Talk:Back to the Future Part III

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

Removed unreferenced "controversy" section[edit]

Unreferenced, true, but if you do that to the "Controversy" section, you need to also do it to half the article since many statements are not referenced. In fact, the YouTube ref is better than nothing. -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I created this section to avoid a revert war. LETS USE IT. I do not believe the controversy section should be removed as it is relevant to the movie. As for YouTube not being usable, WP:YOUTUBE states "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube". We can use it. There was an alternative (the GIF animation), but it was removed as well for no apparent reason (as far as I know). -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're implying there's a controversy due to the footage from the moving. That's original research. If there is a secondary source from something reliable (not youtube) that implies there's an issue, that's something we can include, but right now, it's a curiousity, not a controversy. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to reference YouTube to show controversy in this film, it cannot be a real controversy. A real controversy is the discussion of sexual innuendos in some Disney films. This is nothing like that and is not reliable. Erik (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, OK, I agree with both of you (Masem and Erik). Indeed, the section title vs. its content might be the problem here. I was about to suggest we give another section heading instead of "Controversy", but I couldn't come up with anything. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change the categories[edit]

Why don't we change the categories Films set in 1880s, 1950s, 1980s and 2010s to Films set in 1885, 1955, 1985 and 2015? Egon Eagle (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing films by decade is the universal process used on WIkipedia. Look at [[Category:Films set in 1981]], [[Category:Films set in 1939]] and [[Category:Films set in 1862]]; there are no articles in any of those categories. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even Gone with the Wind (film) is categorized with [[Films set in the 1860s]] instead of [[Films set in 1861]]. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"reverse" anachronism[edit]

The series has an interesting "reverse" anachronism that no one has pointed out. Doc Brown is wealthy, and can afford pretty much whatever he wants -- including an RCA CTC-100 color TV, which was introduced in 1954. Yet when Marty plays the tape, it's on a B&W set. If Gale & Zemeckis were aware of the CTC-100, they probably figured the audience wouldn't accept color TV in 1955.

Episode 3 has a more-significant anachronism, over which I have had many arguments. Maggie McFly pours a horribly dirty glass of water for Marty. People did not and do not (generally) drink dirty water, except in an emergency. Throughout the history of civilization, people drank beer and wine precisely because they had no source of clean water. Johnny Appleseed was not promoting apple trees, but applejack. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there should a section that tells about the special effects[edit]

some other movies have it on their articles so it makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ending Train Scene[edit]

I've always though that the last scene where Doc & Family comes back in the time travelling steam train was tacked on as an afterthought and that the original ending was that they'd stayed in the past. Is there any evidence for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflafla1 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The manure truck[edit]

It is not important to mention the part where Maddog lands in the cartload of manure. The fact that it happens in BTTF1 and BTTF2 is irrelevant. If you need to mention it only because there's a link with the other movies, you also have to mention the multiple "butthead" insults, the "Are you chicken/yellow?" threats, the "Mom, I just had a really bad dream", Biff/Griff/Maddog that can't correctly use an expression, etc. Per WP:FILMPLOT, a plot should be between 400 and 700 words and this article has 820 words. We need to strip away the stuff that is just not important for the reader to know. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is not essential to understanding the plot and consequently need not be included in this section. That being said, if there's any sort of third-party reliably sourced discussion of it then it may be appropriate for inclusion elsewhere in the article. Doniago (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep manure part in. Important element. Also, Doniago, you shouldn't have undid that until more people have had a chance to comment...you jumped the gun Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would note I did it as part of a general trimming per WP:FILMPLOT (technically, the plot should be trimmed further before any material is added at this time). As there is discussion here and the part in question is, I think we can agree, fairly minor in scope (a few words), there is no reason it cannot be reincorporated with a minimum of fuss if the feeling is that it is an essential element of the plot. Doniago (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT an important element. If it would have affected space-time continuum or would have killed a character, then yes, it would have been a significant element. Here, it's only a running gag between all three movies. Not notable at all. -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot vs. Plot Summary[edit]

