Talk:Back to the Future trilogy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Back to the Future trilogy article.
Article policies

I have created a template for the affiliated BTTF pages, but I'm reluctant to add it to anything since many of the links are red. Have a look, though, and tell me what you think:

v • d • e
Back to the Future trilogy
Characters
McFly family
Brown Family
Tannen Family
Related articles
Entertainment
Soundtracks
Other

If anyone else is interested in creating Characters from Back to the Future, Technology from Back to the Future, and Back to the Future: the Ride, then be my guest. --DXI 23:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seems good. I say we should stick with it.
EliasAlucard|Talk 11:51, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Cruft Removal in the Pop-Culture Reference section

I've tried to de-cruft the pop-culture reference section by consolidating as many similar references as possible. For example, many TV shows have had episode titles that parody "Back to the Future" and previously each one had its own bullet-point, often with an episode summary even when there was no commonality beyond the title and a time-travel element. I've compressed that into a single bullet-point that simply lists the parody titles and the associated series. I've done similarly to references to the flux capacitor, time-traveling DeLorean, and 88mph. I think this knocks out a great deal of the cruft, but I think there might be more work necessary before removing the clean-up notice:

  • Is the summary of the Family Guy episode that parodies BTTF necessary when that episode has its own detailed entry? It's one thing to describe a single joke, as the other Family Guy reference does, but with an entire parody episode it might be best to just point to the episode entry.
  • The part about the BritPop group Busted could probably be shortened.
  • Given how much Stephen Colbert is on TV, does one of his jokes really merit a mention?

Any other suggestions to clean up the section?

-- Seantrinityohara (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theories

What about writing an article about the time-travel theories behind BTTF and their difference from classic approach? Although it would probably be disregarded as original research... - Sikon 09:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Seprate article, at least at first, would be a little ambitious but, I would support starting a section within this article discussing the theories of time travel within Back to the future. --The_stuart 13:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Correction

It isn't, Sorry it's not painted. It's "Sorry it's not built to scale."

Pettiness I know but, thought I'd mention it.

[edit] Special Edition DVD

Regarding the discussion on the rumored 2005 DVD, it seems that a 4-disc special edition has been released in the UK and Australia (see Amazon or EBay). (I started looking into it after seeing an animation on the right side of the page http://www.bttf.com regarding a 4-disc edition.) Does anybody know anything about a US edition or any details about the DVD set?--GregRM 02:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

After agonising over whether to categorise by year of DVD release (could include the laserdisc and VCD) or Region, I think it might be better to use a table comparing releases (along the side) with features (along the top) Darrelljon 13:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm in Australia and I actually bought this. I'm not completely sure on all the details but here's what I believe is true:
Box Audio Scene Specific Commentary Framing Enhanced MJ Fox interview
2005 R2+4 UK/AUS DVD* Blue with DeLorean Dolby 5.1 and DTS No Corrected Widescreen Yes
  • 4-disc edition

The above is not confirmed - anybody else have this who wants to confirm it? (Otherwise I'll have a better look at my DVDs and confirm it).

So it seems the same as the 2002 R2 UK DVD, except with corrected Widescreen and Enhanced MJF interview, and the fourth disc which looks awesome. But I'd personally really rather Scene Specific Commentary over DTS any day :( —EatMyShortz 12:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the Future 4

I saw a news report the other day that mentioned a fourth movie in the series. I do not know much about this new film, except that Michael J. Fox reportedly wants to play the part of Doc Brown (from an interview found at http://www.moviehole.net/news/20051223_about_those_back_to_the_future.html). I'm not sure if this is noteworthy enough to make the main page. What do you think? JasonAllen 06:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If you read the article, it's obvious that Michael J. Fox is joking. This article obviously doesn't support even a rumor that there is a fourth movie in the works. —Cleared as filed. 07:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Back to the Future Part IV needs to be deleted. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there weren't any plans for a BTTF4 to begin with. --Dynamite Eleven 06:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I've listed it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to the Future Part IV. —Cleared as filed. 07:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Incorrect. There were plans for a fourth and a fifth movie, but they were cancelled at the last minute due to Michael J' Fox's illness. In fact, there still is the possibility of a fourth movie being done at some point in the future. The page should be restored and edited to show this. See bttf.com for details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.67.31.251 (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Little correction...

