Talk:Emmett Brown

change the photo

the image is ridicullusly grainy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.196.153 (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This character is terrific and I rather enjoy the things eluded to in the movie instead of everything being expositioned on him.

First it is clear that Emmett Brown replaces the father figure in Marty's life that George Mcfly fails to be. Good father, Bad father. And as mentioned and obvious by how close Marty and he are, and how well each character works together, anticipating each others next move, like all best-freinds do. What also one can imagine is that, there is nothing so extraodinary about however it is that they met for the first time ever. That too I am glad was never expositioned, no need for it, as it could be something as simply imagined say, that Marty could have been simply at first been a local paperboy and happen to get to know Emmett Brown little after little each afternoon, or even something simpler as Emmett needed a hand with something one day and, right place and time for Marty. A fatherly figure without a son and a son without nurturing dad. All one needs to understand is their closeness.

Other things that one can figure out is, when the camera is panning across a wall in Emmett's home, an article never mentioned but, the keen eye will notice the headline refers to Brown Estate burning down. It is my belief that he set this fire himself to attain the some funds for his the time machine from the insurance he'd naturally gain from the 'incident'. He is a bit of a rogue so, I wouldn't put this idea passed this character. There are other things I belive that also are clues to what isn't explained verbaly.

~BLD

I think the easiest explanation on why a mad scientist would befriend a teenager is that the Doc already knows he MUST be Marty's bud. Remember, he had the letter Marty gave him in 1955.

Not at the start of the film- that 1985 hadn't been affected by anything Marty was about to do in the past, hence the Twin Pines, his family being losers, etc.

Marty's Vision of Clara

Marty not only saw Clara as a distraction, but was worried they had terribly altered history by saving her (she was supposed to fall of the cliff, which in the future [1985] the cliff had been named for her). Should this be added? --Wack'd About Wiki 16:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, actually it was Doc who was paranoid over saving Clara. Marty was like, "So they don't name the ravine after her, so what?" Glickmam 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

An Age-old Problem in Doc's Youth

When I saw the movie, Doc looked 65 when he was in 1985, and when Marty went to 1955 to save his family, Doc looked the same way in 1955. He is still an old man even in his 30's!! How come Doc didn't look younger like he should be?! No one should look like an old man in his or her 30's! He should have colored hair, less wrinkles, and a new voice! What's the deal here??!! --Seishirou Sakurazuka 06:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• In 1955, he has blonde hair. In 1985 he is bald and his remaining hair is white. Pictureuploader 00:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also note how his facial skin looks a lot wrinklier in 1985. The beginning of Part II makes direkt mention to that in that Doc had to wear makeup to even just be recognized by Marty and Jennifer as their 1985 Doc after he's had rejuvenation therapies in 2015. --2003:56:6D1B:C637:CDDC:5985:4AE8:58BC (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought Doc Brown's agelessness was part of the joke. Even Marty does a double take in one of the movies when he notices Doc Brown had never changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.240.26.163 (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

You're thinking of Mr Strickland who was already bald in 1955 and essentially the same in both eras (though by 1985 he'd lost even the hair at the sides of his head).

Doc's rejuventation was presumably to either save Christopher Lloyd having to be heavily made up for almost the whole of both sequels - most characters were cast on the basis of the 1955 ages but this became a problem when the 1985 version was going to be heavily onscreen - and/or to make him look a little closer in age to Clara. The latex make-up was just because his scenes at the end of the first film had already shown him aged so he had to start the second looking that way. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Doc's Birth Year?

When was this canonically established in the movies? The only clue I've seen is in the animated series, which places his birth year in 1922 (as it said that Doc was 4 in 1926 when he became "Daredevil Brown") (EmiOfBrie 01:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

• I believe that information came from the novel. 75.128.197.65 06:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Doc's Picture

Could they have put a worse picture of Doc on this page?

I agree, you used the picture of him right after he got shot with a bullet-proof vest on, which obviously doesn't look like Doc as much. Just look at more common pictures of Doc.

• I've captioned two pictures I believe to be better. Feel free to revert if not satisfied. Lucius Hofmann 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Move

Doctor Emmett Brown → Emmett Brown … Rationale: Usually, a person's title is not in the page's title. Sure, he is a doctor, but how many other pages are like this? -Platypus Man | Talk 04:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Emmett Brown redirects here, so why not just move it? TJ Spyke 06:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. If the target page is a redirect, it requires intervention of an Admin so that the histories etc do not get garfed up (as I understand the process). --SigPig 07:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• it's a fictional character... so it's not a "person". Consequently, a fictional character's title is frequently part of the article title... King Arthur, Captain America, etc. As for this particular rename... Support 132.205.44.134 04:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• I moved the page. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fictional United States Democrat?

Where is it ever mentioned that Doc is a Democrat? marbeh raglaim 16:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly...if anything, I would have pegged him as Libertarian, if he'd have any party affiliation at all.

...or an anarchist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.115.112 (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Gigawatt

No mention anywhere of his misuse of the word "gigawatt"?

How Doc met Marty

This paragraph "Doc presumably remembered, but kept this memory secret from the "new" Marty of the positively altered timeline until the "original" Marty returned to the altered 1985." is pure speculation. Before the first jump the events were as though Marty had never been in 1955 so this discounts the idea that the Doc knew Marty before he was born in the first time-line (If you consider there are two in part 1 pre-jump and post-jump). This is a matter for interpretation though so I'll leave it open for discussion but the article shouldn't be used to propose ideas. Dnel (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Docs misunderstanding of figure-of-speach

In the paragraph "He is also known for his inability to understand a figure-of-speech, a notable example is when Marty tells him that the situation sounds "heavy" (meaning that it sounds difficult)", the only time Doc misunderstood the word "heavy" is in 1955 which suggests more his misunderstanding of 1985 colloquialisms not his misunderstanding of figures-of-speech, the 1985 Doc had no difficulty understanding Marty using this term, so I will remove this paragraph as I believe it is in error.Dnel (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats weird?

You know whats strange about the universal flordia promo?I just sawa guy that looked like Marty Mcfly in the scene where Doc 1st arrives in the future (which is now the past)-unamed 02:33 October 25,2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.180.245 (talk)

Standard Procedure?

Time traveler?: Yes Brando26000 (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Spin City

Christopher Lloyd appeared with Michael J. Fox on an episode of Spin City, where they hinted at their Doc Brown/Marty McFly relationship. Perhaps that should be mentioned in this article.

Back to the Future Video Slots

Chris Lloyd also recorded new scenes for a slot machine, especially notable as they were written and directed by Bob Gale. I don't know what actually happens in the scenes or if they even have any storyline elements but maybe someone else does.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.192.93 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.16.160.178 (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No BTTF The Game [by Telltale Games] information?!

It should count because despite being in a different media, uses Christopher Lloyd for Doc and Bob Gale in the team for the game! Only lacks Fox due to his poor health and Zemeckis due to film commitments. (The plot also continues six months after BTTF 3 in 1986!)

The trailers give SOME of the story away, gamers keep your eyes out after the 22nd December 2010 when the game releases to add to the section!

Story points in the trailer:

• Marty will end up in 1914.
• Marty will meet a young Doc his age (17).
• Old Doc will be trapped in jail for some unknown reason.

