Talk:Back to the Future

Author's name corrected in Works cited section

Here is a scan of the table of contents from Cinefex Issue 24, showing the author of the article Backyard Adventures — Spielberg Style as being Janine Pourroy. She's also listed as the magazine's associate editor. I'm not sure how the letter "Y" was initially left off from her name and not caught before, but it has been fixed now. Regards,  Spintendo  07:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Finding the guitar

Is there any point in mentioning this? Here is an article I found.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I doubt it would be appropriate. The information is at best, trivia (which would be frowned upon in an FA-level article) . Although the video announcing the search on YouTube likely appeals to fans appreciative of rare appearances by the actors involved, the search for the guitar itself feels at worst, like an advertisement for Gibson (who is paying for the search). Regards,  Spintendo  01:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Editwarring by MyGosh789

MyGosh789 use this talk page please. Please refer to WP: BRD. This is a Featured Article, WP: EDITWARRING is not acceptable. The last sentence of Box office encompasses all releases after the original, and specifically calls out anniversary related ones. The 40th is no different to the 25th, 30th, or 35th. Similarly, these new releases don't need daily box office breakdowns, they count towards the overall total gross unless there is something unique about their performance. Presentation in large formats isn't noteworthy, its trivia. If it was the first film released in those formats that would be noteworthy. I don't appreciate that I pointed you to this text and your response was wholesale reverts with no edit summaries per policy. It's not conducive to a collaborative environment. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The editing has been modified to correct some of the potential issues. I have now directly included it the box office section and have used it to box office projections from yesterdays screenings. Those edits about previous re-releases also didn't note things like "IMAX, Dolby Cinema, 4DX and D-Box" screenings.MyGosh789 (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need a whole paragraph about the 40th anniversary re-release. The previous sentence that says it had several re-releases seems to cover it. We absolutely don't need a sentence giving its one-day gross on October 31. Are we going to add a new sentence for the daily gross every day for the next week? Regarding the sentence about large screen formats, I agree that this is trivia. (Even if it weren't, the sentence is insufficiently referenced: the LA Times reference says nothing about large screen formats, and the Collider reference says nothing about IMAX.) But overall I see no reason that the 40th anniversary release merits a separate paragraph more than any of the earlier anniversary re-releases. CodeTalker (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

But it does mention Dolby Cinema, 4DX, and D-Box. These are very notable and encyclopedic.MyGosh789 (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I also don't find covering up its weekend box office gross, which was even higher than initially projected yesterday, to be helpful.MyGosh789 (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news site. It's not plausible to cover every re-release the film gets in detail, especially as those re-releases, even if successful, are only relatively minor compared to the original release performance. That's why that one sentence at the end of the section provides coverage for any and all future releases, just requiring the total figure to be updated. In this case we'd wait for the run to end though so we have a total figure, not update it daily. I'm open to discussion from others but I don't really see being released in 4DX or D-Box as notable, it's a cinemagoer experience, it doesn't involve fundamental alterations to the film itself. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked MG789 for edit warring- their talk page is littered with warnings about it. If they carry on here when it expires feel free to ping me. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

@Darkwarriorblake: what do you mean by just "nope?" GOLDIEM J (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

"Formatted properly; cast lists on Wikipedia are always bullet pointed, and are not categorised by time"

"Nope"

You said they're always that way, there are dozens of Featured Articles in this format that prove otherwise. And, as mentioned, it's a Featured Article and went through the nomination process in this format. Prose is preferred over lists, so we list the top billed only and discuss the rest in prose. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Do you mind putting that in your edit summary next time, please? You can't just say "nope" because I had no idea what you meant. GOLDIEM J (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

There was a prior discussion on the cast section here. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Book update

Now that the Ultimate Visual History book has received a 2026 revision, what should we do about using it as a source? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

In what sense? The current ref is dated with an ISBN to it's particular edition, so we do not need to change the reference if that's what you mean? Don't know about you, but I don't want to re-read hundreds of pages to see if information has been moved to a different page in the new version. It will only be relevant if the updated version contains novel information, but even then I think we would just add the new edition as a separate reference. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: We could use the new edition of Michael Klastorin's book as a separate reference to correct any potential errors or misinformation. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I would hope he didn't include mistakes in his original source. But like any source if it contained new or updated content we can use it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Not an Oedipus complex

Now, I know this is sourced, but it's blatantly incorrect with regard to Marty & Lorraine's relationship - an Oedipus complex is when the child desires the parent, not when the parent desires the child. Sources back this up, and the Oedipus complex article back this up.

At no point does Marty have any desire over his mother - and this is one of the main points of the film that he gets more and more desperate to get her interested in George while she tries ever more to get Marty interested in her.

