Talk:Back to the Future

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article This article is a Article.
Article assessment An assessment of this article took place along with other articles about 1980s comedy films during the week starting 6 March 2006.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Back to the Future article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Citations

Everything below the Plot section needs to have the sources cited. As it stand right now there is not way for someone to easily verify the verisimilitude of the article. Carterhawk 05:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the production info were actually taken from the trivia section on the Back to the Future IMDB page. --Steerpike 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been a longstanding skeptic as to how authentic a source IMDb can actually be called... I've seen cases of incorrect cast lists, non-existant films having pages and other sorts of problems... there's also been suggestions of errors or deliberately false stuff being submitted to their trivia sections. Kingpin1055 12:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted a "clean-up" edit that essentially had returned the Synopsis section to the state it was in a month or so ago, complete with factual errors that had since been corrected. (Examples: Marty was supposed to meet Doc at 1:15 AM, and Dixon at the dance was not one of Biff's three gang members.) There had also been other improvements in clarity, paragraph length, etc. that went away. These have now been restored.

[edit] Tree Limb

I was watching the movie a while ago and noticed the tree in the town square was never hit by lighting. The Limb did fall, but it had to be age and/or wind that caused it to fall. --68.109.92.47 21:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

As of now, there is no mention of lightning striking the limb. Hondo 15:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan

"... President Ronald Reagan, who used the movie's title as a catch phrase in his speeches ..."

Did he? I know he referred to the movie in his 1986 State of the Union Address:

"Never has there been a more exciting time to be alive, a time of rousing wonder and heroic achievement. As they said in the film Back to the Future, 'Where we're going, we don't need roads.'" [1]
—wwoods 17:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Considered Role

The article states that Reagan "considered accepting a role in the third film as the 1885 mayor of Hill Valley." I have never heard of this, does anybody have a source?

YES, this is true. on the DVD commentary, it's revealed that reagan was a big fan of the first movie and was offered the role of mayor in the 3rd, but he turned it down

[edit] Please keep this article "Part 1" oriented

Shouldn't most of the info about the trilogy in general be moved to Back to the Future trilogy, so as to keep this page BTTF1 only? --DXI 23:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree. violet/riga (t) 23:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure I do agree to this, because it is a time travel trilogy it is somewhat unique in this case as in a sense the "nexus" point for all the movies is both 1985 and some of 1955. As such there will be moments that cross over in each movie that reference the other movies, and that should be mentioned and not ignored even in talking about the first movie. Ryokosha 19:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sci-Fi or comedy?

Is Back to the Future sci-fi or comedy?- Masterwiki
I've always thought it was a bit of both.--PigManDan 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 50th Fictional Anniversary

Happy 50th fictional anniversary of the invention of time travel! --QQQ (Nov. 5, 2005)

The 50th anniversary of the invention of time travel is scheduled for November 5, 2035. November 5, 2005 is simply the anniversary of the invention of the flux capacitor.

But Doc Brown himself acknowledges the day in 1955 as the day he invented time travel...! Libatius 10:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This is true as Doc Brown's line goes. When quieried by Marty about the significance of November 5th, 1955 Doc Brown's next line was, "It was the day I invented time travel." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metamorphousthe (talk • contribs) 02:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Time travel metaphysics according to BttF

Does anyone else take issue with the whole Marty fading out/boy cutting in on George scene at the dance being a mistake? Surely a key idea from the film is that while certain events are, for want of a better word, 'fated' to happen, (if certain events continue to unfold in the way they are) you still have the power to change your future, by the choices you make. Doc Brown says to Jennifer at the end of Part III that 'of course it's erased!...It means your future hasn't been written yet!' and that takes place after Marty has just avoided the car crash that would have ruined his life - what's important there is that he didn't know that that was the crash from the future, he made the choice not to race because of advice he'd received regarding not getting fired up everyone calls him a chicken. In the same way, I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that George chose to cut back in (and thus save Marty's life once and for all) because he has also changed as a person, based on, in part, the advice he receives from Marty. Both events offer a fork, and each character is given a choice - it's not fated, there are just certain chains of events that are dependent on the decision they make. Hopefully that's not too garbled; if there's no objection I'll erase that 'mistake'. Libatius 10:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

does anyone know wth this means "In the original script, Marty's playing rock and roll at the dance caused a riot which had to be broken up by police. This, combined with Marty accidentally tipping Doc off to the "secret ingredient" that made the time machine work (Coca-Cola) caused history to change. When Marty got back to the 1980s, he found that it was now the 1950s conception of that decade, with air-cars and what-not (all invented by Doc Brown and running on Coca-Cola). Marty also discovers that rock and roll was never invented, and he dedicates himself to starting the delayed cultural revolution. Meanwhile, his dad digs out the newspaper from the day after the dance and sees his son in the picture of the riot. "

