Talk:Back to the Future Part II/Archive 2

Home video release history

DVD in 1999? I don't think so. The first time it appeared was 2002 and that was the whole trilogy. Individually, BTTF II didn't appear on DVD until around 2009. It kinda makes me wonder if the whole Home video release history section isn't copied and pasted from somewhere else.--Darrelljon (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actual date

In back to the future 2 the put the clock to this day: 7/5/2010, 1:58a.m. (I think!,,,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.87.251 (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't correct, the date was 21st Oct 2015, someone has even changed the date in the article which is now wrong too.

Edit request from TomTom2000, 6 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} They arrive on June 6, 2015, where Doc electronically hypnotizes Jennifer to sleep and leaves her unconscious in an alley to keep her away from his plan.

Having just watched the opening of the film the date shown in the Delorian is October 21st 2015 Time 04: (the rest is not shown)

Thanks Tom

TomTom2000 (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. I'm sorry, but this amounts to original research. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Future date hoax - Why the move?

The hoax has been moved from the "(film series)" article to "BTTF II". I don't see why. Someone has now repeated the topic in the "BTTF I" article and I assume there's no reason why it shouldn't eventually be in the "BTTF III" article too. At least, in "(film series)", it was global to all article. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The hoax is most closely related to this film. I removed it from the BTTF I article. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, earlier today another editor added a gigantic image of the actual shot of the date from the movie to this article, likely in an attempt to stop continuous editing and introduction of errors. Rather than have it mentioned twice, I merged the hoax section from the film series article into this one and put both pictures in the same section with a similar size. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to the unedited image used in the hoax. [1] It's from the first time travel experiment in part 1, which is when they send Einstein (the dog) 1 minute into the future. -- 24.24.128.169 (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Change the categories

Why don'd we change the categories Films set in 1880s, 1950s, 1980s and 2010s to Films set in 1885, 1955, 1985 and 2015? Egon Eagle (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

the point of the film

Many of the preceding comments are about the film, not the article. So I'll add one that I think is important.

It's remarkable that Zemeckis & Gale were not content to make a pale imitation of the first film, but had the guts to deliver a dark, nasty sequel reminiscent of It's a Wonderful Life. The story grows directly out of Marty's desire to use time travel to enrich himself, and the ensuing brutally unfunny disaster. Comedies are not usually built around such serious matters. The story also has elements of the Monomyth -- in this case, the hero descending into Hell (a Hell of his own making) and returning a transformed (or at least better) person. It's not the most "entertaining" of the three films, but it's the least-compromised by audience expectations (which is why it's the least-popular of the trilogy), and for that reason arguably the best of the three. Together they represent "Hollywood" filmmaking at its best. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to take out the section about predictions the movie got right

...more specifically the part about Asian influences over America. If anything it's the other way around. Regardless it cites someone's crappy blog and is entirely opinion. That whole section really has nothing to do with the movie itself. It needs to be deleted. I would do it but don't have an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.149.128 (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cast list

• Elijah Wood was in the movie for a total of about 30 seconds and (if I'm not mistaken) doesn't even say a single word (it's the other kid that says "We have to use our hands?!", right?)
• Biff Tannen Museum narrator: A narrator in the cast list? Even so, we hear his voice for about 2 minutes
• Western union man: 3 minutes for this guy who doesn't say much?

I think the cast list should mention people who had an important role in the movie, not only because they are famous today or back then. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh my... sorry Sjones23. You made the change on the article of BTTF 2 to remove irrelevant names and I somehow got confused thinking you added back names I had removed from the article of BTTF 3. I can see now that you had made the right thing. My bad! -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

jaws reference in bttf2

The jaws reference is to jaws 19. The article now reads jaws 11. It should be changed. I'm new and do not know how. Thx. Tdward23 (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)tdward23. <==I don't even know if that's the proper way to sign.....

I've made the change. As for signing, you need to do what's mentioned on top of this page: "Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)" - Lyverbe (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

World Trade Center

The World Trade Center is seen intact on TV in 2015, but in real life, it was destroyed in 9/11. I think that should be mentioned somewhere in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamEtches (talk • contribs) 02:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Musdan77: If you want to use the reason "There's no way they could have predicted that this would happen", you'll also need to remove "Another prediction proven untrue in retrospect was the mention of "Queen Diana" in the future USA Today as Princess Diana had died in a car accident in 1997". Of course, I'm not stating that it should be removed, but pointing out that it's no better than SamEtches observation which, to me, was valid. -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The distinct difference is that the "Queen Diana" mention was a prediction—something placed in the movie intentionally. Everyone knows what happened on 9/11. It's not a prediction, and doesn't belong in the section—or in the article. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It does belong in the article! Why would they show it on TV in the movie?! Check it out here: http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6016/backtofuture.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamEtches (talk • contribs) 05:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We need to find a reliable source to cover this information. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Plot vs. Plot Summary

