Talk:Back to the Future Part II/Archive 1

A re-run of the first movie?

I remember seeing this movie when it was out in theatres and I liked it and thought it had a good plot, but I asked someone else who saw it and they thought it was like watching a re-run of the first Back to the future, the whole plot with them going back to 1955 to undo what the old Biff did, what do you think? After hearing that, I thought, Yes, they could have spent more time in 2015, I thought that was the most interesting part and that they should have focused more on it.

I wouldn't agree with that. Act one was set in 2015, act two was set in 1985A and act three was set in 1955 but from a different perspective. Steve 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember the first time was going to check out part II from the library and I looked it up online and it mentioned the future, and I thought that they were going to 2015 during the whole movie in fact I thought Marty was from the future before I even knew anything about the movies because of the title.--Robors 03:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

FIRST OF ALL THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFERENT MOVIES SINCE IN THE FIRST ONE HE GOES BACK TO 1955 ACCIDENTALLY AND HAS TO "FIX" HIS MOM FROM FALLING IN LOVE WITH HIM AND NOT WITH HIS DAD WHICH WOULD MAKE HIM DISSAPPEAR AND IN THE SECOND ONE HE GOES ON TO TIME TO FIX HIS SON´S LIFE AND THEN HAS TO BACK TO UNDO THE 1985 THAT BIFF MADE FROM 1955. SO I DONT SEE WHY IT SHOULD BE A RE-RUN FROM THE FIRST ONE.--Myna-23 23:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)MYNA

Nice caps! Anyway, the 1955 part was somewhat repetitive. The snare (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC). no the films deliberately parallel each other and its part of their charm the skateboard scenes-- meeting biff and relations in cafes/saloons-- meeting his mother/great grandmother-- the manure-- finding alternate ways of operating the time machine lightning-- 50s circuitry --and train pushing fix relations problems-- its all deliberate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.140.34 (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Old comments

"Back to the Future continues with even more special effects" "Cool futuristic vehicles in 2015!" "Lorraine shot Old Biff around 1996!" "Old Biff gets erased from existance! Horray!" "When old Marty McFly is seen, is that a future Michael J. Fox?" "Get this now! It's fun!" Kirk Cameron said (in Secrets of the Back to the Future trilogy) that hoverboards don't exist! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.50.12.2 (talk • contribs) March 23, 2005.

Note that according to a special with the aforementioned Cameron, it was implied that Biff's spouse had at some point murdered him in the alternate timeline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.140.206 (talk • contribs) September 10, 2005.

I've added information about Old Biff dying in 2015 upon his return. this info was found here 203.211.68.179 02:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Willuknight

Doc says in part 2 in the alternate 1985 that going forward in time to prevent Biff from bringing the almanac to himself in 1955 wouldn't work, as the universe has skewed off in a different direction because of what the old Biff did. If this is how it works, then the old Biff wouldn't have been able to return to the normal unaltered 2015, and instead would have arrived in an alternate one. The snare 18:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Not unless there was the ripple effect again... the greatest change was in 1955 and... theoretically, it't take some time for the effects to reach 2015. By the time Doc realised the problem it'd be futile to journey back to 2015 as it'd have likely changed by the time they got back.-Kingpin1055 22:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

lol --it takes time for time to change --listen to yourself-- its instantaneous-- marty arrives on the train track at eastwood ravine in 1985 not clayton ravine--instantaneous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.140.34 (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy

Back to the Future Part II is a 1989 film and is the second part of a trilogy, coming after Back to the Future and followed by Back to the Future Part III.

The bolded part strikes me as incredibly pointless, so I'm removing it

Cafe 80's logo

I found the Cafe 80's logo if someone is willing to put it in the Cafe 80's section of the article. [1]

Plot hole - Doc's urgency

This doesn't really seem to be a plot hole to me. It could be explained away by saying that Doc wanted to get to Marty as soon as possible since he knew he would get in the car wreck with the Rolls-Royce the next day, and once he had arrived in 1985, he was justifiably paranoid about somebody seeing the time machine and thus wanted to get out of there as soon as possible. istewart 07:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Also why did Doc say, "Damn I'm late!" in 2015 before he left Marty. He was in a time machine...

I believe this is what they refer to as a "joke."