It's poorly worded and I have no clue what "1950s conception of that decade, with air-cars and what-not..." yadayada is supposed to mean

Hard to say. All but two or three lines was copied from IMDB's trivia section for the movie. It seems that the original article was copied from IMDB (see history). PrometheusX303 13:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
By "1950s conception of that decade" they mean the 1980s as people in the 50s would have envisioned it. In the 80s (and even 90s) a lot of people thought we would be driving flying cars by 2000. Likewise, we have a certain conception of how the future will look like, in say 10 years, which is usually far more advanced than it turns out to be. Likewise, the future in Back to the Future II is pretty much a 1980s conception of 2015. But I think the filmmakers were aware of this. That's part of the fun with that movie :)
And btw Libatius, I would not try to make any sense out of the time travel in Back to the Future. It's completely inconsistent, with plot holes large enough to drive a truck through. The exact physics are largely beside the point of the story anyway. --Steerpike 13:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

[edit] Doc gets killed

Just watched the scene on VH1. Or rather, I didn't watch it. They cut the part where Doc is seen being shot. PrometheusX303 01:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it was just a result of editing the movie to fit the time frame? 69.241.226.155 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It was Marshall Strictland who was shot. According to the DVD section of The Making of the Trilogy and The Making of BttF Part 3, and the deleted portions commentary the scene was cut because they felt it was too graphic to have a character killed off in the movie. It would also put Marty in a perdicument of decisions of how he was to handle Bufford Tannen in the showdown. As evidenced to Bufford's final arrest by the Deputy Marshall, his arrest was due to the Pine City Stage robbery, but this line was dubbed in and you do not actually see the Deputy make this statement as the scene changes to Bufford Tannen. The original line was that Bufford Tannen was under arrest for the murder of Marshall Strictland. This is also evidenced by the fact that a Deputy is making the arrest and not Marshall Strictland himself. Metamorphousthe 02:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too Much Trivia

It takes up about half the article, far too much. It ought to be either removed or truncated significantly. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Looks like someone basically took all the extras from the DVD and put them in the trivia section. Way too excessive. This section needs to be cut down. I'd say it should be pared down to 1/4 it's current size. CPitt76 01:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I edited the bulk of trivia out. Some were converted into the new "Production" section. If anyone thinks more should be cut out, feel free to do so. --Steerpike 10:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as 'too much trivia'? Of course, I'd want stuff that's citable and accurate... but can trivia be excised simply because it's a lengthy section? I don't know... After all, it would be in the right vein of an encycleopedic article. Kingpin1055 15:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there is such a thing as too much trivia when it takes up such a huge chunk of the article. I haven't seen a lot of encyclopedia articles with trivia sections to begin with (other than on wikipedia, of course), so I'm not sure I agree with it being in the right vein. If the info in that section is that important, maybe we can work it into the body of the article, like Steerpike did. CPitt76 00:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the Trivia section, which has just disappeared again, I agree that as much of this material as possible should appear in other relevant sections, and that the truly trivial trivia probably does not need to be in the article at all. To that end, I spent some time this afternoon working on this, but the remaining items, some of them kind of important IMO, are not merged but gone completely. Rather than play the inclusionist/deletionist game here, with some people constantly adding indiscriminate info and others periodically removing it - and perhaps more than should be removed - could we strive for a happy medium here? Please? I suggest that any trivia that someone wants to add should be subjected to the following questions first:

  1. Does the information already appear in the article? I've noticed that many people just pop stuff into trivia sections without reading the rest of the article, where the same material is frequently already covered.
  2. Can the information be usefully added to a section other than Trivia, or form the basis of a section of its own? For example, doesn't it make more sense for Reagan's fondness for the film be mentioned in one place rather than in two different sections? If it isn't relevant to the rest of the article, it may not be notable enough for inclusion.
  3. Is the information notable enough for inclusion in this article? Some items may be more relevant to related articles such as Hill Valley, Back to the Future timeline and so on. Or it may not really be of sufficient importance or general interest to be included at all. I know we'll never all agree where that line should be drawn, but a little self-censorship may help us avoid both wholesale additions and wholesale deletions.