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) 18:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Jennifer1&2.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jennifer1&2.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Depiction of the future

"It doesn't mention internet"? Are we now going to start listing things that the movie does NOT talk about? Hybrid cars? iPad/Tablets? GPS? WiFi/Bluetooth? This entire section looks more and more like some sort of big trivia section. Anyone else agree that this section should get a serious cleanup if not to be entirely removed? -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What comes after the third paragraph is not only trivial but, more importantly, gives no sources. So, yeah, I tend to agree. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Aswell as being unsupported, as far as I know the bit about "Queen Diana" is incorrect: the spouse of the monarch of the UK doesn't become a King or Queen unless they already held that title (such as Phillip II of Spain). The only way Diana could become queen is through the line of succession, ie. a hell of alot of people dying, including prince Charles. Theicychameleon (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I don't think that is the only reason that Diana won't become queen... violet/riga [talk] 20:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Had Diana lived and remained married to Charles, upon his accession she would have become Queen Consort and been referred to as "Queen Diana." Camilla will by the same token be "Queen Camilla." Both queen consorts and queen regnants are commonly referred to as "Queen ___" in the U.K. The same does not apply to male spouses of queen regnants; it's an ancient double-standard, but unless otherwise specified, a king is a higher rank than a queen, so a queen defendant's husband is usually not given the title of king unless he is king of another realm. If you need a recent example of this, the Queen Mum was Queen Elizabeth during her husband George VI's reign. Just to clarify. History Lunatic (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic I'd agree with this. Whatever the merits of the film, it was never intended to be taken seriously as a portent of things to come - and doesn't bear the weight. If we really want to start pulling at those threads, then I'm duty-bound to point out that time-machines had not been invented by 1985 ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.152.152 (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Plot - Marty's children

The second paragraph of this section states "which only ends in Griff and his gang crashing into the local courthouse and getting arrested, thus saving Marty's future children from the same fate" which is puzzling wording since the article does not explain why Doc & Marty have travelled to 1915 further than 'Marty Jr must say no to Griff', and so the phrase "the same fate" (jail time) currently means very little. Marty Jr must refuse Griff's offer of joining in/aiding a theft, and thereby later leading to his being arrested and to his sisters' arrest in a few years time when she tries to help him - if someone could surmise this succintly the paragraph would read better. 11:45, 23 May 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freaky dragonlady (talk • contribs)

New date hoax- June 27, 2012

There is a current hoax that they transported to June 27, 2012 which is today. It's not true. The movie took place in 2015, 1985, and 1955, though someone went ahead and changed the article's dates. It should be changed back to original. I just don't remember the exact date, but it is not 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azn Clayjar (talk • contribs) 01:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The date they travel to on the movie is Oct. 21, 2015 David Morón (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations for use

Robinson, Tasha (2012-01-13). "Interview: Crispin Glover". The A.V. Club. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |accesdate= (help) Wildroot (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Depictions of the future

In this section, there is the claim "indicating that the United States has a female president in the year 2015, but this turned out to be false when Barack Obama won his second term as president in 2012". Note that although Obama is expected to be president through to January 2017, there are several situations in which this may not come to pass. For example, he may die, have a medical emergency, or be impeached. It's premature to include this statement in the article. Mindmatrix 16:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In 2015 scene, a Pontiac dealer visible. (http://imcdb.org/vehicle_9476-Pontiac-Fiero-Concept-1989.html ) But, in fact, the last Pontiacs were built in late 2009/early 2010, with the final dealer franchises expiring October 31, 2010. --Love Krittaya (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

2013

At the bottom it shows "films set in 2013" Should be 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.217.201 (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No. This isn't about the movie, it's about a real event in 2013. I checked with the article mentioned in the related ref. -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Explanation

Why was my explanation for Jennifer being left at her house and Biff warning whom to kill was reverted. How can we restore that (in other way, if the given one wasn't good enough)? Without these explanations tere're some luck of understanding. Gevorg89 (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I double-checked with the DVD. Ok, I was wrong about Jennifer; Doc is really saying "She'll think it was a dream". I had completely forgotten about that part. As for Biff though, it's never mentioned that he did this to prevent anyone from disrupting "his" work of giving himself the almanac by going back in the past. That's speculation and we can't let that in. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Why else would he do that? If "A" point a gun towards "B" and says, for example, "If you move, you'll regret about that", doesn't that mean that "A" will kill "B"? What else would he do? Scratch a car or steal a pet? Biff described Marty and Doc and said to kill any of them who asks about the book. Why should he do that? To stop them from preventing him giving the book to 1955-Biff. Gevorg89 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't know. Wikipedia works with facts and this is not a fact, it's a personal theory. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I also can't say you're right... and neither can you! -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we know? I repeat - why should he warn? What else for? Do you have any other believable versions? Gevorg89 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