He's late to intercept Marty Junior before he goes to the Cafe 80s. Being late by a few seconds wouldn't really justify the complications which could arise from using the time machine and creating another Doc in Hill Valley at that moment. - Alhead -

Incorrect Info

Under Rumors and Urban Legends, the line "The Cubs haven't won the world series since 1908" was changed to "The Cubs hadn't won a world series since 1908, but did so in 2005". I changed it back as it was the Chicago White Sox who won the 2005 World Series and not the Cubs.

Continuity Errors

This section should be changed on account that it is written as if it were part of a disscussion, even ending in a question.

I've removed the section. Nothing in there was encyclopedic, just a rant about what "fans have argued". CPitt76 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'paradox'

'*Considering the nature of the first half of the second film, Marty preventing his son being arrested and thrown into jail; everything beyond that point could likely be considered a paradox.

Had Marty not needed to fix future history so his kids didn't get arrested, he and Doc wouldn't have needed to go into the future which would allow 2015 Biff Tannen the opporunity to steal the Delorean and the almanac. If he never stole the book and the car, Doc and Marty would never have had to travel back to 1955 to collect the book and the delorean would never have been struck by lightning, sending Doc back to 1885 and the end result would have nullified the two sequels.'

I realise this can technically count as 'original research'... but is there any way this can be formatted so it could actually work in the goof section as I believe there is a point.

Just so nobody has to ask, I authored that piece but didn't post it as I wanted to see if it could be appropriate to Wiki standardsKingpin1055 23:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but the paradox you describe is only relevant if the changed event happened in the past, thus altering the mindset in the present of those that changed it. Since the event they changed was in the future, it's plausible that they changed it and still had a memory of the original events happening, causing no paradox. My opinion, anyway. Mcflytrap 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I hate the latest "Paradox" section. I don't believe it's something encyclopedic. Opinions? -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The real paradox

If there is any paradox, it happens with Old Biff: Old Biff goes back to the past, hands the Alamanac to 1955 Biff and somehow he manages to get the time machine back to the original future timeline, instead of the alternate future timeline, in which Marty and Doc automatically arrive when travelling forward in time. In a way, Marty and Doc should have become trapped in this alternate reality. -Baltirow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.100.152.251 (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Marty missing for 30 years?

Something that always bothered me as a kid that I didn't see addressed here. For a brief time at the end of part 1 there are two Marty's in 1985. One heads back to 1955. Then in part 2, the other heads to 2015. So from 1985 to 2015 there aren't any Marty's left. Who was it that had kids and grew old?

I always thought that when Marty returned to 1985 at the end of Part I, he returned the day after he initially left. I could be wrong, have to rewatch it.

Well, that's part of the problem started by the second film. But if you had to look at it within the context of the trilogy, I'd say 2015 Marty is almost the same one who nearly got involved in the car accident in 1985.

But the whole 'future isn't fixed' thing comes into play...Kingpin1055 10:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point, but since time travel isn't possible at the moment, we'll never really know how it works. Technically, if I were to travel to the future right now, would there be a me that lived during that time I skipped? You can say yes because I would have eventually travelled back to the present and lived the rest of my life, or you can say no like you mentioned above. Time travel movies always have these weird situations that no one can really say if its an error or not. Mcflytrap 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"time travel isnt possible AT THE MOMENT"? what does this comment mean? time travel will never be possible.- kozmic|sk8r 10:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That you know of. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.37.230 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

At the end of part 2 he returns to the original timeline and gets a letter from Dr. Brown. This Marty, before leaving for part 3 but came back to 1985 in part 2, still overreacted to being called a chicken. This Marty was the one hit by the rolls royce and had the kids. As expressed partially by Dr. Brown in part 3, the future you see (by picture or by future event) is what will happen if the chain of events are allowed to continue without the interference of a time traveler. At the time Marty arrived back in part 2, Dr. Brown let history take it's course and Marty was ignorant of the car accident. That is my theory on how Marty was able to have kids in the future. Don't think about time travel unless you want a headache. (Jvclark2 (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

This is all forum material. The talk pages aren't meant for that and this subject must end. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wild West Movie

I added to the trivia section, the scene where you see Clint Eastwood use the metal sheet, and Biff watches it. My guess is that its The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, but can someone verify this for me. --Fullforce 23:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)-

You're thinking of A Fistful of Dollars, the first of the Man with No Name Trilogy. Intooblv 20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Glover's salary demands

