Talk:Back to the Future (franchise)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Time Travel Theory" section removed[edit]

The "Time Travel Theory" section has been removed, as it is entirely speculative and original research. There are no references to support the conclusions in the text. --Ckatzchatspy 04:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • it is a pity that the timeline image has been removed because of the conjecture it encourages. The diagram is sorely missed when reading the article. For this reason I include it in the discussion --Jono4174 (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All successive Back to the Future timelines


  • I think that this diagram is only a summary of the film, not a original research. --Jllopezpino (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film Trilogy timeline image[edit]

For some reason (User:SineBot) this little suggestion was removed.

Image must be redone because some timelines are wrong:

  • Timeline 4 and 5 must be merged into one.
  • Marty's jump from timeline 7 to 8, must be 6 to 7.
  • Timeline 8 must disappear.
  • Timeline 0 and 1 must be merged.

final result: 6 timelines

I could do it myself but I don't know how to upload images...--201.247.28.7 (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't removed, it was archived (see "Archive: 1" on top of the article"). I think the timeline is right as it is now. See an old article that describes the timeline in detail.

Plot sections are ridiculous[edit]

Something has got to be done about the plot of every BTTF movie. To me, a plot is what you read behind the box of a DVD and nothing more. It resumes the idea of the story in a couple of paragraphs. What we currently have is the entire stories, from the very beginning to the very end, with every little detail, and it's getting worse almost everyday. Soon, a plot will become as detailed as a script of the movie and we don't want to go there. What I suggest: Completely (I mean, completely) replace the plot sections with the text behind the box of the related movie. Opinions? -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections in doing what I propose? I'll wait until next monday. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summaries need to be concise, but a DVD cover-lenght summary is too short. There needs to be enough to allow the causal reader to understand the rest of the article (and in this case, the sequels) without previous knowledge, so there is a need to cover some details. I agree all three of them are too long and need trimming. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make the plot section that short. Try retain the salient points of the story. On the other hand, I prefer pruning irrelevant sections of the plots' current forms. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought everyone subscribed to BTTF articles were subscribed to this one too, but apparently not. I was wondering why I wasn't getting any opinions. So, ok, I won't change them to the text behind the DVD boxes, but they need serious cleaning. I mean, badly. For example, one of the last change on the plot of BTTF II is from "causes Doc to faint" to "causes Doc to say "Great Scott!" and faint". You have got to be kidding me. This is the kind of totally useless detail that needs to be removed. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great job Masem on the trimming. I don't think I could have done it better myself! Thanks for your hard work. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theme[edit]

