Talk:Back to the Future Part II

A re-run of the first movie?

I remember seeing this movie when it was out in theatres and I liked it and thought it had a good plot, but I asked someone else who saw it and they thought it was like watching a re-run of the first Back to the future, the whole plot with them going back to 1955 to undo what the old Biff did, what do you think? After hearing that, I thought, Yes, they could have spent more time in 2015, I thought that was the most interesting part and that they should have focused more on it.

I wouldn't agree with that. Act one was set in 2015, act two was set in 1985A and act three was set in 1955 but from a different perspective. Template:Steve 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Old comments

"Back to the Future continues with even more special effects" "Cool futuristic vehicles in 2015!" "Lorraine shot Old Biff around 1996!" "Old Biff gets erased from existance! Horray!" "When old Marty McFly is seen, is that a future Michael J. Fox?" "Get this now! It's fun!" Kirk Cameron said (in Secrets of the Back to the Future trilogy) that hoverboards don't exist! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.50.12.2 (talk • contribs) March 23, 2005.

Note that according to a special with the aforementioned Cameron, it was implied that Biff's spouse had at some point murdered him in the alternate timeline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.140.206 (talk • contribs) September 10, 2005.

I've added information about Old Biff dying in 2015 upon his return. this info was found here 203.211.68.179 02:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Willuknight

Redundancy

Back to the Future Part II is a 1989 film and is the second part of a trilogy, coming after Back to the Future and followed by Back to the Future Part III.

The bolded part strikes me as incredibly pointless, so I'm removing it

Cafe 80's logo

I found the Cafe 80's logo if someone is willing to put it in the Cafe 80's section of the article. [1]

Plot hole - Doc's urgency

This doesn't really seem to be a plot hole to me. It could be explained away by saying that Doc wanted to get to Marty as soon as possible since he knew he would get in the car wreck with the Rolls-Royce the next day, and once he had arrived in 1985, he was justifiably paranoid about somebody seeing the time machine and thus wanted to get out of there as soon as possible. istewart 07:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Also why did Doc say, "Damn I'm late!" in 2015 before he left Marty. He was in a time machine...

I believe this is what they refer to as a "joke."

Incorrect Info

Under Rumors and Urban Legends, the line "The Cubs haven't won the world series since 1908" was changed to "The Cubs hadn't won a world series since 1908, but did so in 2005". I changed it back as it was the Chicago White Sox who won the 2005 World Series and not the Cubs.

Continuity Errors

This section should be changed on account that it is written as if it were part of a disscussion, even ending in a question.

I've removed the section. Nothing in there was encyclopedic, just a rant about what "fans have argued". CPitt76 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'paradox'

'*Considering the nature of the first half of the second film, Marty preventing his son being arrested and thrown into jail; everything beyond that point could likely be considered a paradox.

Had Marty not needed to fix future history so his kids didn't get arrested, he and Doc wouldn't have needed to go into the future which would allow 2015 Biff Tannen the opporunity to steal the Delorean and the almanac. If he never stole the book and the car, Doc and Marty would never have had to travel back to 1955 to collect the book and the delorean would never have been struck by lightning, sending Doc back to 1885 and the end result would have nullified the two sequels.'

I realise this can technically count as 'original research'... but is there any way this can be formatted so it could actually work in the goof section as I believe there is a point.

Just so nobody has to ask, I authored that piece but didn't post it as I wanted to see if it could be appropriate to Wiki standardsKingpin1055 23:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but the paradox you describe is only relevant if the changed event happened in the past, thus altering the mindset in the present of those that changed it. Since the event they changed was in the future, it's plausible that they changed it and still had a memory of the original events happening, causing no paradox. My opinion, anyway. Mcflytrap 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Marty missing for 30 years?

Something that always bothered me as a kid that I didn't see addressed here. For a brief time at the end of part 1 there are two Marty's in 1985. One heads back to 1955. Then in part 2, the other heads to 2015. So from 1985 to 2015 there aren't any Marty's left. Who was it that had kids and grew old?

