In the plot section of your blog, you listed a long list of setups and payoffs. But, how does a normal screenwriter who aren't geniuses like Bob Gale, actually come up with a scene that smoothly without it looking like a bunch of forced setups thrown in? Back to the Future is seamless and inventive. It seems simple, but is not... the writers just made it look simple, which is a trick unto itself. The mastery of the craft really shows when all these setups and payoffs start rounding to the scenes with his parents in 1955.

I would offer that Marty is both mentor and trickster in George's life. Borrowing from TVTropes.org, one description of the Trickster is: "...a character who plays tricks or otherwise disobeys normal rules and conventional behavior. The Trickster openly questions and mocks authority, encourages impulse and enthusiasm, seeks out new ideas and experiences, destroys convention and complacency, and promotes chaos and unrest." Marty fulfills many of these qualities as he tries to help reset the relationship between George and Lorraine. In George's life, "conventional behavior" and "normal rules" are defined by the authority figure, who is Biff Tannen. Marty constantly challenges, mocks, and frustrates Biff in his efforts to control George and brings nothing but chaos to Biff's existence. Case in point: the skateboard chase sequence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZJ7cq6T3v4 Marty impulsively trips Biff, pulls the same "look there!" trick on Biff that he had earlier done to George, decks Biff, then runs away drawing Biff and his gang away from George. Marty converts a skate scooter into a skateboard, performs various modern-day board tricks anachronistically as he tries to get away, and comes out the winner when he causes Biff and crew to crash into the manure truck, leaving them humiliated, thus flouting authority. At the hop, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1i5coU-0_Q he rewrites history when he fills in on the guitar to make sure George and Lorraine have the all-important dance. Again, he flouts convention (as previously sung by the lead vocalist) by performing a Chuck Berry song that would eventually lead to the birth of...Chuck Berry! But, he can't resist his own roots, and enthusiastically breaks into hard rock/heavy metal-style guitar work that leaves the audience stunned ("but your kids are gonna love it").

Great question, Eric. I'll take that on as a Reader Question so I can dig into it.

Interesting, Will. Two things. First, any character can wear the 'mask' of any archetype (function) in any scene. So while Marty may be a Mentor to George, he can don a trickster 'mask' (as well as Nemesis, Attractor, etc). Secondly, I find if you ask yourself this question -- What is the bottom line narrative function of this character in relation to that character -- you will invariably determine their associated archetype. And to me, Marty's bottom line function is to mentor George so that George ends up with Lorraine. I would say that in relation to Biff, Marty functions as a Trickster (that's looking at the story through Biff's eyes as a protagonist). But Marty's actions trickstering Biff are all in service to help George 'defeat' Biff and 'win' Lorraine. And in that regard -- IMHO -- he functions as George's Mentor. That Chuck Berry moment is awesome. And THAT is Marty being a trickster for no reason other than an expression of his passion for music. Such a great movie!

Thanks Scott, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. What I noticed about watching the movie at a live theater was how each scene evoked emotion in the audience... From the opening frame, you could tell that writers had the audience in the palm of their hands...

I do have a question about the plot... the writers chose to keep this all entirely in Marty's point of view. In some films, you see them jump from scene to scene showing different people....but even when he's mentoring his father, it's still Marty's action that needs to be accomplished as the primary thrust. Should writers keep it simple and just focus on one point of view throughout? I know some films have switched around, but I haven't seen a lot work out well.

Eric, you write what your story demands. That said, the line of least resistance in Hollywood is a single Protagonist story with a buddy setup a rather distant second. And most often, the single Protagonist movie is going to have a pretty restricted perspective as to shifting points of narrative attack. Why that's the case, not sure. As you suggest, it's simpler. Perhaps the thinking is that makes it easier to appeal to a wider audience, only one central character to focus on. But the single protagonist positive transformation arc is the staple of mainstream commercial Hollywood movies.

I did notice that producers/managers and readers usually encourage you to simplify and stick to one protagonist or the two-hander as you say....but do not like anything too complicated unless it's Hitchcock or Tarantino...