OK, I guess Ill start the discussion. Since the themes that are related in the removed section are evident throughout the story, there is very good reason to keep the themes in the article. The argument that it is unreferenced is invalid, since the film IS the reference in itself.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Only, the dude who keeps deleting those things doesn't seem to read this section nor does he read the things people write when they put it back in. It's correct, the film IS the reference!!! --Maxl (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have the power or the authority to overrule a consensus that was agreed by about 20 people. Whether you think there's a very good reason or not to recover a deleted article/section/topic/subject/etc is completely irrelevant. As for saying "The dude who keeps deleting...", note that the consensus to delete was made by 14 "dudes" against 2 -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Consensus??? I saw no consensus for this article--Jojhutton (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See here. I mentioned this link in the comment of my 'undo'. -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you establish a solid consensus here (and significantly rework the material), there are no grounds for restoring it. --Ckatzchatspy 18:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Lyverbe. The link that you provided is for an article with that name. It has nothing to do with this article at all. Please stop insulting my intellegence by continuing to referance it.
To Ckatz. What grounds are there to remove it?
To everyone else. Why is it that you continue to remove information just because you don't like it? How is it that you can decide what information someone who sees this article will be interested in or not? Its just plain wrong to do that.--Jojhutton (talk)
The consensus in the deletion debate clearly spoke to the nature of the content, not simply to the notion of a stand-alone article. If you review the comments, it is crystal-clear that the contributors did not consider the information to be encyclopaedic in nature. That is why it is relevant to keep referring to the deletion discussion, and also why editors are certainly warranted in removing the non-conforming material. --Ckatzchatspy 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic for its own article perhaps, but if you review the comments, you may notice a few that says it should go in this article. Stop using that as a reason, and come up with a good one for deciding for other people.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, not every piece of trivia qualifies as encyclopaedic text, and Wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopaedia and not merely a collection of said trivia. That mandate requires us to be selective in what we add to articles. You may well find the editor-generated comparisons interesting, but the reality is that they don't fit the consensus-defined standards set out for this project. I might suggest that you would find more success if you were to work on creating text that does meet Wikipedia's encyclopaedia standards, rather than just persisting with this attempt to add material that has clearly been rejected. --Ckatzchatspy 01:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I don't see a clear reject of this. What I do see are a few editors who feel that they need to decide for hundreds of people a day, what is relevant and what is not. Its not trivia, its basic plot and story substance that you are trying to remove. I'm surprsied that we are even having this discussion. Plot is rarely referenced on wikipedia, nor is it encyclopedic by your measure.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can easily tell you "Why is it that you continue to add information just because you like it?" Wikipedia is a team effort. When we don't agree on something, we use the related talk page to come up with an agreement (BTW, congrats for doing so) instead of playing the revert war game. In this case, the agreement was to remove the themes. What you're attempting to do is to ignore that consensus which is an offense to an administrative decision. -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion debate decided to delete the article and the content along with it, and the comments were mostly related to the suitability of the content, not so much to the placement of the content. There was no decision to merge. It was suggested but it did not gain consensus and so the article and everything in it was deleted. I am also surprised that this discussion is taking place. There are plot sections for each of the three films and it's a stretch to say this section is plot related. It's a random assortment of common ideas and recurring gags, most of which are not themes at all, and which are presented in a completely incoherent fashion that does not further any understanding of the plot. Even it was all plot, it would be way too long and film articles with shorter plots than this are tagged as "too long". Each piece of information looked at individually is of minor importance and it doesn't gain importance by piling snippet upon snippet. I see the overall collection as a mass of WP:TRIVIA/WP:CRUFT by Wikipedia's own definitions of the terms, and the information overwhelms the article. Whether or not it's sourced is irrelevant. It may be 100% accurate, but even so, it looks very much like someone sat down and watched the three films and then noted every single cross point in the films, regardless of their relevance to the plot. No effort has been made to seperate the major themes from the minor themes or even to seperate the themes from the running gags and possible coincidences. It's a list that places equal weight on every point. A "recurring themes" section would probably be useful, especially if it can narrowed down to the main themes intentionally highlighted by the film makers, but this is not it. Rossrs (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with excluding the content. It is certainly not thematic; thematic would be something like American Beauty (film)#Interpretations. This appears to be trivia that cannot be