A discussion of the relative virtues of "Plot" or "Plot Summary" as the preferred section header on film articles...or at least the film articles for the Back to the Future series...is emerging here. Folks may want to take a look and chime in. Doniago (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'hovertrain'?[edit]

In which regard is the full-fledged flying object the steam engine turns into at the end anything like a 'hovertrain'?178.1.145.30 (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're referring to. The word "hovertrain" does not appear in the article. Looks like this was taken care of. Doniago (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Boiler - To explode or not to explode[edit]

"As she climbs to Doc, the locomotive boiler explodes" vs. "As she climbs to Doc, the locomotive speeds up explosively". When I first saw this change, I thought "what the heck is he talking about", so I went on YouTube and saw this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyrZkw8KQHY There IS an explosion at the level of the boiler, and ok, I agree that the boiler doesn't really explode to pieces. Still, "speeds up explosively" looks weird. Can't we find something better? -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I reverted before seeing this. "Speeds up explosively" is very awkward and unclear IMO. I don't believe "explodes" necessarily means that shrapnel has to go flying or such. I suppose the larger question is whether it's necessary to mention this at all, as it isn't exactly essential to the plot. We could probably reword it simply to mention that Clara falls from the locomotive as it's speeding up and Doc rescues her. Doniago (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took out "the locomotive boiler explodes.", leaving just that she falls. How is that?User talk:Unfriend12 20:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose it's OK, but we're suppose to reach a consensus here and edit the article once. Coming here to say you changed the article and ask if it's OK defeats the purpose of the talk page :P -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wp:BRD. And no, discussing an edit does not defeat the purpose of the talk page.User talk:Unfriend12 03:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doniago and Unfriend12, that was a lot of talk over a very minor point that was not necessary in the first place. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 04:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for thinking like we're a team. I'll remember that next time. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lyverbe, I think if you have an alternate suggestion we'd all be happy to consider it. Unfriend acted boldly to be sure, but to be fair they were taking an action that I'd suggested and RJ appears to agree with. So while we may not quite have reached consensus and acted on it in the standard manner, the end result is nevertheless an edit that appears to reflect consensus...unless you do have another suggestion? Doniago (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't and I'm fine with the end result. The thing is, if someone edits to say "Marty went to the future today; June 27, 2012", then it's obviously wrong and I'll edit it myself (everyone do that 98% of the time). Here, I wasn't sure if the edit was right or wrong so, instead of creating a revert war, I decided to talk about it to reach a consensus but it seems I was the only one who thought it was worth it. I also thought it was pointless to edit the article and then come here to say "I made the change... ok?". My lesson with this is that I'll try to be less "sensitive" next time; if I do create a revert war, then we'll talk. -- Lyverbe (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tough call sometimes as to what constitutes a "minor" change, especially if there's an in-progress discussion. In my case I saw the change to the article and reverted it before I saw the discussion here. I'm guessing Unfriend saw the discussion and then took it upon themselves to make the edit; they may have misconstrued your original post as an invitation to go ahead and change it; rather than talk about it before changing it. I think they may have also missed the smiley you put in your response. Communication is stupid. ;)
Ideally I suppose an argument could be made that the article should have been reverted to its original state prior to any changes being made pending any consensus here. Realistically? I'll admit that I'm left thinking we probably have wasted more bandwith on this particular matter than it deserves, but if anyone's feeling put out by how the discussion evolved, then that isn't at all a minor issue to me. You probably could have gotten away with just reverting in this particular case, but it certainly wasn't a bad idea to check with other editors as well.
Hope this helps! I'm a little worried I'm just prolonging the matter pointlessly. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great-grandfather's brother and bullet vest[edit]

What about to add in the plot that Marty's great-grandfather had a brother names Marty who was so obsessed with his reputation that one day he was drawn into a battle and killed? And what about to add to the plot that using iron as a bullet vest Marty saw in a film in alternate 1985 in Part II? Gevorg89 (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot is already big enough. We have to keep details out of it and I believe the scenes you mentioned are not important enough to be added. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About the iron - I believe "as seen in a film", without specifying which film and when, can just be added as that doesn't make the plot too much biggerGevorg89 (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list[edit]

