Talk:Back to the Future/Archive 1

message: Everything below the Plot section needs to have the sources cited. As it stand right now there is not way for someone to easily verify the verisimilitude of the article. Carterhawk 05:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the production info were actually taken from the trivia section on the Back to the Future IMDB page. --Steerpike 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been a longstanding skeptic as to how authentic a source IMDb can actually be called... I've seen cases of incorrect cast lists, non-existant films having pages and other sorts of problems... there's also been suggestions of errors or deliberately false stuff being submitted to their trivia sections. Kingpin1055 12:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

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

message: "... President Ronald Reagan, who used the movie's title as a catch phrase in his speeches ..."
Did he? I know he referred to the movie in his 1986 State of the Union Address:
:"Never has there been a more exciting time to be alive, a time of rousing wonder and heroic achievement. As they said in the film Back to the Future, 'Where we're going, we don't need roads.'" 
:—wwoods 17:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan 

message: Shouldn't most of the info about the trilogy in general be moved to Back to the Future trilogy, so as to keep this page BTTF1 only? --DXI 23:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. violet/riga (t) 23:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure I do agree to this, because it is a time travel trilogy it is somewhat unique in this case as in a sense the "nexus" point for all the movies is both 1985 and some of 1955. As such there will be moments that cross over in each movie that reference the other movies, and that should be mentioned and not ignored even in talking about the first movie.  Ryokosha 19:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please keep this article "Part 1" oriented 

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

message: Happy 50th fictional anniversary of the invention of time travel! --QQQ (Nov. 5, 2005)
The 50th anniversary of the invention of time travel is scheduled for November 5, 2035.  November 5, 2005 is simply the anniversary of the invention of the flux capacitor.
:But Doc Brown himself acknowledges the day in 1955 as the day he invented time travel...! Libatius 10:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true as Doc Brown's line goes. When quieried by Marty about the significance of November 5th, 1955 Doc Brown's next line was, "It was the day I invented time travel." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metamorphousthe (talk • contribs) 02:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 50th Fictional Anniversary

message: ===Doc gets killed===
Just watched the scene on VH1.  Or rather, I didn't watch it.  They cut the part where Doc is seen being shot. PrometheusX303 01:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Marshall Strictland who was shot. According to the DVD section of The Making of the Trilogy and The Making of BttF Part 3, and the deleted portions commentary the scene was cut because they felt it was too graphic to have a character killed off in the movie. It would also put Marty in a perdicument of decisions of how he was to handle Bufford Tannen in the showdown. As evidenced to Bufford's final arrest by the Deputy Marshall, his arrest was due to the Pine City Stage robbery, but this line was dubbed in and you do not actually see the Deputy make this statement as the scene changes to Bufford Tannen. The original line was that Bufford Tannen was under arrest for the murder of Marshall Strictland. This is also evidenced by the fact that a Deputy is making the arrest and not Marshall Strictland himself. Metamorphousthe 02:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: Just watched the scene on VH1.  Or rather, I didn't watch it.  They cut the part where Doc is seen being shot. PrometheusX303 01:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Marshall Strictland who was shot. According to the DVD section of The Making of the Trilogy and The Making of BttF Part 3, and the deleted portions commentary the scene was cut because they felt it was too graphic to have a character killed off in the movie. It would also put Marty in a perdicument of decisions of how he was to handle Bufford Tannen in the showdown. As evidenced to Bufford's final arrest by the Deputy Marshall, his arrest was due to the Pine City Stage robbery, but this line was dubbed in and you do not actually see the Deputy make this statement as the scene changes to Bufford Tannen. The original line was that Bufford Tannen was under arrest for the murder of Marshall Strictland. This is also evidenced by the fact that a Deputy is making the arrest and not Marshall Strictland himself. Metamorphousthe 02:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doc gets killed

message: It takes up about half the article, far too much. It ought to be either removed or truncated significantly. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely.  Looks like someone basically took all the extras from the DVD and put them in the trivia section.  Way too excessive.  This section needs to be cut down.  I'd say it should be pared down to 1/4 it's current size.  CPitt76 01:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the bulk of trivia out. Some were converted into the new "Production" section. If anyone thinks more should be cut out, feel free to do so. --Steerpike 10:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there such a thing as 'too much trivia'?  Of course, I'd want stuff that's citable and accurate... but can trivia be excised simply because it's a lengthy section?  I don't know... After all, it would be in the right vein of an encycleopedic article. Kingpin1055 15:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is such a thing as too much trivia when it takes up such a huge chunk of the article.  I haven't seen a lot of encyclopedia articles with trivia sections to begin with (other than on wikipedia, of course), so I'm not sure I agree with it being in the right vein.  If the info in that section is that important, maybe we can work it into the body of the article, like Steerpike did.    CPitt76 00:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Can anyone tell me what the shoes are called that Marty wears in 1985. Were they avaliable in the UK? crazy questions I have to ask, but mostly a name will do~ Marge4 15:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1885, one of Buford's gang looks at Marty's sneakers and says, "What's that writing mean, NI-KE, is that some kind of Injun talk?" GUllman 21:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They look like Nike Bruins... which I don't think you can easily get any more. --PigManDan 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a forum. Please discuss the article.--SUITHalloween? 04:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it should become a forum. If not, then create a forum for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.67.31.251 (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product placement 

