grin. He went back to reading the letter; "But most importantly, the time display mechanism must be repaired. Otherwise, it will be impossible to set a destination time. This is a simple repair, requiring a few flashlight bulbs and some penlight batteries."

It was Marty's turn to frown. "Now, that's unbelievable! You end up stuck in 1885 because you can't get a few lousy flashlight bulbs."

Breed3011 19:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think primarily, the one thing that bugged me is Doc's confidence in untested designs. In BTTF1, I can forgive the "drive the car straight at us" trick, because he may have done unmanned (undogged) tests with the Delorean, so he knew it would work properly, though it was still very dangerous. Having Marty drive full tilt towards a drive-in screen, with a device made up of hacked together, approximate replacement parts, based on an imperfectly understood, 70 year old schematic, reproduced from memory at least a year (subjective time) from the original point of design, is near lunacy. There MUST have been a better place that had a long, flat, geographically known area without a screen in the way. At the very least, he could have started at the screen and drove away from it, then navigated towards the cave once he got there. But I guess I'm falling into the trap of thinking of it how it would make sense, instead of what is dramatic and looks good on screen. And how can you not forgive anything that results in the "INDIANS!!!" gag. --X 0 04:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't worrying about the space needed in 1955 for departure, he was worried about he space needed to enter 1885 as well as not being noticed doing so, and the middle of a desert is as good a place to do it, how likely are you to run into someone?DCJoeDog 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My point was that he had Marty drive at almost 90 towards a wall, in the HOPES that his design worked and he would be transported to 1885. What if his tube design didn't work? He'd be scraping bits of stainless steel and cowboy marty off the wall.X 0 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeline 3 vs Timeline 4

Wouldn't Doc, Marty, and Jennifer have left 10/21/2015 from Timeline 4 instead of Timeline 3? Biff had just returned from 1955 and faded out of existence when the three went back to the "alternate" 1985 as shown in Timeline 5. --Zpb52 00:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In the scene that was cut from Part II, Biff starts to fade after he comes back to 2015, then disappears completely right at the same time as the DeLorean blasts into the past. The implication, IMO, is that the timeline was in the process of switching from T3 to T4, and the transformation was only completed when Biff completely vanished, right when Doc & co. left 2015. Therefore, they left in Timeline 3, not Timeline 4. -- Ritchy 02:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

But because it was cut from the film release, it isn't part of the film. It is therefore unknown what (and when) happenned to Biff. Val42 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe a deleted scene (that was strongly hinted at in the movie) is canon quality. 12.208.40.109 19:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Regardless of the content of the scene or why it was deleted, a deleted scene cannot be considered canon. --71.155.164.147 18:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeline 7 1955 Doc

The one who helps Marty go back to 1885...what happens to him? Does he fade away after Marty leaves, or is he still around at the end of the movie (giving us a "time-travelling married Doc" and a "Hill Valley single Doc")? Thanos6 06:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

He becomes the same doc that goes back to 1885 after being struck by lightning, and as far as the people in Hill Valley are concerned, disappeared after leaving at the end of the first movie.

Inventions

2000s - 2010s Date unknown: Continuing a national trend, the Hill Valley local newspaper closes or sells its printing and news-gathering operations to USA Today to create yet another local edition of the nationwide newspaper. The local newspaper is becoming obsolete as national chains with thousands of local editions take over. Date unknown: Invention of: hover conversion, Mr. Fusion, the Black & Decker hydrator, the Mattel hoverboard, power shoelaces and self-drying jackets, skyways, rejuvenation clinics, suspended-animation kennels, automated gas stations, automated dog-walking leashes, thumbprint ID verifications, the 300+ channel universe, automated hovering news units (as used by USA Today), roll-down TV sets (the McFly home runs the Scenery Channel on it in a window). Date unknown: The United States abolishes the trade of lawyers, allowing the justice system to move with far greater speed and efficiency. The National Weather Service develops extremely detailed forecasting ability (to the minute). Date unknown: Relations with Vietnam improve and now there are promotions to surf there Date unknown: Pepsi introduces Pepsi Perfect, a vitamin enriched cola (Marty would have ordered this from the video waiter at the Café 80's).