None at all, but it does not matter what I believe it is or what you believe it is. If it can't be proven, it can't be added to the article. If you add this and somebody requests a reference, you'll be screwed because there is none. Read WP:OR. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the difference between a very probable inference and a direct fact.  :) History Lunatic (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic

CGI category

I don't believe the category "Films that use CGI" applies to BTTF because the only noticeable part is the obvious Jaws hologram. Apart from that, there is absolutely nothing that tells us what could be CGI. Flying DeLorean? A simple miniature model of the car hanging with wires. -- Lyverbe (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

How much CGI does a film need in order for it to be included in that category? violet/riga _^[talk] 20:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A good amount of it. Ok, maybe not as much as Avatar, but at least the amount in MIB. I'd say BTTF has much less than 1% of CGI. -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the time, in which this movie was produced, i'd say the only computers used were those in accounting… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.125.223 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cast List

Bloating, bloating, bloating. WP:FILMCAST reads "it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film". You're trying to make me believe that the Union dude had a notable role worth mentioning? the "disgruntled dad" (whoever that is), Biff's museum narrator?!??! I mean, you are kidding me, right? -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• For your information, I added members of the cast who appeared and were credited elsewhere and are noticable to audiences. I can explain their presence, Joe Flaherty is recognizable while appearing as the man who identified Marty and gave him Doc's letter. The disgruntled dad, was the father who owned the McFly house in 1985A and shoed away Marty who tried to sneak in, before realizing it was no longer his house. And Neil Ross voiced the narrator of a Biff documentary that Marty saw on a TV monitor in the Biff's casino museum, in the alternate universe. User:DKqwerty just put my list back, besides, and summarized that it was passable. -- User:CastellanetaFan (talk)

• WP:FILMCAST also goes on to say, "billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc." All actors listed are billed in end credits, all are speaking roles, all are named roles, cast can be easily sourced if mandated, all are blue links, and almost all of the actors' articles cite their roles in BTTF II in the lead. While I think we can all agree on keeping (as the list is now) all of the cast from Flea/Needles upward, regarding the rest: Billy Zane and Joe Flaherty are both well-known actors, Neil Ross is a legendary voice actor with dozens of credits, Jason Scott Lee has high-profile roles like Bruce Lee. The rest simply have to be included based on context (i.e. if we include Match, no reason not to include Skinhead or 3D) and on billing order of the credits (which I will verify are in correct order later this evening). WP:FILMCAST additionally prescribes, "If there are many cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose." Prose would be redundant and certainly bloat, so I'm just going to divide evenly into columns for now (since that's not a controversial change).    DKqwerty    00:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that the actor is well-known or has a legendary voice is completely irrelevant. To be mentioned in the cast list, I believe an actor must have in important role in the movie and Biff's Museum narrator most certainly did not.

And one more thing; CastellanetaFan, please learn to use Show Preview instead of hitting "Save page" 10 times. -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• You can believe what you like, or you can just read WP:FILMCAST. There are no specific criteria that can be universally applied, but my edit above makes a logical case for inclusion for this particular article given what the policy states.    DKqwerty    02:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, I think the notoriety of an actor is perfectly salient in this regard. Say Sidney Poitier had played Disgruntled Dad or Marlon Brando had played Western Union Man: would we not include them just because they were bit parts? I think the actors currently listed in the article are well-known to enough people (as per my prior comment) to merit inclusion.    DKqwerty    02:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A bit part (one scene-long) played by a significant actor, basically camoes roles, will likely that secondary sources about the film will pick up and can be an addendum to a cast list, as a balance between not listing out every bit part and going by what sources give. There are plenty of other resources if a reader needs to figure out "man on the street #2" that is played by a no-name actor that is credited in the film. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If we remove the last 7 actors listed (after "Whitey"), would that be a compromise to please those who believe that list is a must versus those who think it's useless? -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The most extreme option would be to just list the actors on the film's poster. I'm guessing nobody is in favor of that option. I therefore propose listing those actors who either are listed on the film's poster or who are discussed by third-party sources. DonIago (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Is it worth having any mention of GW's boss at the cafe and the band leader who rescued Marty from the car trunk?". How about the 3 ladies sitting with Lorraine in the restaurant when George says she's his density? the driver of the Jeep Marty grabs while on the skateboard? the men Clara overheard talking in the train about Doc? the old man and woman Marty scared just when he arrived in 1955? the guy dancing with Lorraine before George steps in? or, hey, lets add the name of the dog walking with the floating leash!