"At one point in 1955 there are three DeLoreans all there (then) at the same time" - I think there are four DeLoreans. The 4th is in the closed mine, left by older version of Doc in 1885. --User:194.79.55.130

No, Doc hadn't been struck by lightning yet, so there were only three. Time was altered once Doc was accidentally sent back in time. --Dynamite Eleven 01:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(Original comment:) "Given the trilogy's logic for altering time, there wasn't one hidden in the Delgado Mine at that time, as the 1985 Doc hadn't been struck by lightning yet"

I don't agree with that original comment. In the first movie, in 1955, there is only one DeLorean, the others didn't exist yet to the time travelers, but at the end of the third movie, according to the universe, they did exist. The second movie makes it two and three; now three exist on that date, to the time travelers. There weren't two and three (for the time travelers) before they went back and made it two and three; if you watch the first movie, you don't see the 'second' Marty, Doc, or Biff at all, no matter how closely you look. They don't exist yet, from the time travelers point of view! But, at the end of the series (and that's a crucial point), they do.

So, there wasn't a fourth DeLorean (for the time travelers) before Doc 2015 went back, but after he did go back, there was four, with that last 4th existing before, during, and after the critical events of that day, even though there were only three sets of time travelers on that day (two Marty's and two Doc's, with a third trip making two Biffs). The 4th DeLorean did not phase into existence in the mine when the 2015 Doc evaporated according to the universe, it only phased in when Doc-2015 evaporated according to the time travelers. From the universe's point of view, at the end of the series (again, the crucial point), it was there all along, just like the other three were there 'all along' but only phased in for the time travelers when they traveled there. So, while there were only three sets of time travelers on that day, there were actually four DeLoreans. Sorry this comment is so long!

Oh, and someone please reword that 'fourth dimension' sentence to sound better, possibly including the Doc quote from movie 2 about how that day is crucial 'or maybe just coincidence'.

Just think, if someone went back to that day, after the events of the third movie, there would be four DeLoreans there, plus whatever you used to get to that day. That makes it four to me. I've since edited the article to four again. --Thortok2000 (not a Wiki user yet)

I understand what you're saying, the fourth DeLorean was in the mine all along by the end of BTTFII. Good arguement! But from the viewpoint of the viewing audience, there were three at that one point, the most at any (present) time. I undid your edit to reflect that fact. --Dynamite Eleven 04:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a discussion here on multiple DeLoreans in BTTF.--Darrelljon 19:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Red The Bum"--"Red Thomas"

Are they not the same character? A recent change suggested they are not. I assumed this was an in-joke, (a pretty obvious one, at that) similar to "Goldie Wilson" going from a lowly janitor in 1995 to be mayor in 1985. They removed the portion of the trivia mentioning this, and one other reference to it, stating they're not the same person. I reverted the change, but I am opening this up for discussion. Is there any source that says they in fact are not? It's a pretty safe bet, especially 1) in a movie riddled with similar in-jokes ("Twin Pines"-->"Lone Pine") and 2) "Red" is not exactly a common name, especially in a movie (to use two different characters with the same name in movies is practically unheard of). Please discuss. Wavy G 18:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently they're not the same character, MJF was just improvising when he called the bum "Red". The ages would not fit, see these discussions 1 and 2. It has been suggested the bum is the mayor's son and even that temporal displacement may have delayed Red's aging. It may be worth including as a common misconception.--Darrelljon 21:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a good idea. It should at least be mentioned, since it's obviously a common misconception. Damn, I had no idea this was not an original joke. I have the DVD; maybe I'll watch the commentary for Part II to see what they say before I make any changes.
It would be nice if something could be added to the article to indicate that this is just a common misconception since it seems that people continually add it to the page (obviously without reading the discussion here).Merc 2k 04:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a summary of the above discussion to the "Other relevant notes" section:

"It is a common misconception that Mayor Red Thomas of 1955 and Red the Bum of 1985 were meant to be the same character. According to Bob Gale's commentary on the Back to the Future DVD set, the name of the bum was ad-libbed by Michael J. Fox. Gale also commented that the photo of the mayor in 1955 on the side of the campaign van was that of set decorator Hal Gausman, whereas the bum was played by George "Buck" Flower."