What proof is there that any of these couldn't have happened in the '90s? We never see 1986-2014; conceivably, these inventions and events could have happened before the 2000s. Max22 03:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This section is a little messed up

To start off, it has Timeline 0 continue with Marty existing, assuming he didn't go back to 1955. However, this cannot be considered canon, as he did indeed go back in time. With the way the Timelines are set up, Marty should go back in time and disappear from any moment afterwards in Timeline 0. Also, due to no alterations happening in the past, some things written that happen after 1985 aren't certain, and the things involving Marty should never happen because he travelled back in time.

Then, Timeline 1 should be replaced with Timeline 2. Travelling to the future does not change the timeline. There are absolutely no alterations made from travelling to the future, only from travelling to the past.

I didn't get too far in the article, and I assume the same mistakes are made throughout.

Actually, a new timeline is created whenever a time traveller causes something to happen that would not have happend without him. Sometimes, after their action, they showed a photograph or newspaper changing as evidence that they are now in a new timeline. Since they sometimes made more than one change during a visit to a time period, this article reports the accumulate effect of all the changes made during each visit.

Also, the way the space-time continuum works in this movie, the future does exist, even if nobody visits that future. In BTTF2, Marty leaves Jennifer and Einstein in 1985A (Timeline 4) to have adventures in the past, and he doesn't see them again until he returns to 1985 in BTTF3 (Timeline 8). So, where were Jennifer and Einstein in Timelines 5-7? They were in a future that never actually played out.

So, whether he goes forward or backward in time, the moment he uses the time machine to disappear from the timeline, he changes the future since he might not return; but the future of the timeline he left is the most likely future (which is why Marty could see himself and his family when he visits the future.)GUllman 21:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Not so - only going into the past creates a new timeline. Not just my opinion - the opinion of the Doc too (see Blackboard scene). Going forward in time you merely move forward along the same timeline. BTTF has a past (1885, 1955), a present (1985) and a future (2015). The Doc says the future is unwritten - "The future it what you make of it - so make it a good one". There isnt a single example in the film where travelling forward has created a new timeline User:Breed3011

I wrote something here about this yesterday, but either I failed to hit "Save page" or it didn't hit or got rolled back somehow. I've been thinking about this, and it does seem that forward travel doesn't make a change. The one obvious exception, doing something about Marty's kids, isn't one, really. Although they are in 2015, they are in the past with respect to the newspaper and the robbery attempt, so it's really the same set up as "George McFly Honored" and the kiss at the dance. The future is not affecting the past (except as information to be used in the past), but the past affects the future. What constitutes the future is anything from after that moment, whether that moment is in 1955, 1985 or 2015. So the hoverboard chase is the past, relative to the robbery attempt, affecting the near future. As for Einstein's one-minute trip, it doesn't affect the past, and it doesn't change the future per se. It affects the future only in the way that Doc Brown taking about the Libyans in Timeline 0 affects the future, or me going to the gym today affects the future. It is part of the ongoing tide or events, not a revision of a known timeline. I think. Karen | Talk | contribs 22:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your last comments. Traveling forward in time may change events... but only in the same respect that traveling in a car will also change events in the timeline you are in. It isn't a new timeline. There is a much more simple explanation to the 2015 'obvious exception' though. Originally, the Doc travelled forward on timeline 2 to 2015. He didnt like what he saw. He decided he would change these events. He traveled to 1985 (This time travel jump creates timeline 3). He took Marty and Jennifer forward along timeline 3. They stopped the robbery. The important thing to note here is that Doc, Marty and Jennifer did not create a new timeline by traveling to the future - it was Doc who created it when he travelled from 2015 to 1985 to get them. So the future changes but because Doc travelled back from 2015 to 1985. Imagine the incident that Doc disliked was actually the following day in 1985 (still in the future, but not 30 years away). He would have travelled back (creating a new timeline)and warned Marty about the event and then the event would not have happened thus changing the future - It would be the travel back which changed it - travelling forward to 2015 is a red herring in this issue. Breed3011 10:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeline 9

Timeline 9 begins with Doc, Clara, Jules and Verne's departure from circa 1885 to 1985 to meet Marty. Timeline 10 begins when Doc, Clara, Jules and Verne depart for (probably not the Future). 80.47.248.247 22:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

New timelines only occurs when travelling back in time. So Timeline 9 should start when Doc, Clara, Jules and Verne travels back from circa 2015 (where the steamengine had been enabled with hovering) to 1985 where they meet Marty and Jennifer at demolised Delorean timemachine.