integrated in any encyclopedic form. I don't mind a "Themes" section for this article or the articles about individual films, but this is not a thematic approach at all. Erik (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it would seem that the winds are blowing against adding it, and I can respect that. I am a bit skeptical of User:Rossrs motives here, since he has never edited here before, opposed me on other issues, and may have only come here to oppose me on this issue. The information is clean and helpful to anyone who clicks on this article. I thought it was very interesting. In the big wiki picture, this information isn't the most useless stuff on wikipedia. What are we, paying by the kilobyte here? I just don't understand why its not better to give people this information, since these themes are relevant to the story as a whole. There was even a Back to the Future special, that discussed these very themes. I guess that wikipedia isn't as good for information as some might want. Especially when this web site is suppose to for everyone to edit, yet, there are some who want to suppress other's information, based on the simple fact that they don't like it. Very Very Sad day for wikipedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to assume good faith and restrict your comments to the subject rather than trying to guess my motives. You have no idea which articles I have on my watch list, and I am free to comment wherever I choose. If I'd come here and agreed with you, would you dismiss my opinion on the basis that I have "never edited here before"? Rossrs (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Stalk. Whatever your possible motives may be, perception is everything unfortunatly.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what your perception is, but you have chosen to throw accusations at me, rather than challenge any of the points I made. If you want to make an accusation, make it official, otherwise keep it to yourself. Please keep to the subject. Rossrs (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's return focus on the content, if there is anything more to address about the films' themes. If anyone is interested, I can list some thematic coverage of the film so the notion of "Themes" sticks around, but with academic content. Erik (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A reworking of the content would be acceptable. I was thinking of working it into the base of each plot section--Jojhutton (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Read the section right above this one. Last october, Masem did a great job of cleaning up the plot section of each movie and we've been working hard to keep them as short as possible. Spreading deleted material into the existing articles would make that work almost obselete. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thats great, but this is today, not last October. Time to move on my friend.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time to move on? that work was done 3 months ago. You sound as if it was made 3 years ago!
The plot sections are suitably brief, but I think (to repeat my earlier comment) there is some value in at least looking at the idea of allowing some discussion of common themes. Each film has its own article, so I think the main purpose of this article is to link the three as one entity, and the repetition and/or evolution of themes, could be an important point. Otherwise I don't think this article has a very clear purpose other than to act as a summary of each of the individual film articles. Lyverbe, I agree the plot sections don't need to be expanded to introduce discussion of themes because themes are distinct from plot points, but a section that discusses common themes with (to quote User:Erik) "academic content" could be valuable. It would need to be more than the original research and trivia of the previous list, but the intentions of the film makers could be conveyed. Something like Star Wars#Themes (but without the spin-off article), Harry Potter#Themes (it's about the books rather than the films, but the intention is the same), and The Lord of the Rings#Themes (again it's the books rather than the films, and again the spin-off article isn't needed). On the other hand, the Harry Potter (film series) and The Lord of the Rings film trilogy articles do not have theme sections - perhaps it's because the themes are discussed against the original source material - the books - something that is not possible for the Back to the Future films. If there is support to at least look at this possibility, we would need to be clear in looking at themes rather than running gags as there is a world of difference between the two, and the previous list was slanted towards the gags. Rossrs (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're talking about the plot sections of THIS article, it's better. I'm still against the idea, but it ain't that bad. I thought it was about the plot sections of the each movie's article. I mean, to repeat in each individual article's plot sections that Biff/Griff/Buford says "Hey McFly, I thought I told you to never come here" is completely pointless to a story plot. I consider the themes to be nothing but junk, but hey, lets see what other people think about it. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the thing - a lot of the points that were listed under "themes" are not themes at all, nor are they key elements to the plot. They're running gags. "Hey McFly ....." does not fit under themes. A discussion of themes should take a broader approach that highlights the main points and avoids wallowing in trivia and cruft. But yes, let's see. Other editors have indicated that they have ideas about what could be covered, so I think it would be useful to start looking at suggestions about how to approach this. Rossrs (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Also .... this is an example of a film featured article with a "themes" section that we could perhaps draw from - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial#Themes. Rossrs (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This lists some sources. Beyond that page, here are some more:

