Back to the Future, a successful film, but full of paradoxes in time and space

In the panorama of cinema, few epics have dealt with the subject of time travel with the same boldness and resourcefulness as the movie “Back to the Future.” However, behind the charm and ingenuity of the trilogy, some spatial and temporal contradictions hide that challenge the logic and coherence of the narrative. In this article, we will explore some of these contradictions and attempt to shed light on the mysteries surrounding time travel as seen by Robert Zemeckis.

Slowing down time is possible, as Albert Einstein demonstrated, but the core of the Back to the Future trilogy, the incredible time machine, a modified DeLorean DMC-12, capable of conquering barriers of time, is really unlikely. The operation of this machine initially raises several questions about the nature of time travel and its effects.

One of the best-known examples of space-time inconsistency is the so-called “grandfather paradox.” In Back to the Future Part 2, Marty McFly travels to 1955 to prevent his future son from being arrested, but during his mission, he inadvertently alters the events that led to his conception. This raises the question: If Marty dramatically changed events, would he create an alternate timeline instead of directly changing his present? The film seems to suggest both possibilities, creating a kind of temporal ambiguity.

Additionally, the trilogy features a number of moments in which events in the past change, but the effects of these changes are not immediately apparent in the present. For example, when Marty saves his father George’s life in 1955, one might expect an immediate change in the timeline. However, this does not happen until Marty returns to his present, indicating a delay in the effect of the time changes.

Another space-time contradiction concerns the concept of memory and consciousness. In the films, Marty and Dr. Emmett Brown retain their memories despite changes in the timeline. This raises the question of how memory can be immune to temporal changes, and whether this means there is some kind of constancy in the world of the trilogy.

Not to mention the even greater irony of Back to the Future Part III, where Dr. Brown is presumed to have died in 1885, but Marty later receives a letter from him dated 1885. This raises the question: if Dr. Brown had died before he sent the letter, how could For Marty to receive her? It could be argued that the message was sent from an alternate timeline, but this raises further questions about the chronological coherence of the trilogy.

Back to the Future has captivated and continues to captivate millions of viewers, a timeless saga that captured the imagination with its blend of adventure, humour, action and fascination with time travel. However, when we explore the paradoxes of space-time, we realize that time travel is an inexplicable maze of contradiction and uncertainty, where the rules of time may be twisted, but are truly difficult to explain. But perhaps that is precisely its charm: the eternal challenge of trying to understand the incomprehensible.