Merc 2k 19:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Part I and Part II

The statement which reads "In the end of Part I, Biff tries to weasel out of putting a second coat of wax on Marty's 4x4." is incorrect. Biff tries to weasel out of putting a second coat of wax on the father's (George McFly's) BMW, not Marty's Toyota - which has already been waxed and is in the garage. When confronted about the second coat of wax, Biff relents and apologizes to George while admitting that he is just starting the second coat (on the car, not the truck). -Costner M

[edit] Gun

This recent edit seems to suggest that the reason Doc cannot fire his gun in Part I is due to using the ammo in Part III. This doesn't seem to make sense to me, since the trilogy usually (if not always) seems to go with the "rule" that an event must occur in the movies' storylines before it affects the future. Is there an official source for this note (e.g. DVD commentary)? If not, perhaps the original wording of this note should be restored?--GregRM 16:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I recently listened to the commentary on the DVDs and I don't recall any mention of this (firing in 1955 being the reason he cannot fire in 1985). I don't think this makes any sense either. In that timeline Doc had not sent Marty back to 1885 in 1955 so he would not have fired the pistol. I think it's more likely that the gun was jammed or he had forgot to load it before the Libyans arrived.--Merc 2k 16:03 22 August 2006.

I reworded it. After looking at it again, though, I am wondering if there is there any evidence that it is the same gun? It seems unusual that it would go from being painted in 1955 to unpainted in 1985.--GregRM 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The animated anecdotes on the DVD for part III claim they are the same gun (I'm not sure if those are 100% accurate though)--Merc 2k 01:17 24 August 2006.
OK, thanks for the clarification.--GregRM 12:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned comment from 17 July 2006

What is a bioandroid?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.117.18.6 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Rename

Is there any objection to renaming this article, Back to the Future (film series)? - User:Lady Aleena @ 21:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, here. What the hell is wrong with "trilogy"?! User:Catton


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Oppose - The "series" is officially refered to as the Back to the Future Triliogy. LordBleen 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, would prefer the naming convention here, even though most of the articles in this category seem to use "trilogy" instead of "(film series)." The convention seems more appropriate. If the article were to go by the official name, then the "t" in "trilogy" should be capitalized. Recury 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless pages like The Lord of the Rings film trilogy are moved as well. TJ Spyke 05:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like I have another move to request then. That should be named The Lord of the Rings (film series). And my initial request is support to this rename. - LA @ 05:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose You can buy the "Back to the Future Trilogy" on Amazon (the T in Trilogy in the title of this article should be capitalized). --Serge 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a trilogy. Simple as that. Wiki-newbie 17:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

  • Would the "film series" cover the footage recorded for the ride and for the casino machine, unlike "the trilogy"?--Darrelljon 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Sleeping In?

Under the themes sub-heading..

The article states

"In Part I 1985 and 1955, George offers to go over a report with Biff, but Biff tells him "not too early, I sleep in". By opposition, Buford wants to duel Marty at 7 AM, because "I do my killing before breakfast". "

That is a bad analogy because in the film Biff states he sleeps in on Saturdays, whereas the duel at 7am takes place on a monday so it's not certain weather buford does or does not sleep in on Saturdays.

[edit] BTTF Wiki?

Would anyone be interested in working on a Back to the Future wiki on Wikia, where the more trivial stuff here can be put to use in individual articles, and maybe even perhaps help piece together Hill Valley itself? Any and all opinion is appreciated. If enough support is warrented, I can request for Wikia to start one up. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two TV sets

From the trivia section:

"In the extended deleted scene of "Dad's Home" for Part II, Marty Jr complains about how he can only watch two shows on his goggles, instead of six. 2015 Marty responds by stating that when he was Marty Jr's age, if wanted to watch two shows at once, he had to put two sets next to each other. This is a reference to the scene in Part I, when Lorraine asks Marty if he has a television set. When Marty answers that he has two of them, Stella insists that nobody has two television sets."

Is this really a reference to Part I? I'd think Marty's response about needing two TVs to watch two programs was just a joke. What does everyone else think?Merc 2k 03:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it ties in nicely - because, while the idea of owning two TV sets sounded preposturous in 1955, the idea of watching two shows on the same TV sounds preposterous in 1985. 75.129.139.187 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe it's just the wording of it that bothers me. Perhaps it should say "This could be a refernce to the scene in Part I..." instead since it now seems to imply that it is the only thing it can be. Merc 2k 06:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Fair enough! I just changed it. 75.129.139.187 13:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • No matter how you look at it, it is in no way a reference. At best it is an allusion.