  • WITTENBERG, David: Oedipus Multiplex, or, The Subject as a Time Travel Film: Two Readings of Back to the Future. Discourse (0730-1081) v.28 n.2/3 , April 2006, p.51-77.
  • RUUD, Jay: Back to the Future as Quintessential Comedy, Literature/Film Quarterly (0090-4260) v.19 n.2 , April 1991, p.127-133. Argues that BACK TO THE FUTURE can be viewed as a typical comedy. In an issue devoted to comedy.
  • GORDON, Andrew: Bedford falls! The inescapable family in American science fiction and fantasy films. Journal of Popular Film & Television (0195-6051) v.20 n.2 , July 1992, p.2-8. Discusses pro-family messages in US science-fiction/fantasy films THE WIZARD OF OZ, IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, the STAR WARS trilogy and the BACK TO THE FUTURE trilogy.
  • ERISMAN, Fred: The Night Christopher Lloyd Danced with Mary Steenbergen. Journal of Popular Film & Television (0195-6051) v.20 n.1 , April 1992, p.29-33. BACK TO THE FUTURE III, which echos MY DARLING CLEMENTINE, offers a modified version of the myth of the West, adapted to the technological frontier of the late twentieth century.

I think I can access most of these. Please let me know if you want to collaborate. Erik (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help, if I can. Although I don't have access to these. Rossrs (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Back to the future is a very complicated movie about existence and pressure. I especially like 2015, hoverboards are cool! Eboynine (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"DVD Release" grid - Update!![edit]

Am I the only one who feels the "DVD Releases" grid needs an overhaul? Does anyone at all care about the 2002-2005 standard DVD release specific features anymore ("enhanced" MJ interview)? When the blu-rays come out, even fewer people will. And by whom is a 2010 release date expected by? Sure, we big fans are expecting it, but is the average reader (keep Wiki "encyclopedic"/generic in POV)? I was looking at the DVD release grid, and it just seems to "read" in an antiquated style. Yes, we all know the early widescreens were messed up, but isn't this old news now? It should be relegated to a paragraph or two only.MJEH (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move - Trilogy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was move per request (but with trilogy in lowercase).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future (film series) → Back to the Future Trilogy — Suggesting the page be renamed Back to the Future Trilogy. It seems that this was infact the original name for this page however it appears to have been silently renamed film series as opposed to trilogy. The only record of a potential rename to (film series) in this talk page was back in 2006 and was declined. Also of note, the use of trilogy is supported in the films naming convention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.177.117 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did the article end up at Back to the Future (film series) anyway. The last name discussion confirmed the article title as Back to the Future trilogy. Support return to previous standard.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename to Back to the Future trilogy as the last move was out of process and against a previous consensus discussion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving back to Back to the Future trilogy. I'm sure a move was done in good faith, but it's clearly not uncontroversial as evidenced by this and the previous move discussion. PC78 (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per others. It's clearly identified as a trilogy, unlike some series of films. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The move from "Trilogy" to "(Film series)" was done on 21 december 2008 with the comment "Conform to Wikipedia standards". When looking at the revision of WP:NCF dating 18 november 2008, it states "For articles on a series of films, the title of the article should be "Series name (film series).". 2 days later, the following was added: "When trilogies are often referred to as such by outside sources, their articles may be titled "Series name Trilogy"". Perhaps the editor simply didn't see this new rule and changed the article's title. Simply put, changing back to "Trilogy" follows the standard and is more common -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NCF mentions "trilogy" in lowercase. Google Books Search shows only results of "Back to the Future trilogy", not "Back to the Future Trilogy". Would that lowercase rendering be okay? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lowercase 't' per WP:CAPS -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the lead should also be changed to "The Back to the Future trilogy is a science-fiction comedy film series… ." This would bring the genres inline with the movie articles and correct the title. DKqwerty (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Canon[edit]

The "canon" section is confusing and not up to the standards of the rest of the article.

Here is the section:

"The series has spawned comics and an animated series which although take place between or after the films, are all in their own 'what if' and alternate timelines as stated by writer, Bob Gale. However, only the episodic game by Telltale is part of the main continuity which takes place six months after the events of Part III.[1]" Wanderer57 (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second that -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

"Back to the Future: The Game will be released by Telltale Games for the PS3, Mac, iPad, and PC, with Christopher Lloyd reprising his role as Doc Brown. AJ Locascio will provide the voice for Marty McFly.[17] Bob Gale will be assisting with the script. The release date is December 22, 2010.[18] Jurassic Park and Back to the Future are the two movies that Telltale Games will revive as games.[19] In a behind the scenes interview with the crew working on the game it was stated that the first part to the game is set to be 6 months after the story of Back to the Future Part III.[20]"

I request this be changed as it hasn't been released yet and its past the date shown here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinophile21992 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering "The Game" in articles[edit]

I've asked in Talk:List_of_characters_in_the_Back_to_the_Future_films#Considering_.22The_Game.22_in_articles, but I haven't got any reply. Perhaps I'll get more chance here.

I wonder if the articles (not only this article but also dedicated articles to BTTF characters) should really use BTTF:The Game as valid information. I think the articles should reflect what happen in the movie and not anywhere else. For example, Marty's article states that he has visited 1931 which is not true for anyone who hasn't played the game. I haven't seen any episodes of the animated series, but the list of episodes says they've been 3,000,000 years back, in 1790, in 1800s, etc. If we have to mention The game years, I don't see why we shouldn't add those of the 'animated series'. Do we want to go there? of course not. -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page for the animated series says "Although the series takes place after the films, co-creator of the Back to the Future series Bob Gale has stated that it and the comics take place in their own 'what if' and alternate timelines and not part of the main continuity." so it's not canon. The The Game page also says "Gale stated that although the game is not part of the series canon,[23][25][26] it is possible that it could take place in alternate timelines." so no, I would agree that they should not be used as valid information and also should not be included in the timeline. Sander (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found an existant article about BTTF IV[edit]