These roles are NOT IMPORTANT to the story. Nobody cares about them. Nobody! They do not provide anything important to the film other than small support to fill gaps. Lou, Marvin Berry, Fujitsu, Terry (had to search to know who that very important character was!), Western Union delivery man, Sam Baines, Stella Baines, ... they are small roles that had to be made only for a short period of time.

Even though I find these cast lists totally useless, I tried to please both parties by letting it there while removing meaningless entries. Apparently not everyone wants to do the effort of doing their part. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a formalized system for determining what cast gets listed then. All things being equal, I propose either cast listed on the poster or primary-billed cast and cast that attracted attention from reliable sources. I acknowledge that that's strict criteria and would welcome alternatives, but obviously letting editors exercise their own discretion doesn't seem to be working out. I would recommend linking the other BTTF article talk pages to this discussion if that has not already occurred. DonIago (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I can agree to that. Like I said, I'm willing to do an effort but it won't work if we don't work as a team. If we impose things without any discussion, it just irritates editors on both sides. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say write up a formal proposal for how to determine who should be included in the Cast lists (use my suggestions or not as you see fit) as a separate section here, make it clear that other editors can add their own ideas if they want to (add a Discussion sub-section and number each proposal so they can be referred to easily), and note it at the other BTTF articles (and possibly at WT:FILM as well). Once we have a consensus we'll have something we can point to if/when this gets out of hand again. I'm happy to work with you on this but would prefer not to take the lead...at least not until next Tuesday, earliest, when it might be possible. You might check out what I did at Talk:Soylent Green if you want a "template". DonIago (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

I agree with a shortened list, with the exception that Elijah Wood's short part is notable. As evidence, it's mentioned in mainstream media from time to time, e.g. [2] [3] Adpete (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If there are bit roles but that are noted by sources (like the above), that can be added as a prose-based paragraph after the main cast list, including the secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. A minor role is a minor role regardless who plays it. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

January 1885?

The film mentions that the time machine was sent to 1885 but the glitch that occurs but Doc sends a letter to Marty in September 1 rather than January 1? I'm wondering how Doc can go back to 1885 using a DeLorean?, It wasn't "Sep 01, 1885" on the destination time on the top. MangoStone14^{Let's interview} 8:48, October 5, 2015 (UTC)

Doc's letter says he has been living in 1885 for the past 8 months - January-September. I don't understand your other question - why couldn't Doc use a time machine to go to any time, past or future, no matter what it was built in?

But truly, these sort of questions belong on a chat board such a IMDB's message board. This Talk Page is for discussion of the article and how to improve it.

Cheers. History Lunatic (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic

"dismissed" versus "fired"

In the context, "dismissed" can have multiple meanings - eg. ignored, sent away from someone's presence. It isn't necessarily obvious from context that "dismissed" means "fired" in a highly compressed plot summary, which is what the section should be. There's another readily available word that unambiguously means "fired" and that's "fired", which is why I made the very minor edit. It's also, for whatever it's worth, the word used in the movie. Don't revert things unnecessarily please. Slac speak up! 23:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

So, considering the fact that "fired" is an informal term for dismissal, would "dismissed from his job" work as well? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Part of the point of the Talk Page is to discuss edits here, come to a consensus, and THEN edit the page. The purpose of discussion here is to keep from posting repeated edits and revision of edits. If you can't sort it between you, ask other editors to weigh in on the discussion.

But please sort this out here before any other edits are made. History Lunatic (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic

I'm inclined to prefer "fired" over "dismissed" in this instance, as I think it more clearly summarizes what occurs and seems to me to be the more common term with regards to such things. DonIago (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd go with "fired" too. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Depiction of the future (again)

I've tried to clean up that section a bit, but there's a lot of room for improvement. A lot of it relies on a single blog (read: not a WP:RS). There are a few mainstream newspaper articles we can draw on to give it better references. One of the better ones I found was [4]. Part of the problem though is sometimes the same thing is called a "hit" or a "miss" by different people. e.g. we have thumbprint biometrics (hit) but used in the way the film predicted (miss). I'm not sure how to proceed, but I think the section should emphasise that the film got things both right and wrong (not just what it got right). Adpete (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That whole section bothers me. I kind of see it as trivia material and wouldn't be angry to see it completely removed. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. But it does get discussed in genuine news sources - admitted at a pretty light level - from time to time. My feeling is that, as pop culture references go, BTTF's depiction of 2015 is fairly major, and more significant than 99% of pop culture mentions on Wikipedia.