- Chbs 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no timeline 9 - we don't know for sure if that scene actually happened - It certainly isnt mentioned in the films - we have to restrict ourselves to the scenes in the film or we are heading into personal theory territory and wikipedia has rules on original research. Breed3011 08:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

president

the president of 2015 will not necessarily be elected into that office in 2012, as there is more than one way to become president. one could be:

1. elected (most common)
2. elected vice president (see LBJ)
3. appointed vice president (see Gerald Ford)
4. appointed by congress (see John Quincy Adams)

#appointed by the supreme court (see George W. Bush)

• This is not the place for a political statement. --Zpb52 15:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A president can be appointed by the Supreme Court, though...

Details

Am I the only one who feels this page is becoming a little too detailed? I'm all in favour of having an informative page, but if this keeps up, reading the page will take longer then watching the movies! I'm thinking we should limit it to events that are central to the movie's plot and/or the timeline, and eliminate the interesting but otherwise irrelevant details. For example, the characters' births and time-jumps would of course be kept, as would any noticeable change they make to the timeline. But things like "2012: Tuesday, November 6th: A female President of the United States is elected or re-elected (in the 2015 newspaper, she says she is "tired" of the "same questions")." or "1990s: Date unknown: Latest possible decade for retirement of Mr Strickland, the latest in a series of Stricklands who enact discipline in their livelihoods." should be eliminated as they are nothing more than interesting trivia. -- Ritchy 04:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In my view, this whole page is just interesting trivia. It's a fictional movie, how relevant is anything in this? I think all details should be kept here. However, a good point is made - perhaps there should be an abridged version of the timeline with more raw changes and things such as Mr. Strickland's retirement omitted.

On that note with Strickland, I didn't read anything about his no longer being the principal in the 1985A timeline. Did I miss it, or does it need to be added? -Jennifer 00:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree - far too much unrelated trivia. This is a page specifically related to timelines, the scenes which hapen which directly create and destroy them, and the effects upon the main characters' lives. You can write trivia for any film ie Date unkown: Rimmel brings out a new shade of blue makeup which is used as face paint for Mel Gibson in Braveheart. Breed3011 13:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is why I suggest that the table cut out a lot of the details that aren't variable between timelines. for example, the DeLorean is created the same date in all timelines and is in no way affected by the plot of the films. Same thing for the birth of Jailbird Joey or even Marty/Doc/etc. --Robb0995 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Red

Red, the resident homeless man in 1985, was Mayor in 1955. In parts 1 and 2, he is found sleeping on benches in 1985, but in part 2 1985A, he is found near Biff's lair. Does this constitute a change in the timeline? Even if not, should it be marked in the timeline as detail? -Jennifer 00:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In the Future, the National Weather Service MAKES the weather, not merely predicts it!

The timeline indicates that the national weather service is merely able to predict the weather down to the minute. I would argue, however, that Doc indicates that the NWS actually makes or controls the weather. The script reads as follows:

DOC: First you're gonna have to get out and change clothes.
MARTY: Doc, it's pouring rain.
DOC: Oh, right... (Checks his watch) Wait 3 more seconds.
(Rain stops, sun comes out)
DOC: Right on the tick. Too bad the Post Office isn't as efficient as the weather service.

Doc doesn't say that the NWS is "accurate" which would refer to a prediction ability. Rather, he says, they are "efficient." Weather forecasters in the 1980s were never known for their "efficiency" or inefficiency": They're not thought of in that way at all. They are often chided, however, for their lack of accuracy. Furthermore, he specifically compares their "efficiency" to that of the post office. The post office brings things. As a third piece of evidence, as soon as the rain ends the sun comes out, in a magical and very unrealistic way. I believe, because of this, that Doc was referring to the weather service having the ability to control the weather. In the future, the weather service is not just accurate, but efficient, in that it brings us the weather, and right on time too! Allthewhile 02:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeline Six problem

I removed the paragraph from the end of Timeline 6 where Marty receives the letter from Western Union. This can only happen in Timeline 7, as in Timeline 6 there was no Doc Brown in the Old West. Timeline 6 ends when the DeLorean is struck by lightning and Doc Brown goes back in time. 66.26.72.27 17:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Gerry

Good catch! Karen | Talk | contribs 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Four delorean's

During the second film there must be four delorean's on November 12 1955. The first we see in the first film. The second is being used by future Biff to give young biff the book. The third is the one being used to chase Biff and reclaimed/burn that book. The fourth is from 1885, hidden under ground, from the third film.

