Talk:Back to the Future

Music Contest vs Music Audition

As we have an editor who doesn't believe in discussing things or adhering to WP: BRD, but just textually-yelling very loudly as if this slight variation is gradually kicking his dog down a flight of stairs, I thought a discussion would be useful for others to give their say.

The WP: STATUSQUO version is "music contest". It's an audition for Battle of the bands, and an audition is part of the contest. If someone is qualifying the Olympics we don't call it a "sporting audition" it's an "Olympic qualifier" or "Olympic qualifying event". Music contest conveys, to me, that this is a competition between various bands and Marty's band weren't seen as good enough, feeding into the plot. A "music audition" on the other hand can mean anything, an audition for what? A play? A birthday party? A record producer?

It is a minor change I think makes a big difference, but rather than reverting and then adding repeated warnings to the editor's talk page for the WP: EDITWARRING they're taking part in, I thought I would open the discussion first. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright then, you want to talk. Ignoring the illogic logic you are trying to convey with the Olympics, the main question you have asked is "Music Audition" that it could mean anything because you don't currently know what the audition is for.

Exhibit A Strickland 1985 quote: I notice your band is on the roster for the dance auditions after school today.

Exhibit B George McFly 1985 Quote: Belive me Marty you're better off without having to worry about all the aggravation and headaches of playing at that dance.

The Audition in question is for playing at the 1985 School Dance. Something he didn't get into because Judge "Lewis" claimed he was too darn loud. Vindicated later by him playing at the dance in 1955. The reason I gave such a minor edit is because this article most likely has a high importance, may have been nominated as "good" or had some other significance. It's probably limited to a few letters at a time by now for all "I" know. Giving a detailed explanation to such a minor point is useless.

Exhibit C Time eight minutes and nine seconds into the movie, the sign in question that says "Auditions Battle Of The Bands" with corny cartoon figures in it. I hardly think that this school audition sounds like the link you put up in this conversation just now especially when the "audience" in question are just 3 judges in an untelevised event. Its similar to schools and offices making up some kind of event and attempting to make it sound cooler than it is just to get members to join in.

As for edit warring, I recall the rules of the site say I can revert up to 3 times before I start a discussion. You mister Blake have only reverted twice before starting this conversation. Had you reverted a third time I would have stopped and waited for the inevitable moment someone else could have explained this to you, or re-written the paragraph. As for my caps, "Am I just too darn loud" ?

Maxcardun (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Maxcardun: "Edit warring" (WP:EW) describes the behavior of repeatedly restoring your preferred version of the page. This label can apply to any number of reversions. The three-revert rule (WP:3RR) describes a specific type of edit warring; do not exceed three reverts within a 24-hour period. Even if you don't cross that line, your behavior can still be considered edit warring. Typically, it's good practice to discuss at the article's talk page as soon as you realize another editor disagrees with you. WP:EPTALK is policy as well and worth reviewing.

So disclaimer out of the way, does anyone know how secondary sources typically describe it? "Audition" sounds more natural to me in this context. The first two sources I came across – Rolling Stone and Uproxx – both describe it as an audition. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

One peer-reviewed source shows both terms being used (audition and contest). Namely, the audition is what the viewer sees onscreen, while the contest remains offscreen. Lewis is named as the "head juror" during the "audition for the Battle of the Bands (BOTB) contest".

It would seem that what needs to be defined here is which part the plot section of the article is discussing, the audition, the contest, or both. DARK is correct when they say that the audition is part and parcel of the contest. In the audition, one band is judged (apparently) by one juror. In the contest, the other bands are present (ostensibly) in the "battle" between each other.

So, because the other bands are not present or not entirely chosen during the audition phase, it can be surmised that, yes, the audition is part of the contest — but that contest is not part of the audition (because the other bands to "battle" are absent). Thus, I think describing it as either an audition or an audition for the BOTB contest is the more accurate way to label it, more so than just describing it as an audition or a contest alone. To use the Olympics metaphor, it cannot be a true contest if most of the other contestants are not yet selected and/or missing in action, which would be the case in the audition phase.  Spintendo  06:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC); edited 18:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a closed case at this point. The plot description reads, "After Marty's band is rejected from a music audition...", which would be accurate per the definition: an audition is a "trial performance to appraise an entertainer's merits". They are trying out for the contest hoping to be accepted, which is the audition phase. I agree though that if there's any confusion about what the audition is for, then it can be expanded to say "audition for the BOTB contest", but I don't think the expansion is necessary. Doing so wouldn't enhance my understanding of the plot. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that in the end, whether it was audition or audition for the contest, either one was preferable to contest alone, since the contest was offscreen and ultimately not part of the audition.  Spintendo  18:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Bob Gale's Reagan reaction claim is apocryphal