p.s. I might move the self-lacing shoes and hoverboard to their own section, because they are things which were invented BECAUSE they were in BTTF2, rather than genuine technological advances which happened to match the film. Adpete (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A better example article to build from may be Minority Report, which has the same idea (technology the film put out that is being realized in the present). There's something to include here - there's definitely been efforts to recreate what the movie showed, and things like the hoverboard attempts or self-tying laces make sense. I would wait to see what happens on Oct 21 , there may be articles to pull from . --MASEM (t) 23:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've read a few articles and it's getting frustrating. There is literally nothing they all agree on. The reason why: all judgements are subjective and no one is an expert. Even in usually "reliable sources" (like e.g. the BBC), they're just puff pieces. I think the 1st paragraph of the section is ok (about how the film's not meant to be realistic), as are the last 3 (self lacing shoes, hoverboards and the Cubs); but I'm beginning to think the discussion of what it did and didn't get right should be removed entirely. Instead replace it with a generic, "Especially around 2015, many articles speculated on what the movie did and didn't get right" followed by a few links. Adpete (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we even need to go as far as to say what was not right - save for cases like self-tying shoes and hoverboards where there were documented attempts made (We should also be able to add flying cars, but I need to find a few sources to confirm the plans to develop such). As you state, it's all opinion and speculation (like the stuff on some of these about fashion), and they were not trying to be "right" when they made the film, they just happened to get a few things right. Identifying the "right"s and "near-rights" (like fingerprint payments) are good but not the "wrongs". --MASEM (t) 00:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I inserted the sentence on the things wrong, because I felt the need to counterbalance the section, but I now think that was a mistake. Better to cut down / edit the list of what it "got right". Adpete (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

p.s. I don't think we need to add anything about flying cars because, unlike hoverboards and self tying shoes, BTTF has had no influence on their development. However I've added a link to Flying car (aircraft), I think that's sufficient. Adpete (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I just saw your latest edits. I think they're pretty good. Adpete (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to expand this section, perhaps with a table, explaining details and aspects of what Back to the Future 2 predicted. There are so many small and big things to point out, that I think its time to be more schematic about it. Of course it should be only things mentioned or seen in the movie, not things we DO have, but not seen in the movie. It could be items, technology, sports etc. with a value saying either True, Almost or Not true including an external link/reference to a page or news article writing about it. Anyone else agree on this? Ascaaear (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Expanding? I'd like a major cleanup if not to completely remove it so, no, I don't agree. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem I mentioned above is that no one agrees on what's "true" or not - because so many of the "predictions" are part true, and probably none are accurately true. If you go that way I think you'd need two evaluation columns: one for what part of the "prediction" is right and one for what part is wrong. So e.g. thumbprints are used for some things (true) but not household doors (false). And by the time you do all that and reference it - it's a lot of work. Adpete (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I would add that we have to keep in mind that we have affirmed quotes that say they were in no way shape or form trying to be accurate in their depiction of 2015; they thought what might be the case but, unlike with Minority Report where the producers actually put a great deal of effort into future thinking, here the future set pieces were interesting backdrops for the script. As such, it makes zero sense to focus on what they got wrong because they never expected these to be right; it is what they coincidentally got right that is of interest and positive note. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

With the Cubs finally, actually, making the World Series, should we mention that the film predicted this event one year too early (or is it late)? Another thing to keep an eye on is the Biff Tannen as the United States President, whose character is based on Donald Trump. Trump and Hilary Clinton are battling for Presidency at of this reply. (Who could have thunk it?) ElMeroEse (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No. I believe we have to draw the line somewhere and that line is 2015. That part about the Cubs is already way too big. That's my opinion but I'll go with the majority. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This section is a nightmare that looks like a big trivia section. I would keep the first paragraph and remove all the rest. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really, at least compared to other trivia sections that I have seen on WP. We are using secondary sources , published near or at the 2015 date, noting how close the film was, in addition to several commercial efforts to create the technology in the film. This is all well and good and avoiding original research and the like to craft. (In contrast, the suggestion above about comparing Biff Tannen to Donald Trump, which I've never seen in sources, is way off). --MASEM (t) 22:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Dystopian-present Biff Tannen was based on Donald Trump (who was already a notable personality in the 1980's) according to the creators of the film. Here is Bob Gale cited for this exact fact: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/21/how-back-to-the-future-predicted-trump.html 77.215.90.226 (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)