One hour ago I found an article, edited in last december by an user no more active, named Back to the Future Part IV. Instead of listing it in the {{Back to the Future}} template, I preferred to ask here, to avoid mistakes and request an opinion:

  • The article, that should be wikified and referenced, speaks about the unreleased film, but some parts of it are unclear. The Category:Unreleased films exists, and i've added this category. Is it correct? Could it be considered (technically) unreleased or cancelled?
  • I've categorized it in BTTF main category, cause i don't know if the categorization into "BTTF films" is technically correct. Regarding the template, as said, I avoided to do any action. If "Films" section is not correct, I've (IMHO) supposed that "Universe" could be correct.

Anyway, other edits into this article (including infobox and "language" category) have been made by the original author. Sorry if the categorization and TL addition are erroneous; you could remove. Thanks for attention and regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OR and WP:VERIFY, Wikipedia works with facts. Here, the first section of this article is "Rumors". Not only the article shouldn't be mentionned in the BTTF templates but it shouldn't even exist at all. -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article was once deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Back_to_the_Future_Part_IV). Recreating a deleted article is a naughty thing to do :) I've tagged the article for speedy deletion. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The original edit was a redirect, now restored and protected. Thanks for the immediate help to my opinion request. I can consider the issue resolved... PS: I only recommend to control: in an Alternate 2012 the article may exists. :-D Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White space[edit]

Does anyone have any idea why there is white space at the top of the article? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 00:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While fixing a ref, I also tweaked the arrangement of the templates at the top to eliminate some of the white space; but this is just a work-around. I'll try to track down which template specifically contains the issue so a more permanent fix; but I haven't edited templates in a while, so can't guarantee I'll be able to find the actual root cause. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you fixed the problem here, which is a start. It never occurred to me to simply rearrange the templates. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 13:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New cast section[edit]

New table looks nice, but I believe there are too many members included. Einstein, Marlene, Beauregard, etc. I'd remove those. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Children's film series[edit]

New category "Children's film series" has been added. I don't believe I'd categorize BTTF as a film made for children and I went to check the current list of movies in that category. Apart from Ghostbusters which is somewhat in the same range as BTTF, the other movies are clearly for a younger age range than BTTF. Still, I'm not sure. Anyone else agree? -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red links[edit]

I admit hating red links too. WP:REDDEAL states "An existing red link can indicate one or more of the following things: A new article is needed". Is it needed? and, seriously, will there ever be an article for Owen Thomas? I doubt it. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there ever will be Lyverbe and you should tell JustAGal that. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this Owen Thomas? An actively working voice actor with 50 acting credits to his name? I am not so doubtful that this subject could merit an article at some point. bd2412 T 20:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So how long should a red link stay? If nobody cares to make an article about something/someone, does that mean that the red link should stay there forever? To me, a red link doesn't look like "Hey! look here! an article should be created about this!", it looks like an error in the article. Errors are ugly. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no active article, why link it? Strip the redlinks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list poll[edit]

A new "Cast List" section has recently been added to the individual Back to the Future articles. Some editors have seen this new section has been helpful, some have seen it as being useless and some are indifferent.

For the good health of the articles, please express your opinion about this section by using the following list as examples.

  • Keep - Complete: Every actor deserves to be treated equally. For that reason, all should be listed as in IDMB.
  • Keep - Medium: Only those who had any impact to the story should be listed. In short, if the actor spoke, he/she deserves a spot in the cast list.
  • Keep - Short: No need to keep a huge list in the article. Only major roles (i.e. written on movie posters) are to be mentioned whereas bit parts and cameos should not be listed.
  • Delete: The list is useless since we already have important cast members mentioned in the franchise article.
  • Delete - Complete: Delete all of them, including the one in the franchise article.

