In Back to the Future, Marty should have been the first to disappear from the photo, not the last. He was the youngest and furthest from the disruptive rippling event.
In Back to the Future, Marty should have been the first to disappear from the photo, not the last. He was the youngest and furthest from the disruptive rippling event.
Comments
[deleted]
/u/Sigma35361 has flaired this post as a speculation.
Speculations should prompt people to consider interesting premises that cannot be reliably verified or falsified.
If this post is poorly written, unoriginal, or rule-breaking, please report it.
Otherwise, please add your comment to the discussion!
^^This ^^is ^^an ^^automated ^^system.
^^If ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^questions, ^^please ^^use ^^this ^^link ^^to ^^message ^^the ^^moderators.
I disagree. In a timeline the oldest would go first because there would still be a chance (more time) for the parents to come together to make Marty even if they didn’t have their 1st or 2nd child.
When you drop a rock in the water, where does the ripple start, where is the ripple the biggest, what water is affected first? The water closest to the the ripple or the water further away?
The idea is that the change to the timeline starts at where there was the disruption and moves forward at the Speed of Plot until the future is completely changed.
How, why, and other questions should not be considered too deeply. I love BTTF but the time travel logic falls apart immediately once you start thinking about it.
Being the youngest in age doesn’t determine who disappears first—the order is set by how dependent each person’s existence is on the timeline event in question, and how close the event is to failing completely. Marty, as both the agent of change and the most essential link to the film’s resolution, must logically be the last to go.