message: What version of Mr. Sandman is in the song?
:I think it's the Four Aces' version.--PigManDan 22:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a forum, and all that so please discuss the article.--SUITHalloween? 04:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music/Soundtrack 

message: I moved the goofs section because it needs work and looked out of place.
*If the lightning bolt has 1.21 Gigawatts of electricity, and Doc gets shocked by the lightning, he should die, however, if you look close enough, he is wearing rubber gloves.
:(If this is not a real goof, it shouldn't be here at all)
*There are many differences between the scene at the mall, and the videotape of the mall.
:Too vague.
*It only takes about 25 seconds for the clock to move from 10:03, to 10:04.
:Unless it was a continuous shot, we can't say that for certain.
*A purple light on the set is reflected off the DeLorean when it's parked at the end of the town square.
*Marty hits 87mph long before 10:04 PM, then when it's maybe 10 seconds to 10:04 PM, he's hitting 85 or so, but he's been accelerating all the time.
:Difficult to understand.
*Marty doesn't set off when Doc set the alarm clock in 1955, so he should be late for the lighting bolt.
:The precise timing would be nearly impossible anyway.
*The clock hands move from 10:02 to 10:03 twice.
*Marty and Doc conclude from the flyer that a bolt of lightning will strike the clock tower at precisely 22:04:00, but the lightning could strike the tower at any point in time between into 22:04:00 and 22:04:59, which means that Doc's plan is likely to fail.
:That is, unless the inner mechanism of the clock was examined.  It may be possible to tell the time from that.
Where did these come from anyway? Prometheus-X303- 04:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally I prefer to keep trivia sections and the like, but IMO you're right in this case.  Most of this is picayune quibbling about the exact timing of the lightning strike scene, at least some of which can be explained away rather easily. If it should be here at all, then it is probably better to summarize, preferably with a citation to someone's published analysis or a DVD commentary or something like that. The mall "differences" are covered by the revised timeline premise, which is already covered in this article or the timeline one or both. Also, much of this is written in an informal style (i.e. with contractions) and would need to be revised anyway.  As for the rubber gloves bit, that was apparently one person explaining away another person's "goof." Karen | Talk | contribs 05:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: It's actually 1.21 not 1.23
At least this answers the question "What the hell is a Jiggawatt?" Vanduk 10:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops!  Changed it. PrometheusX303 15:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In 1985 very few people had heard of a gigawatt, it is jiggawatt in the script, so it is jiggawatt in the film. although it probably is the same as the real measurment, please do not bastardise the script into your perfectionist fantasies! Marge4 15:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to this, I was just thinking about it, how can you put gigawatt in the article if in the film it is pronounced jiggawatt... this is sci-fi! not real life! why the hell is it gigawatt and not jiggawatt. this is really making me upset and I have no idea why. I wish bad things upon you all! Marge4 15:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bob Gale wrote the time travel technobabble after listening to various science lectures, so it was intended to be the real unit of measurement that he heard spoken.  The subject of this article is the film, not the script for the film in which was mispelled so that the actors would consistently pronounce the word the way Bob heard it in the lectures. GUllman 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.21 jiggawatts!!! 

message: "The rifle that jams in the hands of the Libyan terrorist is an AK-47, which is famous worldwide for its extreme reliability. However, knockoffs of the model are ubiquitous."
This implies it may be an unreliable AK-47 clone. Were AK47 variants actually generally less reliable than the AK-47? --Howdybob 16:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AK-47 clones 

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

message: Does anyone else think that the plot summary is too detailed? --GHcool 07:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree - it needs  to be summarized. — Wackymacs 10:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. The JPStalk to me 12:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The length of the plot summary seems to be a continual problem.  The film itself has a fairly dense and intricate plot, and it seems that everyone who stops by wants to include every favorite detail (which is all of them). If we are going to continue to try to keep the section from expanding, perhaps someone can explain why on this Talk page.  I just reverted a nice long edit - nothing really wrong with it except length - and leaves me feeling like a bit of a meanie! Karen | Talk | contribs 06:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not every labour of love belongs on Wikipedia. If for nothing else, at least the author got some writing practice. Chris Cunningham 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the plot summary--with apologies to earlier authors, it seemed a bit difficult to follow in places, and there were several bits of stuff that really don't figure that prominently into the plot (i.e. the Chuck Berry reference, not really integral to the storyline).  I tried to keep it concise (about 765 words) and on-topic...Benscripps 02:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Bole2 appears to have gone through and changed much of what I wrote; I have no personal attachment to it, but pseudo-sentences like "After returning to his own time and watches the Libyans shoot Doc." are exactly why I rewrote the thing in the first place.  My rewrite is in the history, should anyone want to restore or draw from it.  I thought it was pretty clean and concise, summing up the major plot points, keeping only those points necessary for reference in the summary.  Best of luck...Benscripps 17:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll have a look at further condensing this and cleaning up awkward sentences later on. Many thanks for your efforts here. Chris Cunningham 17:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary could be condensed 