Sam Timmins (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Emmett was born on November 15, 1924 to Mr. Brown and Sarah Lathrop". According to this, it means that Doc is 61 in 1985. He didn't look like a 61 years old guy? In fact, Lloyd was 46 at that time; a 15 years difference! That's why I believe that any information not coming from the movies is junk. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Birth Name

If Doc was indeed born in 1914 as the article suggests (although it seems some sources place his birth in the 1920's), his birth name would have been Emmett Von Braun, since as Doc notes in BTTF3, the family name was changed to Brown because of World War I. The US entered WWI in 1917, when Emmett would have been 3 years of age. --JamesReyes (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. bd2412 T 15:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Emmett Brown → ? – "Doctor" is out of option, so let's not use that. Many sources call him "Doc Emmett Brown" and/or 'Emmett "Doc" Brown'. He is nicknamed "Doc" and sometimes called "Emmett", but we can't dump one for the other. But sources don't agree in dumping "Doc" in 2006 discussion, which had just three supports. I'm in favor of using "Doc Emmett Brown", but I can't force you to choose either one. Let's add back "Doc", and using quote marks may be an exception per WP:TITLEFORMAT. George Ho (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose: I fail to see why it should be part of the article's title. I believe a redirect is enough and adequate. -- Lyverbe (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Great Scott, yes! A redirect would take care of it, and problem solved. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to "Doc Emmett Brown" - as this is his credit in the cast list. Obviously then the redirect would be "Emmett Brown" to "Doc Emmett Brown" Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Fortdj33
• Oppose - No compelling reason given to change a long-standing, unambiguous title. oknazevad (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support move to Emmett "Doc" Brown, as with John "Hannibal" Smith. "Doc" is the character's nickname and is used liberally throughout the 3 films. WP:COMMONNAME? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support a move which introduces "Doc," the most recognizable name for the character, with a preference against a nickname in quotation marks. Doc Emmett Brown would work fine; Doc Brown (Back to the Future) would be fine, though not WP:NATURAL. --BDD (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There is Doc Brown, you know. George Ho (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It occurred to me, but that currently redirects to the dab Dr Brown, so it would involve a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claim that doesn't seem likely to succeed. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support move to Emmett "Doc" Brown to reflect most common usage. bd2412 T 20:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: I was under the impression that quotation marks are a major no-no in article titles pbp 15:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

My point of view is that "Emmett Brown" is fine and there's no need to add "Doc" to it. There is no "Doc" next to Gregory House, Beverly Crusher or Leonard McCoy even though they're all doctors. It's like asking to add "Sir" next to Paul McCartney or Elton John. These are titles that are not part of their name. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Lyverbe, there are no specific rules about fictional characters. Your examples are real people, who apply to WP:NCP. This character doesn't apply because he is not a real person. WP:COMMONNAMES tells use to use a commonly-used named, so we must use it. While we respect the naming of House, McCoy, and Beverly Crusher, "Emmett Brown" (exactly) is rarely, seldom, or never used by non-primary sources. Per WP:CRITERIA, this character is recognizable as "Doc". And we have Coach Ernie Pantusso, whose proposed names were rejected. George Ho (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Question: How is he listed in the film credits? I have them on DVD downstairs, but don't recall what it says. I would be inclined to go with whatever that says. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

A name doesn't have to come from official sources, does it? Why not use books and newspapers? George Ho (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You're saying unofficial sources override official sources? The DVD reads "Doc Emmett Brown", but that doesn't change my opinion. His name on his birth certificate is still "Emmett Brown" and I still don't agree that "Doc", "Doctor", "Scientist", etc. should be added. Are there other Wikipedia articles where a title is added to the name of a character? -- Lyverbe (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said, Coach Ernie Pantusso. But if not enough, two Doctor Clayton Forresters would do. Howling Mad Murdock, John "Hannibal" Smith might suffice, but they mix nicknames and real surnames/names. Doctor Who (character) and Krusty the Klown won't apply because they're nicknames. George Ho (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