[edit] Historical error (of sorts)

In the first film, the 1955 Doctor Brown scoffs at the notion that Ronald Reagan is president in 1985, saying, "And I suppose Jane Wyman is First Lady." In 1955, Reagan and Wyman had been divorced for seven years and Reagan had been married to Nancy Davis for three years. This is a somewhat facile attempt at a joke but of course is not actually a historical error because the film doesn't say that Reagan was still married to Wyman in 1955. If you want to look for more subtext I suppose you could say that Doctor Brown had no interest in show business and didn't keep track of celebrities' marriages.

[edit] Themes

I recently created a separate article about themes throughout the trilogy to make this article an appropriate size, however, the themes article has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to the Future themes. This would lose the interesting information in the article, so if anyone could help to improve the themes article, possibly by removing irrelevant entries, or citing sources where possible, it is now the time to act. I thought a picture of the clock tower would be good, like one of the ones on the Hill Valley page, but I'm not sure this is acceptable use of those pictures. Dannyboy3 11:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of gasoline in 1885

Why didn't Doc use some other fuel to replace the missing gasoline? I can think of at least four possibilities:

1, Alcohol. Cars can use alcohol as a replacement for gasoline.

2, Kerosene - Kerosene is used as jet fuel, and was used as lamp fuel in 1885.

3. Vegetable oil - many people are currently using recycled oil from deep fryers to power their cars. Why couldn't Doc do the same?

4. Tree sap. Some trees produce a sap that can be used as a replacement for gasoline. Doc should have known about this.


Another possibility - Once Doc discovered the leak, he could have sent a letter to the 1955 version of himself (at the point where he is about to send Marty back to 1885) stating the problem, and telling him to place a can of gasoline in the trunk of the Delorean, along with the necessary parts to repair the fuel line.

Either way, problem solved.

Kerosene or vegetable oil could not be used in an engine designed to use petrol. They COULD be used in a DIESEL engine. (I use vegetable oil in my Peugeot 306 XNd.) Straight vegetable oil is far too thick to be used in a petrol engine for starters. (It is about five times the viscosity of diesel at room temperature.) 92.16.106.42 (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell
In 1885, Doc and Marty tried to use alcohol, and it exacerbated the car's condition. Or did you miss that part?
Yes, using alcohol in the gas tank caused the fuel injection manifold to be damaged, and Doc says he would need an entire month to repair it. Plus, the alcohol wouldn't have been enough to get the car to 88mph anyway. However, after they've defeated Buford Tannen, they no longer need to be in such a hurry to leave 1885, so the last minute panic they are in is probably misplaced, and repairs or other attempts to get back were now open to them. Makes for an exciting ending, though. - GuanoLad 06:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
In Back to the Future Part III, the letter explicitly states that Marty was not to travel to 1985, but to travel to 1985, then destroy the Delorean. So there was no need to send him a letter to place gasoline and parts in the car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storac (talk • contribs) 03:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The hard part about moving the car at 88mph is the weight of the vehicle. I wonder why Doc didn't jack up the car and use a machine to spin the wheels (or whatever physical mechanism connects the drive to the flux capacitor) at the appropriate RPM, which would be much easier. Seantrinityohara (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It is never said that the odometer must read 88mph. It is implied that the car must actually be physically moving (and that the effect is not triggered by the wheels doing 88, but by the physical motion. Hence the car car travel while in the air flying (end of part 1) or even when it rotates that quickly (end of part 2). presumably, jacking up the car and doing 88 while not actually moving would not be effective. TheHYPO (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually in Part 1 it shows that the odometer must read 88MPH. When doc first shows marty the time machine he initiaites a brake while he revs up the vehiles to around 60 MPH, so he could have jacked up the vehicle. Or he could have just manually changed the specifications so that 20 MPH would work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.141 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer I/II screenshot comparison

If I remember correctly, there used to be an image featuring two screenshots featuring Jennifer, one from the end of Part I and one from the beginning of Part II, of the corresponding shot of her meeting Marty at the garage. This image made me realize something I had not noticed in my 18 years of watching the trilogy, that Jennifer was played by two different actresses. (I always figured the cineomatography was slightly different due to reshooting for the added Biff scene.) Why was this image removed, or am I mistaken that it was ever here? Justin The Claw 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it on the Back to the Future Part II entry. Justin The Claw 13:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family Guy

In "The Courtship of Stewie's Father", Stewie Griffin imagines Doc Brown at the end of the first film telling Marty and Jennifer "Something's gotta be done about your kids." However, Doc goes further, telling them their daughter marries a black man. This news does little to offend Marty, although Doc's racist attitude alienates Marty and Jennifer.