The majority of votes will decide the faith of the sections in all "Back to the Future" articles. This poll will end on 27 October 2013. -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please insert your vote here:

  • Delete: The list is useless since we already have important cast members mentioned in the franchise article. -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Short: Ideally the film articles "Cast" sections would be prose and discuss the casting and other information pertinent to it for which reliable sources are available. Failing that I think it's reasonable and comparable to other film articles to include listings of the principals for each film. DonIago (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poll closed. We'll go with "Keep - Short". -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traveled dates[edit]

"November 12, 1955 (twice; once by 2015 Biff ..." - Really? If I remember correctly, we just see Biff stealing the DeLorean. How are we so sure that he traveled to this date? - Lyverbe (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do see Old Biff pass Young Biff the almanac, but I don't remember the sequence well enough to say for certain whether we know when he arrived/left. DonIago (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked. Biff gives the date when Marty confronts him at the hotel (45 seconds from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9c1k_m6POA) - Lyverbe (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. These sections are becoming more like trivia sections that are hard to verify. I would remove them all. Objections? comments? -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have any objection. I didn't see this section before making the revision to the previous edits. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Template: User Back to the Future[edit]

To my fellow "Back to the Future" fans here on Wikipedia, I would just like to make you all aware of the following user template which I have recently created: Template:User Back to the Future. I hereby would like to dedicate it to the greatest fans of the greatest film ever made. You are all welcomed to use it on your user pages. From me to you with love. :-) --Omer Toledano (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is documentary coming. Not sure where to include it. TGCP (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 21, 2015[edit]

A section should be added about Back to the Future's impact on 2015, especially October 21, 2015 (the date Marty and Doc travel to in BTTF2). It has become a date of some significance, earning the name Back to the Future Day and the hashtag #BTTF2015 (on both Facebook and Twitter). Pepsi is realeasing a Pepsi Perfect limited-edition bottle (It has Pepsi Made With Real Sugar in it, though.), and Universal has released a Jaws 19 trailer. Nike is still working on the self-tying shoes for limited release. It is also the franchise's (and the original film's) 30th Anniversary, so it is getting a Blu-ray release with many new special features, as well as a Blu-ray release of Back to the Future: The Original Animated Series. Again, BTTF2 has made 2015 a year of some significance. --Super3588 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So add one? DonIago (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Doc Brown Saves the World[edit]

No indication of unique notability to warrant its own article. This is apparently a short film not a proper feature. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me but I suggest that the entire article be written in a single paragraph. I believe it's already small enough for that. -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I delightfully agree to that suggestion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge proposal by above reasons. -rayukk | talk 11:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also Agree with merge proposal by above reasons. -User:Alex79uk | talk 13:57, 29 February 2016 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.165.149 (talk)

You suggested this merger more than a year ago, Cyphoidbomb, and there are no objections. Are you actually going to perform it? Let's get that merge template off the front page, ok? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 21:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOldJacobite: If you want to take the reigns on this, please feel free. I have my hands full at present. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I hate performing mergers. I just wanted to remind you. I've seen merger tags sit for years and never get done. Sorry if I took a tone. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike them as well, but I actually think I can get this one nailed out in a few minutes. No biggie. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheOldJacobite: Okay, I think I got it all done. The plot section still needs trimming, but most of the useful content is there. Source and destination talk pages have been flagged with {{merged-from}} and {{merged-to}}, source page redirected... I think that's all. Thanks for the reminder. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That was quick. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other actors?[edit]

This and other lists of actors states that Michael Andrew Fox played Marty Sr., Marty Jr. and Seamus McFly. Michael did really play Marty Sr. throughout the film trilogy. However, Marty Jr. seems to have been played by another actor in most of the scenes. I can tell this because he has a different voice and the exact distances between the features of his face does not match. The same person may well have played Seamus McFly, at least in the scenes were both Marty (Sr.) and Seamus occur. The voce appears to be the same yet the dialect is not. According to TV tropes Seamus’ and Maggie McFly’s dialect does not exist in the real world. But it does vaguely sound like someone from somewhere on the British Islands could speak.

Similarly, Thomas Francis Wilson Jr. is stated to have played Biff, Griff and Buford Tannen. However, there is a couple of scenes where a teenage Biff is seen together with an old, time traveling Biff. Due to the limitations of special effects in 1989 these two must have been played by different actors. I dare to say the old version of Biff was really played by Thomas. The teenage Biff might have been played by the same actor as Griff, if an additional actor for him had been needed. I am not sure if grandfather and grandson is ever seen together. But someone on TV tropes has states that Griff is noticeably taller.