message: This section is a bit long-winded and I don't really understand the final sentence. Can someone rephrase it? 
"The makers assume that people were put off by Part II and hence III as well because they had not expected for II to continue for yet another episode. Thus the Part II cliffhanger came about, and people did not want to buy a ticket to see a movie without an ending. This is blamed for the (somewhat) disappointing box office. While the producers wanted to market Parts II and III together as a trilogy, Universal Studios preferred it the other way round."
:I think what they are saying is that people liked how Part I ended because it was a complete movie in itself but also left an obvious door open for another movie, with Doc Brown and Marty going to the future, however there never needed to be another movie to finish the story started in the first movie. In Part II they end it just when Marty is going to ask Doc Brown's help to well get to "the other" Doc Brown back in 1885, which means to see the end to see if Doc Brown was rescued, was left behind, or something else you needed to see Part III. Part II was not in that sense a movie with a beginning and a complete ending. 
:I can see people being upset about that alone, but even more so Back to the Future Part II was also sort of three movies in one, whereas Part I had one basic plot, Marty has to get his parents back together, Part II had Marty helping his kids, Marty fixing his error at buying the sports fact book by getting it back from Biff, then the DeLorean struck by lightening and vanishing in time which was only the start of the third plot and not a true ending for the movie in some people's eyes. Once that got out people it seems didn't want to see Part II then wait an unknown amount of time to see how part of the plot started in that movie ends.  Bob Gale and Neil Canton probably knew this was a possibility and therefore wanted to market Part II and Part III as almost the same movie something you can see around the same time, but Universal saw the chance at two movie sequels to one of the most popular movies of 1985 and thought perhaps more money from having them as two then as marketing them as one movie broken in two parts. 
:Did that help clear things up a bit or just confuse them more? Ryokosha 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parts II and III

message: Here's a bit of trivia you may want to work into the article - the episode of The Honeymooners shown in the movie is "The Man from Space."  One small problem is that while that scene in the movie takes place on November 5, 1955, that episode of the show didn't air for the first time until December 31, 1955.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine Zemeckis and Gale chose it for its similarity to the Peabody Farm and Darth Vader of Vulcan scenes rather than its historical air date. At least the series itself had premiered by then. Chalk the rest up to the difference between all the BTTF timelines and our own. ;) Thanks for adding the episode info! Karen | Talk | contribs 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Honeymooners info 

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

message: This passage, from the second paragraph of the section The DeLorean time machine, may be self-contradictory:
:"The DeLorean used in the trilogy was a 1982 DMC-12 model, modified to accommodate a more powerful and reliable Porsche engine. The base for the nuclear-reactor was made from the hubcap from a Dodge Polara. In the 2002 Special-Edition DVD of the BTTF Trilogy, it is incorrectly stated that the DeLorean had a standard 4-cylinder engine. The only engine available on this car was a 130 HP V6."
Did it have a Porsche engine or did it have a stock DeLorean engine? Some Porsche models in production at the time BTTF was filmed had four-cylinder engines, so if a Porsche engine was used, it is indeed possible that the DeLorean used for the film had a four-cylinder.  Can someone with background knowledge on the film confirm/deny this for certain? - Pennyforth 20:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The DeLorean's engine 

message: Should this character be added to the listing of Brown family? 71.229.26.210 05:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who?  Copernicus is the name of 1955 Doc's dog. -Kingpin1055 12:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copernicus Brown 

message: : Zemeckis later stated that had sequels been envisioned, the first film would not have ended with Jennifer traveling in the DeLorean with Marty and Doc, which created logistical problems in plotting the other films.
What is the logistical problem here? I can't really remember the details of the movies that well. I have read several of the articles but the logistical problem is not clear. I know a different actor had to be used for Jennifer but I don't see this as being a logistical problem since there was surely no way they knew the actor was going to quit acting Nil Einne 15:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity 

message: Is there maybe too little info in these sections now? Buc 21:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No? It'd be nice for an article on a film to actually have a balance of sections for a change, instead of just being a huge plot reiteration followed by a page-long list of "...in popular culture" references. I think the current article does a good job of getting the plot and so on out without necessarily ruining it for people. In fact I'd encourage even more reduction. Chris Cunningham 08:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead and cast trim 

message: It appears tha some of the information in this article is plagerized (that is, lifted verbatim ar almost verbatim) from IMDB's site about the movie, specifically from their trivia section.  Then again, it is also possible, although less likely, that they plagarized some of the BTTF articles.  Someone should probably look into that. 72.86.13.254 08:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDB plagarism? 