I'm tempted to remove the Oedipus argument, but as it's sourced - even though it's wrong - am inviting discussion first. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't find that it should be removed. I'm surprised that The New York Times and Los Angeles Times are not considered reliable sources. Plus, looking at Google Scholar here, results show this mentioned quite extensively. Perhaps the passage could be expanded to be more comprehensive about this. I don't know how to best phrase this, but for critical interpretations like this one, it's not like a work must meet a particular framework exactly and fail otherwise. I'm sure a deeper reading of the sources would allow for a clearer explanation of its relevance here. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:47, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The nytimes source is a three paragraph review of the film.at release and I would not use it for themes. The la times one is from 2020 but never mentions Oedipus at all. It alludes to the awkward sexual relation between Marty and Lorainne, which is appropriate for the place where discussed, but we can't jump to call that an Oedipus complex. Masem (t) 13:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Gordon, Andrew. “‘Back to the Future’: Oedipus as Time Traveller (‘Retour Vers Le Futur’: Oedipe, Voyageur Du Temps).” Science Fiction Studies 14, no. 3 (1987): 372–85. http://www.jstor.org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/4239844.
• Wittenberg, David. "Oedipus multiplex, or, the subject as a time travel film: two readings of Back to the Future." Discourse [Detroit, MI], vol. 28, no. 2-3, spring-fall 2006, pp. 51+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A193958013/AONE?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=a5cc0d10. Accessed 1 Apr. 2026.
• https://www.ipso.world/back-to-the-oedipus-complex/
• https://www.filmlinc.org/films/back-to-the-future/
• https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/back-to-the-future-part-iii/
• https://www.proquest.com/openview/fdd1675b9db282712072c5582a356530/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=40894
• https://prezi.com/q46hwyoz08wn/psychoanalytic-theory-back-to-the-future/
• As for the NyTimes review, if they pick up on a theme, it's valid, it's a reputable source with a subject matter expert. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Genre in opening line

Would it be fine if I added "comedy" to the describing genre in the opening sentence of the article? CY223 (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Not really. Per WP:FILMLEAD we should only state the primary genre of the film. DonIago (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Reverted edit: final plot moment

@Darkwarriorblake, I humbly request that you reconsider reverting my edit. Before this edit the plot leaves out the fact that there is a fourth time traveler and a final time jump in the movie. It's incomplete as is. jgcap (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

It seems like the existing ending to the plot summary covers this sufficiently? Doc insists that they (Marty and Jennifer) return with him to the future. If this movie involved one of them refusing to do so or such, we could mention that, but I think it can be reasonably inferred that they go with him the way the summary is written now. DonIago (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jgcap At the end of the film, Doc, Marty and Jennifer enter the car. Who is the "fourth time traveler"? AFAIK, a fourth traveler does not appear in the film, and is not mentioned by your edit either.

The only changes to the existing wording I might suggest are to add the fact that the car now flies, and reword the part about saving Marty and Jennifer's children from "terrible fates", which is not derived from the film, in which Doc merely says "Something has got to be done about your kids." CodeTalker (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't wish to speak for jgcap, but I thought the "fourth time traveler" bit might be a reference to Einstein (i.e. the dog), but I'm far from certain. DonIago (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The Delorean flying is for the viewer, specifically mentioning they get in the car and it flies is not essential to understanding the plot. It's something picked up in Back to the Future II. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. The fourth traveler is Jennifer as Einstein is the first as mentioned by Doc in the Twin Pines Mall scene at the beginning of the film. (Interestingly it's also the first time anyone has traveled together I believe, but that's definitely irrelevant to the plot.)

I agree about "terrible fates" and will be happy to try an edit regarding that.

I also feel like the DeLorean flying off is relevant, but no worries if the primary maintainers don't like that part. jgcap (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Ranking

The ranking of "Back to the Future" is below standard. This is no reflection on the quality of the film, but only the ranking in this article

The section starting "Back to the Future has since grown in esteem" should be moved to the "Critical response" section.

Secondly it makes a claim to "best films ever made" with no reference. This is not a reasonable claim since BTTF does not register in influential lists of greatest films such as BFI and other leading lists (exception : "Empire magazine" see below), nor on Wikipedia's list, but does feature on IMDB's use list at number 29. This is not justifiable one of the "best films ever made".

The "Critical response" section is however factual and suitably referenced.

The "modern reception" states " Back to the Future is considered a landmark of American cinema, and one of the greatest films ever made" which again is not justifiable. References are given for this, but these include six opinion pieces (video interviews and articles) and one reference to "Empire" the magazine, where no list is referenced. Finding the "Empire" list elsewhere, BTTF is listed as 12 which is the best ranking I can find. The statements are nevertheless not justified and exaggerate the ranking of the film.

These section therefore lacks objectivity and do not reflect the film's standing in the list of greatest films in the history of the art and should be revised.

Jpgcwiki (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

If you look at the "Modern Reception" section, the claim that BTTF is considered one of the greatest films ever made appears to be cited to at least five different sources. Did you perhaps not see that? DonIago (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I invite you to re-read my comment which addresses that specific point. Search for "The 'modernreception" states' etc.

There are six, rather than five sources, but these are not opinions from reputable critics, nor are they surveys, they are opinion pieces such as any individual could post. They are not good references. Jpgcwiki (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I see it as Note M with five sources listed, including NPR and the Los Angeles Times, so I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with your claim that they're not good references. DonIago (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, they are good-quality references for a start, but also, every single "best of" thing is an opinion piece. The Academy Awards are voted on by a group of voters chosen by the Academy. That's an opinion piece, and the winner is usually not the popular choice.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2026 (UTC)