The same film contains a scene were the teenage, time traveling Jennifer Parker meets her future self. The teenage Jennifer attempts to get out of her future home right when the middle-aged Jennifer comes home. When seeing each other at the doorway both faint at the shock. The time traveling version of Jennifer then falls out of the doorway. Since I did not notice anything different from the rest of the film when she is seen walking to the front door I think the teenage Jennifer was really played by Elisabeth Judson Shue.

Finally, there is a scene where a time traveling version of Emmett “Doc” Brown meets a younger version of himself. This younger version of never sees the other version’s face and does not realise that they have the same voce. Consequentially, only the old version of Doc knows that he is actually meeting himself. In this case I can tell that the exact distances between the features of his face does match between the two versions. However, a lamp post is always seen between the two versions. Even when the time traveling Doc hands his younger self a wrench his arm seen is behind the lamp post. This lamp post could have obscured the edge of a silver screen showing Christopher Allen Lloyd being handled the wrench by a different person. Of cause, it would have been the same prop wrench as Christopher was shot handing over to someone else.

Does anyone know which other actors would have played Marty Jr., Seamus McFly, Jennifer McFly, Biff and possibly Griff Tannen? They might have been listed as stunt doubles. :-)

2015-12-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.144.9 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The actors all played their related other parts (ie. Fox really did play Marty Jr., Seamus and Jennifer McFly. Wilson did play Biff, Griff and Buford. Lloyd did play is younger part. etc.) As for the doubles, I don't believe it's important since they are never mentioned in Wikipedia cast lists anyway. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to mixed up Jennifer with her daughter Marlene. “Jennifer McFly” refers to Jennifer Parker after she has married Marty McFly. This couple have fraternal twins named Marty Jr. and Marlene. They say that Marlene was played by Michael Andrew Fox. I think she is only seen from behind when seen together with her twin brother and father.
I don’t doubt that Christopher Allen Lloyd played both the older and younger version of Emmett “Doc” Brown. The scene where Doc meets himself can be explained as two separate shoots of the same actor: one where he is handed a wrench by someone else and one were the same wrench gets out of view. The splice between these two shoots could be obscured by the lamp post.
This explanation does not work for the scenes with two versions of Biff Tannen. The old, time traveling Biff gives his teenage self a box on the ear and later handles him a book without anything in front of them. Neither does it work for the scenes were Marty Sr. is seen together with Marty Jr. or Seamus. In one scene in the second film the time traveling Marty take his son’s cap and put it on himself. Similarly, there is a scene in the third film where Seamus hands Marty a plate of meat. The technology to paste a person’s head from one shoot onto a different shoot did not exist in 1989 – 90 when these two were made. This result in it being evident to me that two different people were used. I just wonder which the actors other than Michael Andrew Fox and Thomas Francis Wilson Jr. were. 2016-01-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.144.9 (talk • contribs)
The movie was created using a camera system known back then as "Vista glide" which allowed actors to mix themselves in existing scenes. That way, Thomas Wilson was able to play old Biff (first time filmed to the right side of the car) and young Biff (second time filmed to the left side of the car). It's all explained in the DVD bonus features of the movie commentaries. There are no "other actors". -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Split screen filming had been around for decades even then and there were quite a number of movies and television shows in which actors played multiple roles and appeared more than once in the same scene. The technology was increasingly daring to have them physically interact with themselves. Doubles were (and still are) sometimes used for long shots, rear views and limbs but it was still the same actor providing the bulk of both characters. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Studios Closed?[edit]

This article suggests that the Universal Studios theme park in Florida is closed. That article does not indicate any such thing.--Mfwills (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are asking this here instead of the Universal Studios theme park article, but anyway, WP:NOTAFORUM. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Back to the Future (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typos/grammar[edit]

The correct spelling of the past tense of the verb to lead is "led". This article confuses the two.😃 Crickettopo Crickettopo (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT? Not seeing why this needs a Talk page item... DonIago (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full names for Doc and Marty[edit]

