Something I Don't Get...


When they travelled back to the alternative 1985 did that mean there were duplicates of Marty and Doc in that reality or did they merge into the versions of Marty and Doc already there?

If the former then does that mean there were two Jennifers in 1985 and wouldn't that still be true even if they changed the timeline?

****

Oh, and how the hell did old Biff not notice Marty following young Biff? He was looking right at them. Then Marty sat up to watch Young Biff molest Lorraine. How did he not see him?

reply

> ... there were duplicates of Marty and Doc in ...

Yes, there are literally two Martins on screen at the same time; one from the first movie playing "Johnny be good" and the other one from this movie.

Why would there be two Jennifers? She went to the future (2015) and back to 1985. No duplicates.

reply

No, that's not what I mean.

Biff says 'you're supposed to be in Switzerland (referring to the Marty of the new 1985 timeline) so was THAT Marty in Switzerland or was he merged with the Marty that was from the original 1985?

Again, if the former then that means there must be two Jennifers. (Original 1985 Jennifer and horrible 1985 Jennifer).

reply

You're right, the 'main' Marty, Doc, and Jennifer arrived at an alternate timeline (with another 'local' Marty in Switzerland). Makes sense that there are two Jennifers now. Good point.

Doc and Marty leave that timeline though when they travel back to 1955. In the end, sleeping Jennifer magically gets transferred to the right timeline as if nothing happened.

Tbh, if you've watched Avengers Endgame, Hulk's time travel explanation makes more sense: "If you travel to the past, that past becomes your future, and your former present becomes the past, which can't now be changed by your new future."

reply

Yeah, I never really understood that.

I think the whole thing with Marty being in Switzerland and Doc being committed was a way of getting the Marty and Doc from 1985b off screen, and not confusing the plot with multiple versions of the same character.

What I really didn't get was why 1985a Doc and Marty were still in existence. Maybe it was a bit like in the original film. It took Marty a week before he started fading out by stopping his parent's meeting. Maybe there were some kind of temporal anomalies because the ripple effect hadn't kicked in.

Time travel films always fall down if you think about it for long enough.

reply

Terminator 1-3 hold up as a trilogy, but you gotta think about it pretty hard, like the fact terminators can't just pop out of nowhere without the future having already happened. If we're looking at it as a timeline that has been altered and re-snapped, possibly hundreds of times, then nothing breaks it.

reply

"Terminator 1-3 hold up as a trilogy,"

What?

First of all, that franchise has like zillion movies by now, and it was NEVER meant to be any friggin' trilogy.

Secondly, 'The Terminator (1984)' is the ONLY movie of those three that makes any sense, or has any quality, original story, and where the bootstrap paradox actually makes sense (except for the name 'John').

Thirdly, T2 BREAKS and MESSES UP the perfectly well-constructed boostrap paradox of the first movie, RETCONS the _FK_ out of everything and then presents us with a diluted, G-rated, juvenile, childish, stupid, moronic RIP-OFF of the first movie - same plot, same everything, except "more advanced digital effects" and "truckload of money spent", and Arnold looks old and flabby instead of supermuscular superman robot, and the 'new robot' (which shouldn't exist) is a really stupid and way too unrealistic idea, and no offence to Robert, but you can't look 'scary' if you are thin and wimpy, just by tilting your head down and looking forward.

What a childish piece of diluted claptrap that destroys EVERYTHING that was good about the ONLY actually good Terminator-movie.

The less said about EVEN STUPIDER 'T3' (I don't even want to bother to research what its name really is), the better. "Talk to the hand", really? "Elton John-sunglasses", REALLY??

Destroying EVERYTHING we've been told even in the most childish crapmovie sequel cashcow that has nothing original, unique or good about it (even the music was 4/4ized from the more interesting .. what the heck was it, 11/4?, so it's easier for the masses, and the amazing, atmospheric 1980s synths were replaced by more plasticky, boring, soulless mainstream stock sound), let alone in the actually good movie.

So _HOW_ the hell do you deduce anything "holds up"? What do you mean by "hold up"? Like a bank robber holds you up to get your cash without giving you anything in return? SURE!

But PLEASE, never again group 'The Terminator (1984)' together with those TURDS!!

reply

I mean, even 'The Terminator (1984)' makes no sense, and I have proven it in its discussion boards, but HAVE SOME RESPECT for the craft at least - how can you carelessly group soulless trash turds made PURELY for cash without ANY creativity together with a REALLY soulful, well-crafted, creativity-oozing, inspirational, 1980s-atmosphere-filled EXCITEMENT FEST?!

HOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

reply

There should NOT have been a Marty in Switzerland (or SUPPOSED to be..) and Doc being committed, because they were supposed to be 'missing' from that timeline until they return, so the 'returning Doc and Marty' should've been the ONLY Doc and Marty.

It's like them returning to the 'normal 1985' and there being suddenly two of both. That doesn't make sense, because they aren't there until they return from the future.

To simplify, let's say Monday Doc and Marty leave for the future, spend 10 years there, then return to Tuesday. There's a chunk of monday where they didn't exist in 1985, but they will continue their existence from Tuesday onwards, because that's where (or when) they returned.

Just because Biff alters the past, shouldn't affect this fact, UNLESS it makes Doc NOT invent the time travel, or in some other way tampers with them being able to LEAVE for the future, so they never leave on Monday.

However, if they never leave on Monday, then the Marty and Doc that DID leave on Monday (in normal 1985) should just DISAPPEAR, because they NEVER LEFT for the future.

This movie makes absolutely no sense.

reply

Whenever one has a question about time travel, I just say its a plot hole. The subject is just too confusing

reply

Whenever one has a question about time travel, I just say its a paradox.
There is always a "paradox" no matter which "model" of time travel the movie or the endlsee threads are debating.

reply

Plot hole sounds better than paradox

reply