A new "Cast List" section has recently been added to the 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 on the franchise article. -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan[edit]

According to the Trivia section of Back to the Future Part III's Internet Movie Database profile [1], former President and professional actor Ronald Reagan was originally offered the role of Mayor Hubert in this movie in part due to his fondness for the first film in the trilogy, but reluctantly declined the role, which went to Hugh Gillin instead. My question is should this information be included in this article especially taking into consideration that it is extremely rare for former Presidents of the United States to be offered such roles. I thought about being bold and adding the information myself but I am not sure if the Internet Movie Database website qualifies as a reliable source. Any thoughts or ideas from my fellow Wikipedians regarding my question would be most appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need a better source than IMDB for this bit. While cast details are considered appropriate from IMDB, other details, particularly trivia like that, should be considered questionable. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I second Masem's opinion because IMDB is not considered a perfectly reliable source per WP:ELPEREN -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input up to this point. I have also mentioned this discussion at Talk:Ronald Reagan just in case one of the contributors to that article might be able to provide a reliable source for that information. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upon conducting further research related to my question, the only other website I came across in which the offer for Reagan to appear in this movie is explicitly mentioned is the Ronald Reagan page on the Futurepedia-Back to the Future Wiki website [2] which would most likely not pass muster as reliable source per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Based upon the apparent lack of reliable sources, I do not feel it would be appropriate to include that information in the article unless one of my fellow Wikipedians can find a reliable source that I did not happen to come across. --TommyBoy (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit late to this party, but the offer to Reagan is documented in the book Back to the Future: The Ultimate Visual History (2015, ISBN 0099455050005): Zemeckis had Universal's chairman Lew Wasserman make the offer to the former president because Wasserman had been Reagan's agent during his acting career.--37.201.182.206 (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saloon Old Timers[edit]

Two attempts to add the cast names of the "saloon old timers", mainly Pat Buttram, Harry Carey, Jr., and Dub Taylor have been reverted. This appears to be based on a conversation two editors had which was referred to as "a poll". The inclusion of these three famous western stars should be added somewhere in the article. If not in the cast list, then in one of the sections. The participation of those three has been mentioned in several documentaries about the film as well as the behind-the scenes commentary on the DVD. I see no reason to keep their names out of the article. -OberRanks (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up to this, I placed the information in the "Production" section to respect the spirit of the cast poll and also asked for other opinions on the Entertainment Reference Board. That should be good for now, I think. -OberRanks (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is is fine with me. I'm one of those who didn't want a "Cast list" section at all but, to please everyone, we voted for a light version of one compared to what it initially was where every single little part was specified. I fear starting to add other cast members again would be opening a can of worms. -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the past edits and discussion about the Cast List and it makes sense now what was trying to be accomplished. I agree with the decision and that the minor actors can be mentioned, if warranted, in the bulk of the article but no need for a lengthy and bulky cast list. Glad we could work it out! -OberRanks (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I'm late to this party; glad to see it all worked out! DonIago (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Back to the Future Part III. 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) 20:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Back to the Future Part III. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 12:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot: Unknown destination/time[edit]

I changed this from "time" to "destination". Emmett remarks that he is not going to the future since he has already been there. Since he has already been to the past, there is a distinct possibility that he is heading to an alternative place rather than time. Thus the more vague "destination".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Good point. I'm the one who undid your change to bring it back to "time" but you may be right. Lets see what others have to say. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either would work, I think it's a good point and like the word "destination" because it's vague enough to cover either scenario. On the other hand they used the time travel special effect, plus if the doc was travelling to another place (or timeline) we didn't know it so "unknown time" would still be accurate. If I had to get off the fence I'd vote "destination". Pastychomper (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Back_to_the_Future_Part_III&oldid=1217244296"