message: AHD lists time-line (hyphenated). Merriam-Webster's list time line (separate) with timeline (one word) meaning a time table. And Dictionary.com lists it as time line (seperate) words with possible alternate timeline(one word). Cambridge University Press's online dictionary doesn't include any form. MSN Encarta online dictionary only has time line (two words). The only dictionary I found that prefers it as one word was wiktionary. Maybe you should have looked in a dictionary Hegria. I looked in 6.--Shadowdrak 00:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen dictionaries claiming that anarchy means the same thing as chaos, and that pagan means the same thing as heathen.  Dictionaries are not authorities on everything, and they are most definitely not authorities on science fiction terms. - Ugliness Man 03:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline 

message: Did you know Corey Hart was offered to star as Marty McFly in BTTF and he REFUSED? No? Well now you know it. Maybe this bit should be in the article, too. :p -andy 62.134.225.61 14:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only "verification" I can find for this is the fact that it's been included in several questionable and unverified "did you know?" trivia lists.  According to official, verifiable sources, Fox was the first actor considered for the role, and he turned it down because he was too busy with Family ties.  Eric Stolz was then cast in the role, but he didn't work out, so they tried Fox again, and he decided to give it a shot.  Corey Hart is not mentioned in any of the commentaries or interviews on the DVD boxed set, or in any other reliable source.  And I must point out that even if this nugget of trivia appears on a few dozen web pages, that's not the same thing as a reliable source (since you could find just as many web pages that claim "a duck's quack does not echo, and nobody knows why", which also isn't true). - Ugliness Man 03:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corey Hart 

message: This page is marked for copy-editing, but looking over it and it's talk page I am not sure whether it's ready. The 'Themes' area says that there are unverified claims, and there appears to be a lot of dicussion yet to be resolved. Are you people ready for me to work it over, or would it be preferable if I came back in a week or so? Best Regards.--Song 22:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting? 

message: I corrected parts of the article that were not grammatically correct. There are a few things I observed but did not change.
* Visiting the home of his eccentric friend, scientist "Doc" Emmet Brown, he finds no one home, but receives a phone call from Doc asking to meet him that night.
This sentence does not sound good and shoul be reworked, mostly because the word but should introduce something that contrasts with a preceding sentence.
* Marty explores the Hill Valley of 1955 ...
This sentence is not sufficient to create the transition from 1985 to 1955. There should be at least one additional sentence to introduce Marty's travel through time before this sentence.
* The inspiration for the film largely stems from Bob Gale, who discovered his father's high school yearbook and wondered whether he would have been friends with his father as a teenager. 
The words he and friends do not go together well in terms of structure so the sentence needs to be modified.
ICE77 -- 84.223.76.72 15:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll keep those in mind while editing. Thanks.--Song 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: About your second suggestion: will the sentence 'He is sent 30 years into the past, a stranger in a world no longer his own.' work there? About all I can say for it is that is provides a transition and appeals to my sense of mystery. If you have a better idea I'm open.--Song 22:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it interprets and dramatizes the situation too much for an encyclopedia. I cleaned up the paragraph, leaving out trivia that is not essential for the plot. GUllman 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree with you on that. I'm on the 'Production' section: out of courtesy it would be nice if you didn't that section while I'm working on it. See the template at the top of the page. Thank you.--Song 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections that still need to be done 

message: Is the Themes section noteworthy of being put here in the article? Despite those two citations, much of it is apparently opinionated. I'm thinking of erasing it altogether. Then again, I may be wrong. Eaglestorm 02:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it would be noteworthy enough if the section were rewritten so as to more clearly reflect what the filmmakers' intentions were and there is certainly enough supplementary material on the DVD's for citing that. And, yes, I admit that I was the one who created the section in the first place, but I did try to keep it objective and cite everything I could. However, there are clearly motifs/themes/whatever-you-want-to-call-them in the film even if an exact citation can't be found. I mean, is there an exact quote from Orson Welles confirming the wide-accepted symbolism of "Rosebud"? Hegria66 06:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sense that this section keeps drifting toward in-universe statements as if the movie documents the history of a real town of Hill Valley. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28writing_about_fiction%29.  We need to keep a filmmaker/scriptwriter's point of view in this section.  For example, I once noted in this section that the filmmakers use running gags throughout the movies, but this statement has disappeared while examples of these one-liners are added as important plot points. Also, leading statements like "Compare Pleasantville" just invite the reader to do original research. GUllman 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes