Speakeasy arsonist predictions.

edited February 2011 in Back to the Future
I have a feeling that marty, or new Doc, is the arsonist.

The arsonist attempt on the new speak easy is a bit too coincidental. Why does it happen at the most opportune moment?

If it is the new Doc, then it explains why the arsonist never got caught. However, if it is Marty, then it explains the eeiry coincidences (getting the timeline on track).

Comments

  • Have you played episode 2 yet? Because the answer is revealed.
  • edited February 2011
    Have you played episode 2 yet? Because the answer is revealed.

    I don't think it really was her.
    She never hints that she did it.
    Remember, Doc was suspected in the same fashion as Edna...wrong place at the wrong time.
  • yeah i thought about that after writing that and agree with you. Every time it gets brought up (in 1986 and 1931), Edna does not exhibit any suspicious behaviour when discussing the speakeasy burning. Kid does seem to be a 'shoot first, ask questions later' individual.
  • edited February 2011
    I still agree with this theory, we haven't met anyone in 1931 yet (besides Edna) who would want to burn down the speakeasy. The only one with questionable motives is Doc, because he still hasn't revealed why he came to 1931.
  • edited February 2011
    When you're told about the arsonist and ask if it was Doc, the gangster then suspects that you're not really from Sacramento. He also drops hints that you, assuming you were from Sacramento, would be able to help him with the arsonist -- asking you to "defuse" the situation for him.

    That makes it sound as if the arson is an inside job.
  • edited February 2011
    Edna doesn't drop hints? I thought her "It's surprising the lengths someone will go to when it's a clear cut case of right and wrong" line was pretty "hint"-heavy. Not to mention the way Einstein acts around her. I don't believe for a moment that she's completely innocent in it. And I don't believe that Marty is the one who has to do it either. And no, Doc actually admits that he wasn't very forthcoming about his trip to 1931, but would tell Marty the full reason later. I don't know if we'll find out that reason or not, considering that that Doc is currently erased from the timeline.
  • edited February 2011
    I think it was Artie McFly. To save Trixie? I dunno, it was so clear in my mind at the time...
  • edited February 2011
    Cueball.
  • edited February 2011
    Future Marty.
  • edited February 2011
    Am I the only one thinking that it'll probably turn out to be a complete accident that happened as the result of some puzzle?
  • edited February 2011
    I think we can guess 'till the ehd of times or at least 'til release of the final part. Without a reason I think it might be Edna. She has the most reasons for doing this. But Artie feet it too.

    Funny, but I have just realized how epic this game - and every event has explanation and its consequences, and i feel like... WOW!
  • edited February 2011
    zounds! wrote: »
    I still agree with this theory, we haven't met anyone in 1931 yet (besides Edna) who would want to burn down the speakeasy. The only one with questionable motives is Doc, because he still hasn't revealed why he came to 1931.
    Didnt he say he came back to solve the arsonist mystery? One of Hill Valley's Great Unsolved Mysteries
  • edited February 2011
    Edna destroyed the original speakeasy. In the original version of the timeline, she probably succeeded in destroying the soup kitchen speakeasy too (as chronicled in the old newspapers). In the newest version of the timeline, however, the second fire's culprit was changed.
  • fxkfxk
    edited February 2011
    I suspect Judge Brown. Obsessive law-and-order types always have vigilante alter-egos.
  • edited February 2011
    I put my bet on Marty. Eventually he will need to come back and burn the speakeasy.

    Fun :D
  • edited February 2011
    It was probably Einstein.
  • edited February 2011
    My money's on Edna. She has had lines like "It's surprising the lengths someone will go to when it's a clear cut case of right and wrong". She seemed exceptionally concerned with praising Carl Sagan's actions. It's likely that Sonny Crocket's (or whatever it is Marty's named in your game) talk about Officer Parker's return to the force inspired her to take action that she had never considered in the original timeline, as far as the Soup Kitchen Speakeasy is concerned.
    It would expalin Einstein's behavior around her. Doc makes a point of saying that he never attacks without reason. I'm guessing Doc had Einstein with him when the first speakeasy blew up and that stray brick hit Doc, Einstein saw Edna do it, he attacked her and got her shoe, then waited in the DeLorean until it retreival mechanism sent it to 1986.

    The only thing that gives me any suspicion of Artie is George's line in episode 1 about wishing his father knew that you have to go out on a limb for the ones you love. That may come back around with the reveal that Artie was secretly destroying Kid's speakeasy in Trixie's honor. That would explain why the arsonist suddenly struck once Trixie was intimidated into destroying her evidence against Kid.

    As far as Doc's concerned, I thought Doc said he was there as part of his adventure so he could reveal a few of Hill Valleys mysteries and to pick up some books for Clara. I'm not expecting a big reveal about Doc's activities in 1931 before Marty showed up. But I've been wrong before...
  • edited February 2011
    R.I.P-Bill wrote: »
    As far as Doc's concerned, I thought Doc said he was there as part of his adventure so he could reveal a few of Hill Valleys mysteries and to pick up some books for Clara. I'm not expecting a big reveal about Doc's activities in 1931 before Marty showed up. But I've been wrong before...

    Actually, if you talk to Doc at the flophouse, Marty points out that he never really got a straight answer about Doc's reasons for visiting 1931. Doc's reply: "It's personal. After this is over, I promise I'll tell you all about it."
Sign in to comment in this discussion.