The article states that Crispin Glover was asking for the same money that Michael J. Fox was making, and that the producers felt that it was unreasonable. How was it unreasonable? Is Bob Gale a cheapskate? Glickmam 06:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob Gale explains on the commentary portion of the DVD that Crispin Glover's salary for where he was at in his acting career was not yet on par with Michael J. Fox and what Fox could draw. So Glover's demands for the same amount of money as Fox's was unreasonable. Metamorphousthe 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, Fox's role was simply much more important to the film. He was the star, and Glover was a supporting player.Raymondluxuryacht 08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on who you talk to though. Glover insists that what was said on the DVD commentaries wasn't true. He says he was offered far less than any other returning actor and wanted to be paid fairly, but they wouldn't budge.

Here's the full interview with Glover (part of it goes into more detail on this subject): http://www.undertheradarmag.com/crispinglover.html Merc 2k 01:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Marty's daughter in 2015

I sought out this article to learn the name of the actress that plays Marty's and Jennifer's daughter in 2015, but to no avail. Is that 'Marlene McFly', played by Michael Fox? BruceHallman 23:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Andy120290 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

ACTUALLY HE LOOKS REALLY FUNNY AND MADE ME LAUGH A LOT THE FISRT TIME I SAW IT

Problem with comment about postal service in Trivia

69.41.106.114 02:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)"Upon arriving in 2015 and landing in the alleyway, Doc tells Marty the rain will end in 5 seconds, he then says, "Too bad the postal service isn't as reliable", luckily for him they are quite reliable having held a letter for 70 years and delivering it at such a strange hour."

Where it commends the postal service being reliable, that is incorrect. First, the postal service he talked about being unreliable was in the future, as the letter was delivered in 1955. And second, the letter was delivered by western union in 1955, not the postal service.

Four DeLoreans?

in the last trivia entry, it says:

• When Doc and Marty go back to 1955, there are 4 DeLoreans at that particular time, the one from the first time travel, the one old Biff used to get back from 2015, the one Doc and Marty have and the one stored in a mine, which appears in Back To The Future Part III.

But I think there would only be three, because the one that doc stored in the mine doesnt get there until doc goes into the past. right now, i'm changing the number to three. i will gladly change if back if someone can come up with a better explanation on how the fourth one got there. 19:56, 8 March 2007 The mitten man

It depends on your personal theory on time travel. IF you believe that each individual time event causes a parallel universe different from the one before, then yes, you're right, the fourth DeLorean doesn't exist until RIGHT after Doc travels back in time at the end of the film (effectively leaving us with only three as one of them has to travel back to create the alternate universe with the fourth DeLorean in it) and thus causes his existance in 1885. HOWEVER, if you believe that there's only one universe in BttF and the various alterations to the timeline effectively rewrite history then, knowing that the DeLorean EVENTUALLY goes back to 1885, it was effectively always there. Either way, as soon as Doc gets struck by lightning, history is changed and in both interpretations, the DeLorean becomes present in the cave and retoactively is established as having ALWAYS been in the cave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.137.144 (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

"HOWEVER, if you believe that there's only one universe in BttF and the various alterations to the timeline effectively rewrite history then, knowing that the DeLorean EVENTUALLY goes back to 1885, it was effectively always there." This is not the case in BttF. If this were the case, then Marty and Doc would have arrived in 1985, not 1985A, as they are EVENTUALLY going to return to 1955 and steal back the almanac. - Alhead -

Knowing that future events "eventually" unfold is the logical explanation that would allow Marty and Jennifer to coexist with their older selves. Assuming that they return to the original timeline simplifies the complexity that they "disappeared" with the time machine for 30 years, like Einstein the pet dog did for one minute. 203.75.105.191 05:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

World Trade Center

Am I the only person who feels thet WTC trivia isn't really that important? It hardly has impact on the story, and contrary to the argument of the recent revert of my removing it... isn't some sign that in the BTTF universe the WTC was never destroyed. So, my question is... is it really a worthy entry in the trivia section? (putting aside people's opinion of the trivia section for the moment) -Kingpin1055 08:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge Chips???