A few days ago, the full names for Marty (Marty "Martin" Seamus McFly) and Doc (Dr. Emmett "Lathorope" Brown) were removed the cast and character table. Using the full/real names of fictional characters is useful can help provide more information about them for articles. I want to re-add there full names to the tables. If I don't get any response in 10 days, I will re-add it myself. If anyone has any objections, please leave your thoughts. Zucat (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the table is just providing a data summary and the characters have their own articles which provide their full names, and their full names aren't particularly relevant to an understanding of the films (i.e. trivia), I can't support adding their full names to the table at this time. DonIago (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Doniago. -- Lyverbe (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Principal cast table[edit]

@Zucat: My changes to the cast table consisted mainly of format, using common characteristics I've seen in other cast tables and found useful here. Mostly using the {{Cast indicator}} template instead of just writing clarifications in parentheses, which clutters the table. Plus, given the section is called "Principal cast", I removed many clearly minor characters. To which of these changes do you particularly object? —El Millo (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the cast indicator also avoids the pictures compressing the table. —El Millo (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the characters you got rid of were supporting characters, they were not at all minor. Marty McFly Jr. and Marlene are arguably LESS minor then other characters like say, Needles, Mr. Strickland, and Mad Dog Tannen.

If you want to add the indicator back, feel free to do so, but do not remove any supporting characters. If you think the Table is too big, condense the video game into one section. Zucat (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If all those characters are going to stay then the title of the section should be changed. —El Millo (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zucat: Which of the ones I removed do you think should be added back and which were correctly removed? —El Millo (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idealistically, outside of maybe Goldie Wilson, all of them should stay. The ones in particular that need to stay are ones that have been in more than one incarnation. If the supporting characters are a little too distracting, make a section within the Table for them. Or if you don't want to do any of this, make the video game listing smaller as I previously said. Zucat (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That can't possibly be true. Characters like 3-D, Match, Skinhead, and Marvin Berry aren't even close to being "Principal cast". Plus, this is a summary of the cast for the franchise, if someone wants to see more comprehensive cast information, they can head to each individual article, we shouldn't have a table for principal cast and a table for supporting cast. Copernicus and Einstein obviously shouldn't be included either. I don't know many of the other characters, so I have no choice but to take your word that they are relevant enough to be included here, but of the ones I do know, many don't fit here. —El Millo (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marty's brother and sister Dave and Linda clearly aren't principal cast either. Marty's daughter Marlene appears in just one scene in Part II, so clearly not principal cast. —El Millo (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my sandbox, where I re-added many of the previously-removed characterse. The ones I didn't include are: Einstein, Copernicus, Dave McFly, Linda McFly, Goldie Wilson, 3-D, Match, Skinhead, Marvin Berry, Marlene McFly, Needles, James Strickland, and Biff Jr. I have doubts about including Needles and James Strickland, since they are somewhat relevant characters in the films, the rest are clearly not very relevant for this table. I don't know the character Biff Jr., but I searched the appearances and it seems he's only a recurring character in season 2 of the animated series, and doesn't appear anywhere else, hence the removal.

It should be kept in mind this isn't Fandom, and it isn't a Wiki focused on Back to the Future. We're thinking about what would be relevant for the general reader, thus minor details should be excluded. It should also be kept in mind this is a summary, and more exhaustive cast lists exist for each individual property at their respective articles. —El Millo (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zucat: should I move ahead with it? See the table at my sandbox. —El Millo (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'll take care of the table. I think I can work something out that we can both be satisfied with. Zucat (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zucat: I've already made the table. The format is what's most important for me. I'm just asking about the characters removed, if you have clear reasons to re-include some of those characters. —El Millo (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no major characters to bring back. Since you insist that some characters be removed from the table, I've decided to remove all the non-recurring characters so that way the format can be brought down a bit. Feel free to add the indicator back when you get a chance. Zucat (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Changed the format as I had, with all the characters you re-added kept, except for the two dogs. —El Millo (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Zucat: what's wrong now? You had no objections to the formatting whatsoever. Your only qualm with this was the removal of the characters, which was then discussed and a middle ground was found. Your manual revert was against the agreements reached in this discussion. —El Millo (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zucat: what a good way to be civil, just changing stuff randomly instead of doing what was agreed upon. You added things that look even worse now and put the cast indicator in the wrong place. —El Millo (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Back_to_the_Future_(franchise)&oldid=1205591836"