Finally, I do not feel personally that the "clean-up" header is appropriate at this stage to this B article. Yes, it needs constant tending to avoid getting too long and messy, but overall it really isn't in bad shape right now.

Regards.... Karen | Talk | contribs 23:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this topic is worth getting up to 'Good' status. It needs more inline citations. I'm glad that the trivia section has gone. It sets a bad example and does allow people (usually anons) to add anything, especially copy and pastes from other sites. The JPStalk to me 14:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Now, this is something I wonder about. The vast majority of the information in this article comes either from the film itself or from the DVD commentaries and featurettes and the Secrets special. When it all comes from basically one source, or different parts of one source, what is the best way to cite it? I ask not just because of this article alone, but also because I've run into the same situation elsewhere. Would the proper thing to be to compile a list of references, e.g. Zemeckis and Gale Q&A, Making of, Neil and Canton commentary, etc., and then point each chunk of text at one of them? Probably every scrap of it could be sourced (and not all to the DVD material), but would it be overkill to do so? Karen | Talk | contribs 20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the best example for us is Jaws (film), which is a featured article and will appear on the main page later this week. It's bad practise, really, to just use one source in an article. We can cite the specific features (commentary/Q&A on Px, Secrets, etc.). We should also strive to use other sources. I have an old tie-in book that we could use, and there will be loads of good web sources. Inline citations are best so we can keep track or, and verify, what is changed or added. Otherwise we'd have to trawl through the list of references! For example, tonight's edit by an anon [2]. How do we know what's correct? Is the anon correcting the info, or vandalising the page. If there were an citation next to it then we could immediately verify the change and probably revert with confidence. HTH The JPStalk to me 21:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Trivia

I have moved the trivia section here because "trivia" sections in Wikipedia articles are extremely bad form. In an encyclopedia article, all information should be relevent not trivial. This information is still good but, it all should have a proper place within the article.--The_stuart 16:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Doc Brown's home, as shown from the exterior in 1955, is a real-life mansion in Pasadena, CA. Known as "Gamble House," it was designed by architects Greene & Greene in 1908 and built for David Gamble (of Procter & Gamble).
  • Marty starts his trip back in time in the parking lot of "Twin Pines Mall." Immediately arriving in 1955, he hits one of two pine trees. When he returns to 1985, the sign now reads "Lone Pine Mall."
  • Doc breaks the ledge of the clocktower trying to reconnect the wire to the lampost in 1955. When Marty returns to the future, the ledge is still broken.
  • Doc Brown pronounces "gigawatt" as /'dʒi.gʌ.wɑt/. Although the prefix "giga-" can be pronounced as either /'dʒi.gʌ/ or /'gi.gʌ/ [3], the latter is much more common. According to the DVD commentary, the use of the variant pronunciation is due to Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis hearing the word pronounced the former way at a science seminar.
  • The nuclear reactor that powers the time machine bears at least passing resemblance to the 1958 Ford Nucleon concept car.
  • Further commentary on the aforementioned fate error: It can be extrapolated that the boy cutting in on George and Lorraine's dance was not a fated event destined to occur at all. The boy cutting in was seen earlier in the film as one of several classmates who bullied George independently of Biff and his flunkies. When George knocks out Biff, the student body begins to perceive both of them in a different light, Biff no longer posing as great a threat as he may have to some. Therefore, George's action could have triggered three possibilities: (1) The boy cutting in could have decided to fill the void of Biff as a prominent school bully. (2) He could have been reacting to George's new empowerment and decided to challenge him. (3) He could have always wanted to harass Lorraine but could never do so knowing that Biff had his eyes on her, and now has his chance. (4) He is drunk and he's inside the party when the fight between Biff and George happened that's why he saw George as his same gullible school mate that everyone bullied. Any of these four scenarios would have been tied solely to George's knocking out Biff and therefore triggered by Marty's involvement.
  • The "present" events supposedly occur on October 26, 1985.
  • This movie managed to pull Hollywood out of a slump that lasted 17 weeks, making it one of the longest in film history. Nevertheless, total revenues for 1985 were 7% less than in 1984.
  • The video camera Marty uses in the film is a JVC camcorder GR-C1U.
  • The De Lorean's California license plates say "OUTATIME". California vanity plates are typically limited to seven characters.
  • The first movie's soundtrack features two songs from Huey Lewis & the News; Lewis also makes a cameo early in the movie, as a judge choosing bands for the Hill Valley High School Battle of the Bands.
  • When Marty poses as a spaceman to convince George to ask Lorraine to the school dance, he references three science fiction classics simultaneously in the line "My name is Darth Vader. I am an extra-terrestrial from the planet Vulcan."
  • The movie that won the Academy Award for Best Picture of 1955, the year to which Marty McFly goes back in time, was called Marty; however, according to Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale, this is only a coincidence and was not a factor in naming the character.
  • The entrance to Marty's family's subdivision "Lyon Estates" is surrounded by lion statues, inspired by similar statues to the western entrance of the Delmar Loop in writer Bob Gale's home town University City, Missouri in St. Louis. Furthermore, the French sister city of St. Louis is Lyon. Gale was also able to name the local Hill Valley sports teams after his high school and junior high school teams.
  • The guitar that Marty plays at the dance is a Gibson ES-345 with a Bigsby vibrato unit. This guitar did not exist in 1955, and likely would not have been available with the Bigsby unit until about 1963. Additionally, his guitar sound is very distorted — unusual for a mid-fifties amp before any guitar distortion methods had been used.
  • When Marty switches on Doc's amplifier in the first scene, the keyhole is marked 'CRM-114', a reference to the decryption device aboard the B-52 in Dr Strangelove.
  • The film was originally intended to be made by Disney, but Disney turned it down because they thought that the idea of a mother falling in love with her son (albeit in a twist of time) was too risqué.
  • In the opening sequence, when the camera pans through the many clocks in Doc Brown's house, one clock depicts silent film actor Harold Lloyd hanging from the minute hand of the clock in the clock tower, just as Doc Brown does at the end of the film.
  • When Marty watches television on November 5, 1955 with the Baines family, The Honeymooners episode "The Man from Space" is airing. However, this episode didn't actually air for the first time until December 31, 1955.
  • When Marty is trying to restart the DeLorean back in 1955, the car's headlights flash the Morse Code for "SOS".
  • Although it may be a mere coincidence, November the 5th happens to be the day that the Gunpowder Plot took place. Although the plot has no connections to the story, that day seems to be important in the movie.
  • The rifle that jams in the hands of the Libyan terrorist is an AK-47, which is famous worldwide for its extreme reliability. However, knockoffs of the model are ubiquitous.
  • When the Libyan in a van chase the DeLorean with Marty in it, the one shooting said: "Go!" to his fellow Libyan comrade. He should speak Arabic and not English.
  • Elijah Wood casting in Back to the future part II. He is the Video game boy, in Cafe 80.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000704/