A lot of the trivia information seems pretty "far out", however may well be possible... But knowledge chips?? I can find no proof, either online or in other forms, of such a thing. Of course, you could argue that a processor is a "knowledge" chip, depending on your definition of knowledge. Either case, I am certainly getting rid of the comment about such chips at the moment. If anyone can include a citation, then feel free to add the comment back. And if no one can cite the other information in the trivia section, I'll be back to remove that too. Ronius 23:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, what? I don't remember any 'knowledge chips' in BTTF 2, sounds like a bit of nonsense someone just threw into the article... unless you can point out where they're supposedly mentioned. Now, I'm sure there was mention of "Emotion chips" in terms of Griff Tannen. -Kingpin1055 11:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

When do "emotion chips" come up in the movie? Doc says Griff "has a few short circuits in his bionic implants" but nothing about emotion chips. - Alhead -

Gray's Sports Almanac

Biff used the Almanac to make millions betting on sporting events. But since this altered time and created an alternate 1985, wouldn't a good deal of the statistics in the Almanac be incorrect? I mean, if the US Constitution could be changed to allow Nixon to seek a fifth term, and the Vietnam War hadn't ended, it's a safe bet that some of the sports statistics would have been altered. -OR- As the timeline changed, did the statistics in the Almanac change as well, the way the newspapers did when Doc and Marty corrected the timeline?

Uh... my head hurts. Seriously though, I suspect until Biff's influence got really strong, there wouldn't have been much effect on the sports results... even if by 1985A they were affected, he'd be rich enough to no longer need the book. - Kingpin1055 12:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, there's a two-part answers to this conundrum. First of all, Kingpin1055 is correct, Biff's influence which changed the timeline in various ways didn't start until after he had won the money. If the timeline changes also changed any of the sports stats, regardless of whether or not the book reflected those changes, he probably would have stopped using the book. Partly because he probably had his casino by then and didn't need it, and partly because he wouldn't want to risk taking the book out of the safe if he didn't have a reason to.

Second, as Bob Gale pointed out several times in the DVD commentary, it's just a movie. Trying to wrap your head around the various paradoxes and contradictions is pointless. There are a lot of finer points that are left unexplained, and Gale's response to most of them is "it's just a movie" (or in some cases, he described a plausible theory, but also suggested "it's just a movie" as an alternate explanation). - Ugliness Man 00:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, wouldn't the "ripple effect" ensure the statistics are always accurate? Hegria66 05:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Old Biff leaves 1955 before his younger self peruses the Almanac - any deviation from old Biff's time-line wouldn't occur until the first bet was placed & won. (As an aside, i lean towards the Almanac continually updating itself with new statistics due to ripples) Timelord2067 (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Biff's son

We find out that Biff has a grandson, Griff. If this is true, then shouldn't Biff have a son (Yes, son, not daughter because Griff's name is Tannen too) who is roughly, give or take 10 years, Marty's age? I had thought it would be Needles, but then I saw that's his last name, and his first name is Douglas. The snare 08:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Who's to say a hypothetical daughter would have changed her name? Or maybe raised Griff as a single mom? The Tannens don't exactly have the best of ethics/morals. The animated series (which, I know, isn't necessarily canon) had a "Biff Jr", though he'd have had to be a teen dad to be father to Griff which, again, is not out of the realm of possibility given the Tannen clan's lack of ethics/morals. -- EmiOfBrie 08:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Baseball Prediction

The article states that those believing the rumor that the 2003 National League Championship was predicted in this film were ignoring the fact (among others) that "the movie is a work of fiction and incapable of predicting future events." I do not think that those who believed this rumor were ignoring that particular fact; they were simply amazed that the film had supposedly done this by chance while it was incapable of actually doing so. They were amazed that it had apparently done the impossible (even though this account of the film was actually in error). This "ignored fact" should be deleted. Mal7798 02:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:28th December 2006 084.jpg

Image:28th December 2006 084.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ClockTower1985A.PNG

Image:ClockTower1985A.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael J Fox's Four Roles

I find it strange how there's no special mention of Fox's four roles (himself, his son, his older self and his daughter) in this article, particularly since three of them were in the same frame (the dinner scene in 2015). There were quite a few issues involved in keeping the set the same so the scene could be filmed again and again Katana Geldar 12:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is indirectly mentionned in the "Cast" section. Ok, it doesn't talk about the technological aspect of this complicated scene, but it's better than nothing. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Put that bit in then! I know it's included in the making-of but I don't have it on me to get direct quotes. Katana Geldar 02:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)

Motion Control?

