I watched Back to the Future parts 1 and 2 earlier this week (for the thirty-fifth time, probably), and this is the first time I realized the problem with the part that takes place in 2015.
Marty can’t make changes in the future that will stay permanent and set, not if his timeline (and by extension, his family’s) is in flux.
There are two basic theories of time travel. One, everything is in flux all the time, so you can make changes anywhere on the timeline that will affect other parts of the timeline. Two, everything is fixed so no matter when you are and what you do, you cannot change what is supposed to happen.
The Back to the Future trilogy seems to follow the first theory, except for when Marty and Doc Brown go to 2015.
Marty poses as his son to save him from getting caught up in gang activity and going to jail. But just because Marty saved his son in one instance, that doesn’t mean his future is all right in every instance.
I understand when Marty meets his teenage parents in 1955 and his interaction with them changes who they are in 1985. The past affects the present. Makes sense.
But 1985 Marty can’t go to the future and make permanent changes. When Marty goes to 2015, he’s going to the future that results from the moment he left in 1985. The choices that he makes in his life will always be tweaking his future. If he chose to go to 2015 from a different point in his life, he would be going to a different 2015. So saving his son once doesn’t save him in every possible future.
If Doc Brown wanted to help Marty and his family avoid bad things in 2015 (one possible 2015), all he had to do was tell Marty what happens and when. Then Marty could take the appropriate action when the time came, instead of jumping to the future to make changes. And maybe all along, with Marty knowing what could happen to his son in 2015, he’s making changes to his life that bypass the problem Doc Brown saw in the first place.
That’s the flaw in Back to the Future’s plot: characters from the present make changes in the future that are supposed to take hold.
I was thinking about another character who interferes with his own timeline: John Connor in The Terminator. But his situation is different. Future John sends people and information back in time to help his younger self. Future John is making changes in the past, but we see the story from the younger John’s perspective. Even so, there’s a paradox here: if Future John is changing his past, he is changing himself. All the changes he makes to younger John’s life should result in a different life for and a different John in the future. If that’s true, then how was there the Future John who made those changes in the first place? The other option is, John’s timeline is fixed and The Terminator follows theory 2. But then Future John would realize that no matter what he changed in the past, the same events happened and he ends up in the same position. It would be pointless for him to keep interfering with his past if he knows he can’t make a difference. Paradoxes, time loops, alternate universes. These are themes in most of the stories I enjoy.
I’ve been watching a lot things that deal with time travel and alternate universes (or the things I’ve watched have had this common thread running through), and I find myself using theories from one show to explain events in another show.
Kyle Reese and John Connor’s birth never made sense to me until I watched “Blink,” an episode of Doctor Who where the Doctor explains that time is not a straight line but rather “more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.”
Peter Bishop (Fringe) linked two universe to avoid destroying both, but in the process, he deleted himself from existence. Or, nearly. But where was he in between his non-existence and his return? The Doctor rebooted the universe and now Amy has parents when she didn’t have them before. Or did she and she doesn’t remember? I’m still working those out, but I find myself thinking of all these characters and ideas together. I sort out which theory explains which situation.
But Amy has an interesting situation. Mad, Impossible Pond. When we first met her she was a young girl who lived in a big house with no parents and an aunt that was away. But she doesn’t know what happened to her parents--she just never had them. Did they abandon her? Were they erased from existence? Where did Amy come from? She’s been in two seasons of Doctor Who, and we still don’t know. Then, more confusion, the Doctor rebooted the universe, and now Amy has parents. Where did they come from? Or did they come back? Amy tells the Doctor she’s scared/worried/frustrated/concerned because she remembers both versions: her life when she didn’t have parents and her life when she does. Both feel true to her. Amy gains a set of parents, and that makes no sense to me even though it shouldn’t matter. Rebooting the universe has nothing to do with timelines. The Doctor didn’t change anything about Amy’s past or future. He pushed the universe’s reset button and some things came out differently. But because we’re watching the episodes sequentially, I feel like Amy’s parents came out of nowhere because we knew her without parents first. But that’s not the right way of thinking about it. New universe, so things can be different. There doesn’t have to be any continuity or progression.
But there’s still the question of existence and non-existence. Either Amy didn’t exist and then she did (and still does) or her parents did exist but then didn’t (and now do). And the Doctor knows Amy is impossible. He knows her life doesn’t make sense and that’s why he wanted to travel with her. But I wonder, is he trying to figure out why Amy doesn’t make sense? Or is he content with the nonsense (and should we be too)?
No comments:
Post a Comment