The article gives a claim regarding Reagan's purported response upon viewing Back to the Future as the following: "Reagan ordered the theater's projectionist to stop the film, roll it back, and run it again." This is cited to Vince Mancini's article "Back to the Future at 35". Mancini, in turn, cites Sorcha Ní Fhlainn The Worlds of Back to the Future: Critical Essays on the Films. Sorcha Ni Fhlainn, in turn, cites Bob Gale's interview from a 2002 special featurette included on a BTTF DVD release. In that interview, Gale states:

Reagan loved the movie. We heard from the White House that when he ran the movie in the White House he made the projectionist stop the movie at the reference to who's President of the United States, and watched it again, he was laughing so hard he missed some of the dialogue.

This is problematic for four reasons:

Gale was not present for Reagan's reaction
Bob Gale was not present during the Reagan showing, and is a poor witness to these events. His claim, that "we heard from the White House" is odd. If someone from the White House just called him, out of the blue, and told him this, then he hasn't stated who that person was.

The location given by Gale is incorrect
Gale is wrong about where Reagan viewed the film. He states "when he ran the movie in the White House...", however, BTTF was never shown in the White House. The Reagans only watched the film once, and that was at Camp David, on Friday 26 July 1985. This is an important detail, because whomever supposedly told Gale this story would surely have mentioned where it occurred.

The actual location has no on-site projectionist
Because Gale didn't know it was screened at Camp David, he also didn't know the setup for watching films at Camp David. In the White House there’s a theater in the East Wing, which looks exactly like a big movie theater in miniature. But at Camp David, where the Reagans watched the majority of their movies, there is no movie theater. Films were watched in the living room of the Camp David home—known as the Aspen Lodge—a one-story, ranch-style cabin. The Reagans would simply sit on the couch and watch. Extra couches and sofa chairs were brought in on occasions when the Reagans had guests.

The movie projector was set up in a pantry off of the galley. A small hole had been cut in the wall of the pantry to allow the lens to project the movie’s image on a screen that was lowered from the ceiling of the living room. At the White House there was a projectionist, but that person did not travel to Camp David to run the movies there. Camp David is a US Naval facility, and naval personnel there, known as Seabees, were trained on how to use the projector. Because of the pantry's size, Seabees did not actually sit in the pantry while the film ran.

According to Gale, Reagan immediately called to the projectionist to have him stop and rerun the scene. When one considers all the work needed for this to happen, the truthfulness of Gale's claim begins to fray:

1. Reagan gets up from the couch to turn on the lights
2. Walks to the galley to notify a Seabee that a rewind was needed
3. Because that Seabee would not have been watching the film along with them, Reagan needs to explain where in the movie he wants it rewound to
4. Reagan returns to the living room while waiting for the Seabee to go to the pantry in order to access the projector
5. Seabees access the projector, placing it into rewind-playback-mode. Total elapsed time to this point, likely 2+1⁄2 minutes
6. Everyone waits another 2+1⁄2 minutes to watch the film play in reverse until it reaches the point where the joke was made, a total of 5 minutes which the Reagans and their gathered guests sit through.

If Gale is correct, then that's how the request to rewind would have played out. But look at how awkward it all would have been for Reagan and his guests, to have the film's showing disrupted in that manner. The key to Gale's believability is the on-site projectionist — there simply must be one on-hand, easily accessible, in order for Reagan to "call out to". Without that projectionist sitting in the booth, at the ready, the request to rewind the film becomes a much more convoluted affair.

Another, published recollection of Reagan's reaction is markedly different

Mark Weinberg, a former spokesman, adviser and speechwriter for President Reagan–someone who was actually present at the showing in question–never mentions it as happening that way. Weinberg, in a published account of the evening, describes the showing as very different from Gale's hearsay rendering:

Both Reagans appeared engrossed in Back to the Future, often laughing heartily. In only one brief instance did the mood in the room darken. It was during a scene after Marty McFly arrives in 1955 and meets the younger Doc Brown:

• DOC: Tell me, Future Boy, who’s president of the United States in 1985?
• MARTY: Ronald Reagan.
• DOC: Ronald Reagan? The actor? Ha! Then who’s vice president, Jerry Lewis? I suppose Jane Wyman is the first lady!