Should there be some reference to this film's use of motion control photography? I was under the impression that BTTFII was the first, or among the first films to utilize the technology so as to duplicate cast members, and there is a great deal of material devoted to the effects in the "making of" material for the film... TheHYPO (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's indeed the first movie to use this technology, yes, there would be a purpose of mentionning it. If not, I wouldn't see a reason for it. Articles shouldn't have too many little details such as the plot section that almost mentions when Marty goes to the bathroom to pee (I mean, the plot shouldn't be any bigger than what's on the back of a DVD box, right?). By the way, this is almost the same topic as above! -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Commentary

I would like to add some additional information on production and development from the DVD commentary. Sha-Sanio (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add some additional information on development and production from the DVD commentary. Sha-Sanio (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you saying this on the talk page? The talk page is not meant to tell people what we're about to do but rather to discuss ideas or concerns about the article. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

alternate 1985

ok her is something strange I never saw the scene where Marty bumps into david (his brother) on the dvd release as deleted scene so if it is was on VHS please show me proof with a link of said scene, becuase as far as I knew Marty bumped into Red (the former mayor). thank you =^-^= --I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight 03:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anymore. I removed this section about these specific "deleted scenes" features. They are not informative and don't provide anything interesting for the article. -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Product Placement

Maybe there should be a mention of this being an early film with product placement? More recent films like iRobot had what was considered quite heavey product placement, but is put to shame by Back To The Future Part 2 and its ENORMOUS list of brands such as Nike, Pepsi, Black and Decker, Ford, Pizza Hut, Toyota, Texaco, AT&T, USA Today, Mattel, JVC etc. *gasp* 80.41.22.61 (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. I can't find another spot to mention it, there is no mention anywhere of Max Headroom as the influence of the three (Ronald Regan, Michael Jackson & the Ayatollah Homeni(sic) ) servers in Cafe 80's. Also, Doc Brown went further into the future (which he alludes to in mentioning the follow-on effects to Marty's family by his children being arrested) and had a suitcase full of notes from various ages ("here's $50 buy yourself a Pepsi.") Michael J. Fox endorsed Pepsi for many years in its commercials.

Oh & Waynes World does a not bad job of product placement too.Timelord2067 (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Movie reference

I saw The Hard Way recently, and while I was watching it, I had an epiphany that BTTF2 made reference to this film (starring MJFox) when Marty was standing outside of Biff's Casino and Biff's henchmen find him, whack him and say, "We can do this the hard way, or the easy way," and after he gets whacked in the head, you hear in a funny voice, "the EASY way." But The Hard Way came out in 1991 and BTTF2 came out in 1989. Anyone else have any insights...it doesn't look as though "The Hard Way" would be titled as a reference to such an insignificant line in BTTF2...just a coincidence, then? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reference. The line in BTTF2 was a well-known expression at the time. To conform this, I just did a Google Books search for the phrase "We can do this the * way", restricted to dates before BTTF1, and found several examples of it. --208.76.104.133 (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is also not genre specific. It is a very common phrase in westerns. It is a very common phrase in gangster pics. It is a very common phrase in kung-fu movies. It is so common that I seriously doubt you will find an origin as it likely came to English from another language a few hundred years ago. -- kainaw™ 17:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- I did not mean to say that either of these movies was the source for this phrase. I was rather expressing my surprise at learning that MJFox starred in a movie entitled The Hard Way and the mention of such a phrase in BTTF2. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's such a generic phrase (166,000,000 Google hits!) I don't think there's any reason to believe it's more than a coincidence. Personally I liked the Buffy version: "Now, we can do this the hard way, or... well, actually there's just the hard way." AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Or the version from The Pacifier -- "We're going to do this my way. No highway option." -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

1955 Date change

Has there been any explanation why the date was changed from Nov 5 in the original movie to Nov 12 in the sequels? Or is it a continuity error?--Guru Larry (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no date change. In the original, Marty arrived on November 5th, 1955 and left on November 12th, 1955. The latter was also the date of the "Famous Hill Valley Lightning Storm" which stopped the clock on the clock tower at 10:04pm. In Part II, they travel to the latter date as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jslicer (talk • contribs) 01:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Replacing plot section entirely

If you are not subscribed to the BTTF (film series) article, please read and comment on the following section: Talk:Back_to_the_Future_(film_series)#Plot_sections_are_ridiculous. I plan to start working on this tomorrow unless someone objects. -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)