Surely the first "Marty" is meant to be "Stewie"? (Stewie isn't offended; Marty and Jennifer are?) --Koyaanis Qatsi 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Im not sure, but....

I think that 1:21 am was when the Dog, Einstein, comes back from traveling through time. Coincidentally, 1.21 gigawatts is how much is needed later on to power up the machine.

1.21? That number has to mean something....


  Gee, take it easy, Sherlock...

[edit] Recurring gags

I fixed a number of mistakes in the recurring gags section. I removed the statement about the Darth Vader gag, as this is not a recurring gag. The original entry also suggested that Marty used a false name in Part II, which he did not. I also added that the supplier of manure in the third film is "A. Jones," not "D. Jones." 71.254.95.113 02:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar discussion

I have begun a discussion at Template talk:BttfSidebar about the possibility of replacing the sidebar on all bttf pages with the much more efficient navbox template which I have just completely rennovated. Please share your opinion there (not here) and if there is no objection (or consensus for objection), I'll start replacing sidebars with navbars. Cheers. TheHYPO (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Backfu1986VHS.jpg

Image:Backfu1986VHS.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Backfu2002R1DVD.jpg

Image:Backfu2002R1DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Backfu2002R2DVD.jpg

Image:Backfu2002R2DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Backfu2005R1DVD.jpg

Image:Backfu2005R1DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BackfuCED.jpg

Image:BackfuCED.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the Future timeline

The Back to the Future timeline was deemed original research and the non-controversial parts were merged into this article. Of course, the original page is more interesting than the merged part of it, in case you'd like to take a look. The Transhumanist    02:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That timeline is impressive, someone has a lot of erm...time on their hands. Or a Delorian. Katana Geldar 12:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)

[edit] NUMBER OF TIMELINES

Shouldn't there be a timeline 9 when Doc and Clara (and kids) return to 1985 from wherever in the future they've already been?

Whatabout the timelines that never exist as depicted in photographs, such as one where marty's siblings never come to existance because george and lorraine never get together, or where marty as clint eastwood is killed by buford tannen?

Also, why is there an adult marty and jennifer (and kids) in 2015. According to the "timeline" Marty and Jennifer disappeared (with Doc) in 1985 and were never seen again until 2015 (when they appeared). Perhaps they acted quickly enough to avoid the ripple effect, but that implies an ultimate timeline that exists despite the effort of the time travellers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.141 (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up

More and more useless information is constantly added to this page. I believe a good cleanup is due. Here's what I propose.

  • Storylines: Maximum of 3 lines. If the reader wants more, he should go on the related article.
  • Time Travel Theory: Explain how it was created, but no need to go into small details (ie. 2nd paragraph of Timeline 4 is so useless)
  • Paradox: Too descriptive without being useful. Out!
  • DVD Release formats and features: Too big. At least remove the images to make it smaller.
  • References in popular culture: Not related to the movie itself. Out completely.

Opinions? Lyverbe (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

    • I just came up across this entry and found the different timelines quite interesting. Reducing it to three timeslines would reduce the quality of the article.
    • The Time Travel Theory can be shortened, I agree.
    • References in popular culture: where else would that information go? I think deleting this would reduce the quality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.245.173 (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I knew someone would comment just a few hours before applying the cleanup after one week of waiting :)
The timelines should not have any story in them since the individual BTTF articles are for that. It's indeed interesting to see how/why they were created, but without the story's little details.
The entire “References in popular culture” section is not related to the article/movie itself. See WP:TRIVIA as it starts with “Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts”. Also see WP:POPCULTURE which explains why such a section is discouraged.
People can see here what I propose. You can view the differences in the history of that subpage. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Only 1 comment after 1 week. Ok, it's done.

  • Useless information has been removed
  • Details already found in separate BTTF articles have been removed (that's the most important one)
  • Timelines have been reduced to a minimum of information as they explain how/why it was created, but not what happens in each of them (related BTTF articles are for that)
  • Useless and cumbersome DVD covers have been removed
  • Entire “References in popular culture” has been removed as it is not related to the article/movie itself. See WP:TRIVIA; the article starts with “Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts”. Also see WP:POPCULTURE which explains why such a section is discouraged. It can be restored as a separate article if you feel it's really important.
  • Remove spam and individual BTTF related external links already found in related BTTF articles
  • Fix typos here and there

I was also tempted to remove all names (not article link) from the “Main Cast” section since they are already mentioned in the separate articles. Still not sure. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)