Wouldn't it have been easier to simply go back a week and warn Austin's dad that Goldmember was going to come and kidnap him BEFORE Goldmember could?
And wouldn't it have been cool if the 1975 version of Austin's dad could have teamed up with the 2002 version of Austin to rescue the 2002 version of Nigel?
Or would that make the audience's heads explode?
If they only went back a week to warn the dad then they wouldn't of needed the 70's pimp car, and all the 70's references and jokes.
Come visit my blackrosecastle.com
stephentheblackroseenterprises.com
Well, they didn't really do much with the 70s gags. Most of that segment was in Goldmember's roller disco, which could just as easily have been set in 2002.
I assumed the time travel business was to allow Michael Caine to play a younger version of himself rather than his true age.
[deleted]
In case you didn't notice, the controls on the pimpmobile only had 4 digits for the year. They could not specify days or hours like "Back to the Future." It's not an exact science.
They went back top get the blaxploitation vibe.
It's that man again!!
even though these films deliberately avoid making rules for time travel, the fact that only a year entry is allowed does actually make sense.
Films such as back to the future which have travels through time but not space (meaning the time traveler ends up in the same spot on earth but in a different time) do kind of overlook one scientific principle; the earth rotates. So the time traveler should actually appear in a different spot on earth for this reason.
Now a way around this is if the traveler travels to the same day but different year when the earth would be in the same rotational spot. Dates aren't discussed but it's likely whatever the day in 2002 austin left was the same in 1975 which he appeared.
the time travel was mostly pointless. The nigel powers who was kidnapped seemed to have been from 2002 (if they kidnapped the 1975 version then why wasn't he missing for 27 years?) The only other rationale was to introduce foxy as a former love interest for Austin but even that wasn't critical.
"Films such as back to the future which have travels through time but not space (meaning the time traveler ends up in the same spot on earth but in a different time) do kind of overlook one scientific principle; the earth rotates. "
So much wrong here... can I even unpack it all? Let's see.
1) Films can't 'overlook' things, as they're not living beings or entities. 'The makers of a movie' might be a better and more truthful term.
2) "Back To The Future" is a name, and should be capitalized. I will excuse not capitalizing the 'to' and the 'the'.
3) Earth rotating is not a 'principle', and it has nothing to do with science. Earth rotated long before your precious 'science' even existed. Why bring 'science' into everything, as if it's some kind of religion or fact, when even scientists don't agree with each other about almost anything that's not firmly established (and sometimes not even those things)? 'Fact' doesn't become 'scientific principle' (not that science should even have any 'principles', because it's supposedly based on empiric research - although we all know that's not really true if the empiric evidence proves something the academy is not willing to admit to be true, like 'intelligent design', but that's a debate for another time.. not that I am a master debater.
4) Even disregarding everything I said above, let's say we're talking about someone 'overlooking' the FACT that Earth rotates (not only that, but it also MOVES very fast in space all the time, which, I think, is _WAY_ more important than your 'scientific principle' of rotation), how can you know this?
In fact, evidence (which is what science is supposed to respect) points to a completely opposite situation. People DID take that into account - the time machine -obviously- follows the 'Earth path' in space, because that's what 'Earth time' does, too. So the timeline moves together with Earth, so when you travel along this timeline, you always end up at a correct spot.
There are so many other ways all this can be explained as well, so how do you really KNOW (do you have scientific, empiric-experiment-based-result-type PROOF to back up your arbitrary claim)?
Maybe Doc took everything into account and made the DeLorean's computers capable of making the necessary adjustments when traveling along the timeline, so it always ends up right at the ground level.
Of course it'd be difficult to believe the accuracy would be so good that it would take into account every single bit of dust, sand and grass blade, the elevation for 1955 is different for the parking lot, and yet the DeLorean barely feels a bump when entering 1955, so somehow the time machine is able to 'stick to the ground exactly' and not go through the ground or appear above it.
Still, you have presented no proof even on idea level that anyone 'overlooked' anything. The fact that we actually see the opposite - the DeLorean appears exactly on Earth at every time point it enters/arrives in, so .. where's the 'overlooking'? To me, this is proof that nothing like that was overlooked at all.