I always thought that when Marty returned to 1985 at the end of Part I, he returned the day after he initially left. I could be wrong, have to rewatch it.

Well, that's part of the problem started by the second film. But if you had to look at it within the context of the trilogy, I'd say 2015 Marty is almost the same one who nearly got involved in the car accident in 1985.

But the whole 'future isn't fixed' thing comes into play...Kingpin1055 10:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point, but since time travel isn't possible at the moment, we'll never really know how it works. Technically, if I were to travel to the future right now, would there be a me that lived during that time I skipped? You can say yes because I would have eventually travelled back to the present and lived the rest of my life, or you can say no like you mentioned above. Time travel movies always have these weird situations that no one can really say if its an error or not. Mcflytrap 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"time travel isnt possible AT THE MOMENT"? what does this comment mean? time travel will never be possible.- kozmic|sk8r 10:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wild West Movie

I added to the trivia section, the scene where you see Clint Eastwood use the metal sheet, and Biff watches it. My guess is that its The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, but can someone verify this for me. --Fullforce 23:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)-

You're thinking of A Fistful of Dollars, the first of the Man with No Name Trilogy. Intooblv 20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Glover's salary demands

The article states that Crispin Glover was asking for the same money that Michael J. Fox was making, and that the producers felt that it was unreasonable. How was it unreasonable? Is Bob Gale a cheapskate? Glickmam 06:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob Gale explains on the commentary portion of the DVD that Crispin Glover's salary for where he was at in his acting career was not yet on par with Michael J. Fox and what Fox could draw. So Glover's demands for the same amount of money as Fox's was unreasonable. Metamorphousthe 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, Fox's role was simply much more important to the film. He was the star, and Glover was a supporting player.Raymondluxuryacht 08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Marty's daughter in 2015

I sought out this article to learn the name of the actress that plays Marty's and Jennifer's daughter in 2015, but to no avail. Is that 'Marlene McFly', played by Michael Fox? BruceHallman 23:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Andy120290 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem with comment about postal service in Trivia

69.41.106.114 02:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)"Upon arriving in 2015 and landing in the alleyway, Doc tells Marty the rain will end in 5 seconds, he then says, "Too bad the postal service isn't as reliable", luckily for him they are quite reliable having held a letter for 70 years and delivering it at such a strange hour."

Where it commends the postal service being reliable, that is incorrect. First, the postal service he talked about being unreliable was in the future, as the letter was delivered in 1955. And second, the letter was delivered by western union in 1955, not the postal service.

Four DeLoreans?

in the last trivia entry, it says:

• When Doc and Marty go back to 1955, there are 4 DeLoreans at that particular time, the one from the first time travel, the one old Biff used to get back from 2015, the one Doc and Marty have and the one stored in a mine, which appears in Back To The Future Part III.

But I think there would only be three, because the one that doc stored in the mine doesnt get there until doc goes into the past. right now, i'm changing the number to three. i will gladly change if back if someone can come up with a better explanation on how the fourth one got there. 19:56, 8 March 2007 The mitten man

It depends on your personal theory on time travel. IF you believe that each individual time event causes a parallel universe different from the one before, then yes, you're right, the fourth DeLorean doesn't exist until RIGHT after Doc travels back in time at the end of the film (effectively leaving us with only three as one of them has to travel back to create the alternate universe with the fourth DeLorean in it) and thus causes his existance in 1885. HOWEVER, if you believe that there's only one universe in BttF and the various alterations to the timeline effectively rewrite history then, knowing that the DeLorean EVENTUALLY goes back to 1885, it was effectively always there. Either way, as soon as Doc gets struck by lightning, history is changed and in both interpretations, the DeLorean becomes present in the cave and retoactively is established as having ALWAYS been in the cave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.137.144 (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC).