There is an old monastic line that the enemy lives in the past and the future and God only in the present, and the DeLorean is a fairly literal way of building a house in the two places you are told not to live. The car ending up in pieces on the track reads to me as the film quietly agreeing.
🎬 Back to the Future Part III — The Future Is Still Unwritten
Thought
Thought
There is an old monastic line that the enemy lives in the past and the future and God only in the present, and the DeLorean is a fairly literal way of building a house in the two places you are told not to live. The car ending up in pieces on the track re
Post content
If Back to the Future Part II turns time into an increasingly complicated puzzle, I like to think of Part III as a film trying to do exactly the opposite: simplify everything again. After 1985, 2015, an alternate 1985 and another visit to 1955, adding more paradoxes could easily have become nothing but noise. So Zemeckis and Gale make an apparently strange decision and send the story into a western, all the way back to 1885.
The genre change is not merely a joke. If Capra and Billy Wilder were important references for the first movie, the third has a much clearer relationship with the classical American western and especially with the kind of cinema associated with John Ford. The film is not simply dressing Back to the Future in cowboy clothes. It is entering a genre built around movement, territory, community and the idea of a future that has not yet been built.
That makes Hill Valley especially important. We first knew the town in 1985, then saw it in 1955, later its future and even a corrupted version of its present. Now we see a place that is still being created. The town that functioned for two movies as a stage for time becomes almost a place of origin. There are empty spaces, unfinished structures and things that do not exist yet. After two films spent looking at what happened and what might happen, the third begins to understand that what does not exist yet can still be built.
Going West also does something very interesting to Doc. Throughout the saga, Doc Brown has been the man trying to understand time. He measures it, calculates it, builds machines to cross it, warns about the consequences of changing it and is constantly thinking about what could happen next. Even when he is physically present, part of his mind always seems to be somewhere else.
The third film gives him something completely different: the possibility of staying.
That is where the love story becomes meaningful. It is not simply a matter of suddenly turning Doc into a romantic protagonist. For the first time, something appears that can compete with his scientific obsession. Doc has always treated time as a problem to understand, something to study, measure and manipulate. Now he begins to discover that time can also be a place in which to live.
I find that beautiful for the character. The scientist who invented a machine capable of escaping any era finally finds something that makes him wonder whether he actually wants to leave. After spending his life obsessed with where he could go, he begins to ask a much more human question: where does he want to stay?
At the same time, Marty’s unfinished transformation finally comes into focus. In the first movie, Marty works almost like a classical adventure hero who changes the people around him. His inability to tolerate being called “chicken” was developed more strongly in the sequels to give him a conflict of his own. Here, that idea finally finds its purpose.
Throughout the first movie, Marty tried to teach George to confront the things he was afraid of. George needed to stop running, stand his ground, punch Biff and discover that he could defend what mattered to him. Marty, on the other hand, needs to learn almost the opposite lesson: not every provocation deserves an answer.
I love that because the two lessons appear contradictory but are actually about the same thing. George had to stop acting from fear. Marty has to stop acting from pride. George needed to discover that he could confront someone; Marty needs to discover that he can choose not to. There is a difference between running away because you are afraid and walking away because you have nothing to prove.
That ultimately becomes, for me, the real arc of the trilogy. In the first movie, Marty travels into the past to change his father’s life. In the last one, he has to learn to change his own, and he no longer needs a time machine to do it.
That is one of the ideas I love most about Part III. The entire saga has been built around the fantasy of going back and correcting things. What if I could change what happened? What if I could prevent that mistake? What if I could know what will happen to me thirty years from now? But eventually that fantasy can become a trap too, because there would always be something else to fix: another decision, another regret, another possibility, another timeline where maybe things turned out better.
If we could always go back, we might never fully accept our own lives.
That is why the destruction of the DeLorean means so much more to me than simply losing one of the most iconic objects in popular cinema. After three films spent protecting it, repairing it, powering it and getting it to 88 miles per hour, a train finally destroys it.
And it is perfect that a train does it.
The DeLorean is a machine designed to escape the normal direction of time. It can go backward, forward, skip decades and allow its passengers to reconsider what has already happened. A train, on the other hand, simply moves along its track. It has a direction and keeps going. The film almost places two different ways of relating to time against each other: one machine built to constantly escape it and another built simply to move forward.
And the second one wins.
There is something philosophically liberating about that. Marty can no longer go back. He cannot jump ahead thirty years to check what happened or return five minutes to correct a mistake. He has to live with time in the same way everyone else does.
He has to move forward.
And that is where everything the saga built around his pride finally matters, because the truly decisive moment does not happen in 1885. It happens when he returns to 1985.
Needles provokes him again. The old Marty would have accelerated. He would have needed to prove that he was not a coward. This Marty does not. He refuses to play the game, and then he watches the Rolls-Royce pass in front of him. In that instant, he understands that everything we saw in the second film as an apparently fixed future — the accident, his problems, the life that followed — was never inevitable.
It depended on a decision he had not made yet.
For me, that changes the meaning of the entire trilogy. For three films we thought Marty needed a time machine to change his future. In the end, he discovers that all he needed was to make a different decision in the present.
Maybe that is the most mature conclusion the trilogy could possibly have. The past has already happened and the future has not. The only moment in which we can truly act is this one. We spend so much of our lives obsessed with the other two: with what we did and can no longer change, or with what has not happened yet and we desperately want to control.
But life always happens somewhere much less spectacular:
now.
That is why the three movies end up speaking to each other in a way I love. The first tells us that a decision made in the past can cross decades and transform who we become. The second shows the danger of trying to use the future to control the present. The third finally accepts that the future is not something we need to know.
It is something we need to build.
That also makes the western setting much more meaningful. The classical western was always obsessed with characters entering territories that had not yet been fully defined, places where communities and identities were still being constructed. After spending an entire trilogy traveling through a history that often seems already written, Marty and Doc end up inside a genre whose very essence is moving toward something that does not exist yet.
Zemeckis does not abandon what made the earlier films work. There is still physical comedy, a mechanical problem, an impossible plan, the need to reach a certain speed and a succession of obstacles where every solution creates another problem. But now all of that has a different texture. In the first film, we needed lightning. Here, we need a train. Futuristic technology ends up depending on a machine from the nineteenth century.
There is something wonderfully Back to the Future about that. To return to the future from the most distant past in the trilogy, the solution cannot become more futuristic. It has to become more primitive. The saga always understood that the pleasure was never really in scientifically explaining time travel. It was in turning the impossible into a physical problem the characters could solve in front of us.
That is where Zemeckis returns as a director of action and comedy. Space, bodies, speed, objects and timing remain fundamental. The era changes, but the logic of the staging does not. The film can be set in 1885 and still feel completely connected to everything that came before.
That is also why I like thinking of Parts II and III as one enormous continuation. Part II opens so many possibilities that it almost necessarily needs another movie to close them. The third is therefore simpler because it does not need to keep opening doors.
It needs to close them.
And closing a trilogy about time travel means making a fairly radical decision:
stop traveling.
That is why the DeLorean has to disappear. As long as it exists, temptation exists. There is always another date to enter on the dashboard, another opportunity to repair something that hurts, another version of life we could try to reach. But growing up can also mean accepting that not everything needs a second chance.
Some things simply have to become the past.
And then Doc appears one last time. The trilogy still allows us to say goodbye to him, but no longer to launch another mission we need to see. He returns with the idea that finally puts everything the three films have been saying into perspective:
the future is not written.
I think that is perfect. After all those dates, disappearing photographs, changing newspapers, almanacs, tombstones and clocks, the conclusion is that no image of the future should ever become a sentence. What we saw can change. What we fear may never happen. What we want is not guaranteed either.
The future remains open.
That is why I love that, after a second movie that practically ends by announcing the next chapter, the third finally gives us something much simpler:
The End.
And all these years later, it is still really the end.
I think that is a beautiful decision for a trilogy built around characters who cannot stop going back, because Back to the Future ultimately understands something that might be even harder than traveling through time:
knowing when not to return.
If the first movie was about traveling into the past to understand the present, the third completes the idea from the opposite direction: we do not need to know our future in order to have one. We need to accept that it has not been written yet — and have the courage to live it.
Thoughts
-
There is an old monastic line that the enemy lives in the past and the future and God only in the present, and the DeLorean is a fairly literal way of building a house in the two places you are told not to live. The car ending up in pieces on the track reads to me as the film quietly agreeing.
-
Yeah, the Needles scene is the one I point people to when they call Part III filler. A man gets offered a fight and drives home.
-
The western reading works for me for a reason you almost say out loud: 1885 Hill Valley is raising the clock tower, the same clock the whole trilogy keeps circling back to, and the town is still deciding what it is. Every era we saw before came already furnished, so Marty could only tamper with it. Here there is nothing to tamper with, only something to found, and the film lets him stand there and watch it get founded.
-
Ok, normal words: time as a place to live instead of a problem to solve. What does Doc actually do differently once that flips, besides get a girlfriend?
-
The Rolls-Royce passing while Marty just sits there makes me think of how the whole trilogy hangs on one guy not pressing a pedal, and I had never noticed it until you laid it out. Thanks for finishing all three! I bet Part II was the hardest one to write, this one reads like it came out in one sitting.
-
The train beating the DeLorean reads to me like the trilogy admitting Part II was a warning and not a promise. Not sure I would defend that after a rewatch, but it is where I landed tonight.
Related posts
-
🎬 Back to the Future — Going Back to the Past to Understand the Present
Back to the Future is my favorite movie of all time . Not only because I think it is an almost perfect adventure, but because it has something very few films manage to achieve: I can watch it over…
-
🎬 Back to the Future Part II — The Future Can Also Become the Past
After a first film that, to me, works almost like a perfect mechanism, Back to the Future Part II had one of the hardest problems any sequel can face: continuing a story that did not really need to…
-
Spielberg Was Never Really Making Movies About Aliens.
Steven Spielberg has spent decades making films about extraterrestrials. I think he’s always been talking about us instead.
-
Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey: The Line Between Intelligence and Hubris
Some stories survive because they were well told. Others survive because, even after thousands of years, we still have not found an answer to the question they first asked. The Odyssey belongs to…
-
Do larger budgets destroy TV shows rather than improve them?
Some of the most expensive fantasy ever put on screen felt emptier than the more limited work that came before it. That is not because viewers secretly prefer cheapness. It is because abundance is a terrible substitute for judgment and good storytelling.
-
Her: Theodore Is an Emotional Vampire
The movie Her has everything going for it. It is beautiful, melancholic, delicate, intelligent, and Joaquin Phoenix plays Theodore magnificently. So magnificently, in fact, that at certain moments,…
-
Does splitting 'hard' and 'soft' skills make people worse at both?
Hard skills are measurable, specific, and teachable abilities or technical knowledge gained through education, training, or experience, which is often directly related to a particular job or industry. Examples include data analysis, programming, graphic design, accounting, dancing, painting… They are usually the core of a profession, particularly the part of it excluding interaction with other people. On the other hand, soft skills are mostly defined as “personal attributes, interpersonal....
-
Does your personality matter far less than you think?
I realize, interacting with students, teenagers and younger co-workers peers that many believe that their personality traits are a leading factor in deciding what do to or how to tackle their own career. Although younger people ask these questions more explicitly, older adults also seem to think along the same lines. I personally find it to be far more irrelevant than most people think. Besides my job, where I observe successful people doing the same role with drastically...
Public
22 conversations
28 thoughts
21 upvotes
0 downvotes
1 series
If Back to the Future Part II turns time into an increasingly complicated puzzle, I like to think of Part III as a film trying to do exactly the opposite: simplify everything again . After 1985,…