The fourth Delorean would only be hidden underground in Timelines 7 and 8, the timelines created "after" Doc got sent back to 1885. In timeline 6, when Marty chases Biff for the almanac and before Doc's Delorean gets hit by lightning, there is no Delorean underground. After Doc is hit by lightning, he goes back in time, and his actions in the past cause a new 1955 to exist, one with a fourth Delorean underground. -- Ritchy 16:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But surely the timeline runs its course instantaneously the second marty and doc enter 1955. The insident having happened retrosepctively? Or the Western Union Guy would not appear to give Marty the letter from 1885. Surely its easier to believ the Time lines exist in tandem?

Timelines do not exist in tandem - that's why Marty was disappearing in BTTF1, and why they ended up in the wrong timeline in BTTF2. The Western Union guy appeared to give Marty the letter after the Delorean was hit by lightning. After Doc went into the past and changed the timeline. He was not part of Timeline 6, but of Timeline 7, the one where Doc lived in 1885. -- Ritchy 17:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous theory

I do not believe there is any evidence that doc brown does not exist in 1885 in timeline 6, when the doc and marty traveled back in time to 1955 to get the book form Biff. The whole timeline may change including the 1885 timeline where doc is killed may be altered into time line 6 as doc and maty travel back to 1955 to get the book form Biff. It is a simpler explanation than suggesting the timeline alters everytime time travel is used.

I do not believe there is a need for timeline 7. I think we can take Occam's razor approach which states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation.

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Therefore if we undersatnd that Marty and Doc travelled back to timeline 6 and doc always travelled back to 1885 since marty and doc destroyed the book, then there would be no need for timeline 7. Timeline seven would in fact be that which was played out in the third film. Timeline 6 would include the death of doc brown in 1885. Its just there doesnt seem to be a need for this extra timeline, timeline 7 as you suggest. Therefore it could be assumed that the indeed 4 delorean existsed on november 12 1955 since the timeline that was altered to timeline 6 included the travelled back to 1885.

This theory is just that - a theory. It is not only unsubstantiated by the movies, but in fact it contradicts the movies on several points. It is the very definition of OR that is banned from Wikipedia. The scope of this article has to be limited to what is said and seen on-screen, and cannot include fan interpretations and personal theories of what happened. -- Ritchy 16:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

References

Based on the discussion in the vote for deletion, I think this article should be better referenced. Now hear me out! I know people are going to say "it's all in the movies", and it's true. But no one is going to sit through 5 hours of movies to double-check the facts. And mixed in the article is some material from the books, from the Bobs, and historical facts. At the very least, we should reference which fact comes from which movie or which other source. A more complete solution, though one that would require a lot more work, would be to reference the exact part of the movie (i.e. transcribe the line of dialogue or describe the prop) which sources a fact. -- Ritchy 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a thought. Fact sourcing to the films themselves could be labeled with a standard notation, e.g. BTTF, BTTF2 and BTTF3, with each of these tagged as a reference name. (Example: Doc Brown dubs the new timeline 1985A. ref name="BTTF2"/) Then the line for the first film in the references section would show up looking something like this (only with superscript and small size and all that):

1. abcdefg Back to the Future, 1985. Back to the Future Trilogy DVD edition, 2005.

In my view, there's no need to ref every line of this, however. At the beginning of each timeline it can be stated that everything in this timeline appears in a certain part of Part 2 (or whichever, as described) unless otherwise marked. Indeed most timelines already say something like this.