[edit] Back to the Future: The Cameo

The forth part of back to the future was on spin city The Epesoide that sucked!!!!! Also the next storieS of back to the future was back to the future the series. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bill bo (talk • contribs).

[edit] Product placement

Can anyone tell me what the shoes are called that Marty wears in 1985. Were they avaliable in the UK? crazy questions I have to ask, but mostly a name will do~ Marge4 15:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In 1885, one of Buford's gang looks at Marty's sneakers and says, "What's that writing mean, NI-KE, is that some kind of Injun talk?" GUllman 21:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
They look like Nike Bruins... which I don't think you can easily get any more. --PigManDan 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum. Please discuss the article.--SUITHalloween? 04:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it should become a forum. If not, then create a forum for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.67.31.251 (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Music/Soundtrack

What version of Mr. Sandman is in the song?

I think it's the Four Aces' version.--PigManDan 22:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum, and all that so please discuss the article.--SUITHalloween? 04:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Goofs

I moved the goofs section because it needs work and looked out of place.


  • If the lightning bolt has 1.21 Gigawatts of electricity, and Doc gets shocked by the lightning, he should die, however, if you look close enough, he is wearing rubber gloves.
(If this is not a real goof, it shouldn't be here at all)
  • There are many differences between the scene at the mall, and the videotape of the mall.
Too vague.
  • It only takes about 25 seconds for the clock to move from 10:03, to 10:04.
Unless it was a continuous shot, we can't say that for certain.
  • A purple light on the set is reflected off the DeLorean when it's parked at the end of the town square.
  • Marty hits 87mph long before 10:04 PM, then when it's maybe 10 seconds to 10:04 PM, he's hitting 85 or so, but he's been accelerating all the time.
Difficult to understand.
  • Marty doesn't set off when Doc set the alarm clock in 1955, so he should be late for the lighting bolt.
The precise timing would be nearly impossible anyway.
  • The clock hands move from 10:02 to 10:03 twice.
  • Marty and Doc conclude from the flyer that a bolt of lightning will strike the clock tower at precisely 22:04:00, but the lightning could strike the tower at any point in time between into 22:04:00 and 22:04:59, which means that Doc's plan is likely to fail.
That is, unless the inner mechanism of the clock was examined. It may be possible to tell the time from that.

Where did these come from anyway? Prometheus-X303- 04:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally I prefer to keep trivia sections and the like, but IMO you're right in this case. Most of this is picayune quibbling about the exact timing of the lightning strike scene, at least some of which can be explained away rather easily. If it should be here at all, then it is probably better to summarize, preferably with a citation to someone's published analysis or a DVD commentary or something like that. The mall "differences" are covered by the revised timeline premise, which is already covered in this article or the timeline one or both. Also, much of this is written in an informal style (i.e. with contractions) and would need to be revised anyway. As for the rubber gloves bit, that was apparently one person explaining away another person's "goof." Karen | Talk | contribs 05:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.21 jiggawatts!!!

It's actually 1.21 not 1.23

At least this answers the question "What the hell is a Jiggawatt?" Vanduk 10:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Changed it. PrometheusX303 15:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Brown pronounced it "jiggawatt", but it is spelled gigawatt. It is a real unit of measure.

Multiple Name Symbol Multiple Name Symbol
100 watt W      
101 decawatt daW 10–1 deciwatt dW
102 hectowatt hW 10–2 centiwatt cW
103 kilowatt kW 10–3 milliwatt mW
106 megawatt MW 10–6 microwatt µW
109 gigawatt GW 10–9 nanowatt nW
1012 terawatt TW 10–12 picowatt pW
1015 petawatt PW 10–15 femtowatt fW
1018 exawatt EW 10–18 attowatt aW
1021 zettawatt ZW 10–21 zeptowatt zW
1024 yottawatt YW 10–24 yoctowatt yW

PrometheusX303 19:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In 1985 very few people had heard of a gigawatt, it is jiggawatt in the script, so it is jiggawatt in the film. although it probably is the same as the real measurment, please do not bastardise the script into your perfectionist fantasies! Marge4 15:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition to this, I was just thinking about it, how can you put gigawatt in the article if in the film it is pronounced jiggawatt... this is sci-fi! not real life! why the hell is it gigawatt and not jiggawatt. this is really making me upset and I have no idea why. I wish bad things upon you all! Marge4 15:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Bob Gale wrote the time travel technobabble after listening to various science lectures, so it was intended to be the real unit of measurement that he heard spoken. The subject of this article is the film, not the script for the film in which was mispelled so that the actors would consistently pronounce the word the way Bob heard it in the lectures. GUllman 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AK-47 clones

"The rifle that jams in the hands of the Libyan terrorist is an AK-47, which is famous worldwide for its extreme reliability. However, knockoffs of the model are ubiquitous."

This implies it may be an unreliable AK-47 clone. Were AK47 variants actually generally less reliable than the AK-47? --Howdybob 16:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-writes needed

[edit] Jumpy lead

The lead paragraph of this article needs a complete overhaul. It jumps around from 1985 to 2002 back to 1985 and so forth. I know this is an article about a time travel film, but no need to make the rader feel like they're in a time machine! I think it should be put into a more logical chronological order. - Mike 01:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article a bit for tense changes and usage, described the guitar hero sequence a little better, expounded a little on what differences Marty sees between the two eras, and shoved several genres into the opening sentence. Feel free to cut back on that last edit if it's excessive or unclear, but part of the strength of this film is the multiple genres it encompasses. I did not remove the clean-up tag, but I think it's probably in pretty good shape at this point. Karen | Talk | contribs 07:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary could be condensed

Does anyone else think that the plot summary is too detailed? --GHcool 07:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree - it needs to be summarized. — Wackymacs 10:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree. The JPStalk to me 12:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The length of the plot summary seems to be a continual problem. The film itself has a fairly dense and intricate plot, and it seems that everyone who stops by wants to include every favorite detail (which is all of them). If we are going to continue to try to keep the section from expanding, perhaps someone can explain why on this Talk page. I just reverted a nice long edit - nothing really wrong with it except length - and leaves me feeling like a bit of a meanie! Karen | Talk | contribs 06:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Not every labour of love belongs on Wikipedia. If for nothing else, at least the author got some writing practice. Chris Cunningham 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parts II and III

This section is a bit long-winded and I don't really understand the final sentence. Can someone rephrase it?