There are also Sergeant Benton, Reverend Lovejoy, Reverend Harry Powell, novel characters named "Colonel", real-life Colonel Tom Parker, etc. Use "intitle:" and type in any character's title. George Ho (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Well then, my suggestion would be "Doc Emmett Brown", based on the cast listing as identified above. Chaheel Riens (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You can say "support" in Survey section, Chaheel Riens. George Ho (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Frasier Crane has no "Doctor" before it and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people) says "titles such as "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor" etc. are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles". Also, the 2006 discussion to remove "Doc" didn't have a single objection and everyone has been happy with this for more than 7 years! I can find lots of places that support my opinion like you can find lots of places that support yours. You and I won't agree on this so lets see what the others think. -- Lyverbe (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Lyverbe, you overlooked the passage from WP:Naming conventions (people): "This guideline also does not apply to fictional characters." Doc Emmett Brown is not a real person, but a fictional character. (You can add this page to watchlist, so I don't have to ping you.) George Ho (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Lyverbe, there is Marshal Matt Dillon, disambiguated from the real actor Matt Dillon. People familiarize the character as "Doc" Emmett Brown rather than just "Emmett Brown". Those in 2006 discussion did not consider the rules and sources back then. George Ho (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I see it as an issue of disambiguation. The Matt Dillon example just goes to show that "Doc" is not necessary in this case. The only reason to add it, would be to disambiguate this article from another Emmett Brown article. Since there is no other Emmett Brown article on Wikipedia, the extra disambiguation is unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take it as "oppose" then? George Ho (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comparisons to Leonard McCoy, Frasier Crane and Elton John are totally invalid. McCoy and Crane are not nicknamed "Doc" and Elton John is not nicknamed "Sir". Let's concentrate on the fact. "Doc" is the character's nickname are is used to refer to him more frequently than hia real name, Emmett. Consequently, a title change (per WP:COMMONNAME is a reasonable suggestion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89, will you support Doc Emmett Brown then (without quotes)? George Ho (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1888?

The infobox mentions 1888 as one of the years Doc has canonically visited. The year doesn't appear anywhere else in the article, and since many years were visited in the cartoon series that go unmentioned in the infobox, then where does that information come from? I suppose it's from a novelization or background information by Gale & Zemeckis about what year Doc calls home by the time he's built the hovertrain and goes to pay Marty a last visit in 1985 (though I doubt that he pretty much reverse-engineered both time travel and hovercraft technology with 1880s frontier-town resources within but three years, so I guess that Doc has lived his 30 extra years he's been given by rejuvenation therapies in 2015 and it's now 1915 for him, rather). In any case, it should be noted what source material that information comes from. --2003:56:6D1B:C671:A1D7:27D:834F:358D (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I don't know where that year comes from either. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW

I saw that the words are written on this article:

"Marty convinces the 1955 Doc that he has returned by showing him the letter he received from the 1885 Doc. Doc describes where the disabled DeLorean is hidden, and instructs Marty to return directly to 1985, to avoid "unnecessary time travel". However, the accidental discovery of the 1885 Doc's tombstone reveals that Doc was shot days after he wrote the letter, which convinces Marty and the 1955 Doc that Marty must attempt to rescue him."

The 1955 Doc didn't go to 1885 with Marty using the DeLorean time machine, Is this untrue? pbp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.191.185.252 (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Major clean up

This article is getting ridiculous. I would remove

• Events from Back to the Future series: Summary of what is already said in other articles.
• In other media: Bunch of useless trivia junk.

Yes, you guessed it, only the header and "Character background" sections would remain. This article should be a biography of the character and not much more. See Marty McFly's article as a reference.

Objections? -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No objections made in more than a week. It's done.

• Remove trivia stuff
• Change "Character background" section to "Biography"
• Make "Biography" section look like a biography (ie. remove parts such as "He told Marty in BTTF part II that...")
• Remove statements without references
• Remove original research

Lyverbe (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Great Scott!

“He initially thought Doc Brown would use the phrase ‘Great Caesar's Ghost!’ because it was from a Superman television series they had grown up watching. The phrase ‘Great Scott!’ was spoken by another character that he could not remember.”

That character was Superman himself. It was his catch phrase. Gale was trying to be funny when he said he couldn’t remember. WaxTadpole (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)