For material from the UCLA Q&As, commentaries, FAQ, featurettes and so on, sourcing each fact is probably more important. It may be worth emphasizing further the degree to which the timelines set forth are grounded in a) what happened and what was said onscreen and b) what the Bobs said about how time travel functions in the films. This may help to stave off both OR charges and the constant introduction of fan theories. The one fan theory that might be worth a mention is the "Other Marty" theory advanced by that Imagineer fellow in (I think it was) Starlog #160. Because it can be sourced to an actual magazine, the Bobs (specifically Zemeckis?) mentioned and disputed at least part of it, and Doc Brown's remark about the timeline changing around Jennifer contradicts it, it might make a good test case example of Bob and Bob-based canon vs. OR speculation. Or not. Karen | Talk | contribs 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Clock

Timeline Zero is partly wrong. If you watch the first movie, the only reason that the clock tower stops is not because of the lighting that struck it, but because of the wire that Doc hooked to the clock. When the lightning struck, it went down that wire and into the clocktower's inner workings, breaking the device. The reason it's broken at the start of the movie is because of Doc's actions in the alternative past. Coolgamer 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, but it doesn't pan out based on what Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale had said about the way time travel works in the films. As of Timeline 0, Doc Brown doesn't go near the clock tower that night, having no reason to do so. This is because changes in what happened never ripple backwards into the previous timeline. In Timeline 0, Marty was never in 1955, and Doc Brown never needed to power the DeLorean with a bolt of lightning. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 20:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Doc had no part in stopping the clock (the lightning would do it with or without him), but he did break the ledge in front of the clock. At the beginning of the movie, the clock is stopped but the ledge in front of the clock is not broken. When Marty returns to the changed 1985, we find the ledge is broken as a result of Doc's actions. GUllman 02:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

DeLorean count redux and related issues

I've noticed that many editors want to place a fourth DeLorean in Timeline 6, namely the one Doc buries in 1885, or the one Marty takes back to 1885. Please try to keep in mind this simple rule, as established by the filmmakers: nothing that happens at the end of the timeline affects that timeline; rather, it creates a new one. If Doc leaves 1955 at the end of Timeline 6, therefore, he was never in 1885 as of Timeline 6, he never saved Clara, and he never buried the DeLorean. In Timeline 7, Doc arrived in 1885, buried the DeLorean and was killed, and Clara survived and erected the gravestone. However, Marty has not yet been to 1885, so he has not brought back the Delorean to that time, and the ravine is unlikely to be named either Clayton or Eastwood in 1985. I know this stuff is hard to wrap the brain around, but please keep this in mind in future edits: the timeline never contains events that originate with (or after) the time travel event at the end of that timeline. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 00:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Infinate Looping of Time

In Timeline 8, Marty chooses not to race Needles upon his return to 1985, the future is changed once again, and the alternate futures Doc and Marty have experienced in Timeline 2 and Timeline 3 are erased by this timeline. BTTF3 ends rosily in 1985 with the Marty's future being an open book now that he has conquered his 'chicken' complex. However, when Timeline 8 approaches 2015 it will break down destroying timelines 3 to 8 and time will revert to Timeline 2.

On an unspecified date in 2015 Timeline 8, the Doc will arrive from 1985. When he arrives this time he will NOT now discover that Marty Jr is in trouble as Marty and Jennifer's destinies had been changed through the events of Timelines 3 to 8.

He will therefore not be tempted back to 1985 to get Marty and Jennifer and return to 2015 to thwart Griff's plans. This means the almanac adventure will not happen and consequently Marty will not learn his 'chicken' lesson. If Marty doesn't learn his 'chicken' lesson then he is doomed to have his tragic car accident with the Rolls Royce.

As a result of this accident, his life goes into freefall and his future reverts to timeline 2 which means that when the Doc arrives in 2015 he will see the McFly family problems which spur him back to 1985 and the whole course of Timlines 3 to 8 enact themselves again.

This looping will repeat itself infinately.

If this is not the case please edit in a detailed response to the theory rather than merely omitting it

Breed3011 17:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

BTTF has no time loops. When an event is changed, a new timeline is created. This is made abundantly clear in the movies, especially in BTTF2's blackboard scene which explained the idea, but also in all three movies as they all featured the characters altering the past and future and creating alternate timelines and not loops. There is absolutely nothing in the movies to support, or even hint to, a time loop idea. -- Ritchy 17:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy response -

My basic issue is this: Timeline 8 on the main Wikipedia page seems to stop at 1985 when the film ends. But if we continue the timeline we know that the Doc will arrive in 2015 from 1985.

Do you concur that in Timeline 8 2015 the Doc will arrive from 1985 and he will see a different 2015 to the one depicted in BTTF2?