"The makers assume that people were put off by Part II and hence III as well because they had not expected for II to continue for yet another episode. Thus the Part II cliffhanger came about, and people did not want to buy a ticket to see a movie without an ending. This is blamed for the (somewhat) disappointing box office. While the producers wanted to market Parts II and III together as a trilogy, Universal Studios preferred it the other way round."

I think what they are saying is that people liked how Part I ended because it was a complete movie in itself but also left an obvious door open for another movie, with Doc Brown and Marty going to the future, however there never needed to be another movie to finish the story started in the first movie. In Part II they end it just when Marty is going to ask Doc Brown's help to well get to "the other" Doc Brown back in 1885, which means to see the end to see if Doc Brown was rescued, was left behind, or something else you needed to see Part III. Part II was not in that sense a movie with a beginning and a complete ending.
I can see people being upset about that alone, but even more so Back to the Future Part II was also sort of three movies in one, whereas Part I had one basic plot, Marty has to get his parents back together, Part II had Marty helping his kids, Marty fixing his error at buying the sports fact book by getting it back from Biff, then the DeLorean struck by lightening and vanishing in time which was only the start of the third plot and not a true ending for the movie in some people's eyes. Once that got out people it seems didn't want to see Part II then wait an unknown amount of time to see how part of the plot started in that movie ends. Bob Gale and Neil Canton probably knew this was a possibility and therefore wanted to market Part II and Part III as almost the same movie something you can see around the same time, but Universal saw the chance at two movie sequels to one of the most popular movies of 1985 and thought perhaps more money from having them as two then as marketing them as one movie broken in two parts.
Did that help clear things up a bit or just confuse them more? Ryokosha 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Honeymooners info

Here's a bit of trivia you may want to work into the article - the episode of The Honeymooners shown in the movie is "The Man from Space." One small problem is that while that scene in the movie takes place on November 5, 1955, that episode of the show didn't air for the first time until December 31, 1955. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I imagine Zemeckis and Gale chose it for its similarity to the Peabody Farm and Darth Vader of Vulcan scenes rather than its historical air date. At least the series itself had premiered by then. Chalk the rest up to the difference between all the BTTF timelines and our own. ;) Thanks for adding the episode info! Karen | Talk | contribs 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Be Continued...?

I realize I was only 11 at the time, but I distinctly remember "To Be continued..." being in the film as released in the theater. I know it's easy to "back-remember" somethign like that, but does anyone have any other sources besides the one listed that verifies that this was only added in the video/laserdisc release? --69.231.140.134 05:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The original film never had "To be continued" in it. Zemeckis and Gale have both said they never intended it to be a trilogy and they sort of painted themselves into a corner with the cliffhanger ending. "To be continued" is only stated at the end of PART 2 because PART 3 was in production at the same time. -- mcflytrap 12:52, 04 January 2006
Slight correction: "To be continued" was added to the home video of Part One when Part 2 was in production. Part 2 had "To be Concluded" because Part 3 was already in production (was made at essentially the same time as Part 2). I know you meant to say that, right? ;) I know it's all covered in a commentary or one or more of the other extras, but I didn't turn it up in a quick scan for it last week. Karen | Talk | contribs 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I guess I was wrong. Like I said, I know it's easy to "recover memories" like that, but it seems so clear in my mind. :) --69.231.140.134 18:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film poster

Does anyone know what that object next to Marty is in the poster for the film? It's obviously supposed to be the time machine, but it doesn't look anything like how the DeLorean appears in the movie, front or back. Is it supposed to be a reference to the "time fridge" from the early scripts, or something else entirely? 75.108.121.142 01:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • What object? You mean the whitish thing to the left that kind of bends over top? That would be the gull-wing door of the car. Wahkeenah 03:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The DeLorean's engine

This passage, from the second paragraph of the section The DeLorean time machine, may be self-contradictory:

"The DeLorean used in the trilogy was a 1982 DMC-12 model, modified to accommodate a more powerful and reliable Porsche engine. The base for the nuclear-reactor was made from the hubcap from a Dodge Polara. In the 2002 Special-Edition DVD of the BTTF Trilogy, it is incorrectly stated that the DeLorean had a standard 4-cylinder engine. The only engine available on this car was a 130 HP V6."

Did it have a Porsche engine or did it have a stock DeLorean engine? Some Porsche models in production at the time BTTF was filmed had four-cylinder engines, so if a Porsche engine was used, it is indeed possible that the DeLorean used for the film had a four-cylinder. Can someone with background knowledge on the film confirm/deny this for certain? - Pennyforth 20:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/c/Talk%7EBack_to_the_Future_8cae.html"