The movie continued, but for me—and, I suspected, those around me—it felt as if the air had gone out of the Aspen Lodge. Something lingered in the room. A discomfort. That evening was only the second time in all eight years of my service in the White House that I had ever heard Jane Wyman’s name mentioned or referred to by anyone other than reporters.

Weinberg goes on to recount how there was an unspoken ban on mentioning Wyman among the Reagan staff and that "it was as if [Reagan] had willed himself to forget about that period of his life, and was startled and resentful when [the film] asked him to return to it". With the mentioning of her name bringing so much pain and discomfort, how likely is it that Reagan asked to have it rewound and played again? Not likely at all.

I think this is compelling evidence to discount Gale's claim, a person once described by Crispin Glover as an "outright liar"—someone who didn't just recast Glover's role, but rather, was comfortable with taking another actor, using heavy makeup in scenes shot out-of-focus or upside down in order to fool the audience into believing they were seeing the same actor when they weren't—so much so that they were sued by Glover for the deceptive practice of using Glover's likeness applied to a different actor, a lawsuit which Glover won. The Crispin Glover episode demonstrates the mindset of a deceiver, someone who is comfortable with telling tall tales.

I understand that there will be others who, having long been used to believing Gale's tale as truth, will claim that it's gospel and couldn't possibly be fake. This newer information should at least have us modifying the original claim by explicitly stating that it comes from Gale without any verification (e.g., "An unverified, secondhand recounting of Reagan's reaction stated..." or an addendum stating "Other evidence suggests Reagan's reaction may have been more muted...." etc.). Per the Disputed inline template's documentation, I've placed the template in the article at the place of Gale's claim, where it should remain until this discussion is closed. Feedback on this from all interested editors is much appreciated. Thanks!  Spintendo  17:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Sorted, well researched although you probably didn't need to go as far as you have to convince me. If possible though can you add the page number from the Weinberg book to the references please because I don't know themDarkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you!  Spintendo  06:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Notes

References

• Spintendo, is that a different edition of the book from 2018? I'm trying to understand why the year and page numbers were wrong. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake Those are the page numbers from the first edition publication. The first set of page numbers I put were for the entire chapter (or rather, it was a rough approximation of where I guessed the information would appear within the chapter, my guess being somewhere in the last eight pages) but I condensed it down to the immediate pages where Weinberg discusses the evening they watched the film once I received a copy and was able to check for myself. (I ended up being very close in my guess: instead of it being on pages 144 through 151 it was actually on pages 147 through 150.) Regards  Spintendo  11:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Piccadilly 261 Radio

I suggest a reference is added to Piccadilly Radio that used to broadcast on the 261 metre frequency, originally located in Piccadilly Gardens, Manchester, UK. One of its former names was Piccadilly 261. Apparently the radio station's 261 window stickers were in some scenes of Back to the Future, as a neighbouring property in the shots was owned by someone from Manchester that was a fan of this particular radio station. 213.33.68.50 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

5891

Hi, I'm just a reader, not overly familiar with this topic, but I keep seeing references to the year 5891. Wasn't it supposed to be in the late 20th century? Certainly Doc could not have had the idea for the time machine in 1955 and then lived until the year 5891. Has the page been vandalized or is this year number an in-universe correct number? It's repeated so many times on the page that I thought it plausible as an in-universe thing. 2601:5CC:C900:345:F8D3:2FD0:7F7E:8742 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You're referring to this edit, which was clear vandalism. Looks like it was fixed already. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

What is the link in the intro embedded in "threatening his own existence"

it leads to some obscure Indonesian website with apparently no connection to the topic. can anyone enlighten on why it's there and what function it serves? it looks like vandalism but not being an dxperienced editor I didn't want to revert without clarifying Starzajo (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: clear vandalism when I checked the edit history. someone inserted the same link into basically every embed in the original version of the article. revised. Starzajo (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Chuck, Chuck! It's Marvin! Your cousin, Marvin Berry! You know that new sound you were looking for? Well listen to THIS!" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Chuck, Chuck! It's Marvin! Your cousin, Marvin Berry! You know that new sound you were looking for? Well listen to THIS! has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 30 § Chuck, Chuck! It's Marvin! Your cousin, Marvin Berry! You know that new sound you were looking for? Well listen to THIS! until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)