Does this have causality ramifications for the earlier timelines? (Doc won't be prompted to bring Marty and Jennifer to the future... so certain events won't now happen - Almanac adventure, ending up in 1885, Marty learning his lesson about being called a chicken culminatng in Marty reversing out of the crash with the Rolls Royce).

Will the Doc's arrival in 2015 create a new timeline - if so what do you think it will be like? Will the Doc's arrival not make any difference at all because the events have happened, just in a defunct timeline?

Please respond rather than omitting my message.

Breed3011 18:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is your basic issue. Yes, the description of Timeline 8 ends when the movie ends. That's because that's all the information we have. Anything else we add would be our own speculation and ideas on what the future would be like, what the movies would be like if they kept on going. And Wikipedia has strict policies against putting this kind of original research in articles. You are free of course to theorize and imagine what Doc would find if he kept on going after the end of BTTF3, but such speculations simply cannot be included in Wikipedia. Sorry. -- Ritchy 18:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The BTTF Timeline page has many examples where suppositions are implanted into the canon, such as events in 2030, and Marty Jr graduating. We should delete these entries too as they are speculations which happen after the films have ended.

When Doc leaves 1985 for 2015, it is a pivotal event which actually happens in the very first film. It is not speculation.

You are incorrect when you say "that is all the information we have".

We know one more fact.

The Doc will arrive in 2015 in Timeline 8. Cause and Effect.

I was postulating what he sees on his arrival, given the events of BTTF 2 & 3. That was the only bit of speculation.

I strongly feel that, at the very least, "2015: The Doc arrives from 1985" should be added to Timeline 8

Sorry to be a pain! Breed3011 19:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right in saying that the page does include some instances of suppositions and research. In fact, there is a warning at the top of the page to that effect, and we have undertook the tedious task of referencing every fact mentioned on the page in order to find and eliminate those that are not backed by canon sources. Speculation must be removed from the page - its presence is a problem, not a licence to add more speculation!

Now regarding your theory, I think you are mixing some facts. Yes, Doc went from 1985 to 2015 in the first film. But that happened within Timeline 2, the one that was in place at the end of that film. It has no impact on Timeline 8. The fact is, we have no idea how the time machine test at Lone Pine Mall went, or what exploration Doc did afterwards, or what 2015 looks like (if Doc even went there) in Timeline 8, because none of this was ever shown in the film. The movie setup gives the impression (to me, at least) that things that are not shown changing on-screen remain the same; but that's just that, an fan's impression of the movie. This page is (or rather, should be) limited to events seen occuring and changing in the movies, not what me or anyone else thinks about it. -- Ritchy 20:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that Doc may not arrive in the 2015 of Timeline 8. We are all free to come up with our speculations on this - but it's not something that's set in stone. 75.129.139.187 14:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually all that is known in III is that Doc travels to some point in the future or past from 1985. He never specified what time he was heading to at that point. In fact Doc seemed to indicate he wasn't heading for the future (when asked by Marty if he was heading th the future, Doc remarked "I've already been there," which if anything indicated he was probably heading back to the past. Whether he intended to stay there permanently or not would just be speculation, as would any mention of his destination, since he made no specific mention of it.)75.70.125.3 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand the premise I was writing about - I wasnt referring to the Doc in the locomotive but the Doc at the end of BTTF I - If we move forward from the end of BTTF III to the year 2015, a future where Marty didnt have the car crash etc... would the Doc who set of for the future at the end of BTTF I arrive in this timeline and what would he see. However, owing the Original Research limitations of this article, I chose not to progress my postulations for far of jeopardising the article.

Breed3011 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Events don't create timelines, only travel backwards in time creates a new timeline. Like in real life, in any given timeline, the past is set but the future is not. Even walking around and breathing (perhaps catching or passing on a cold) affects future events. Therefore, the moment someone goes back in time, they branch a new timeline and then events unfold from there. You could point to dozens of things that Marty does which influence future events, that's because forward motion in time (either travel or time's natural progression) ALWAYS changes the future. Timelines are fuzzy until events fall to the past. Therefore, it wasn't Marty's decision in the race that changed the timeline, but Marty's return to 1985 that created a new timeline. --Robb0995 02:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right - I was being sloppy with my explanations!! Breed3011 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)