Talk:Back to the Future

Bob Gale's Reagan reaction claim is apocryphal
The article gives a claim regarding Reagan's purported response upon viewing Back to the Future as the following: This is cited to Vince Mancini's article "Back to the Future at 35". Mancini, in turn, cites Sorcha Ní Fhlainn The Worlds of Back to the Future: Critical Essays on the Films. Sorcha Ni Fhlainn, in turn, cites Bob Gale's interview from a 2002 special featurette included on a BTTF DVD release. In that interview, Gale states: This is problematic for four reasons:

Gale was not present for Reagan's reaction Bob Gale was not present during the Reagan showing, and is a poor witness to these events. His claim, that "we heard from the White House" is odd. If someone from the White House just called him, out of the blue, and told him this, then he hasn't stated who that person was.

The location given by Gale is incorrect Gale is wrong about where Reagan viewed the film. He states, however, BTTF was never shown in the White House. The Reagans only watched the film once, and that was at Camp David, on Friday 26 July 1985. This is an important detail, because whomever supposedly told Gale this story would surely have mentioned where it occurred.

The actual location has no on-site projectionist Because Gale didn't know it was screened at Camp David, he also didn't know the setup for watching films at Camp David. In the White House there’s a theater in the East Wing, which looks exactly like a big movie theater in miniature. But at Camp David, where the Reagans watched the majority of their movies, there is no movie theater. Films were watched in the living room of the Camp David homeknown as the Aspen Lodgea one-story, ranch-style cabin. The Reagans would simply sit on the couch and watch. Extra couches and sofa chairs were brought in on occasions when the Reagans had guests.

The movie projector was set up in a pantry off of the galley. A small hole had been cut in the wall of the pantry to allow the lens to project the movie’s image on a screen that was lowered from the ceiling of the living room. At the White House there was a projectionist, but that person did not travel to Camp David to run the movies there. Camp David is a US Naval facility, and naval personnel there, known as Seabees, were trained on how to use the projector. Because of the pantry's size, Seabees did not actually sit in the pantry while the film ran.

According to Gale, Reagan immediately called to the projectionist to have him stop and rerun the scene. When one considers all the work needed for this to happen, the truthfulness of Gale's claim begins to fray: 1. Reagan gets up from the couch to turn on the lights

2. Walks to the galley to notify a Seabee that a rewind was needed

3. Because that Seabee would not have been watching the film along with them, Reagan needs to explain where in the movie he wants it rewound to

4. Reagan returns to the living room while waiting for the Seabee to go to the pantry in order to access the projector

5. Seabees access the projector, placing it into rewind-playback-mode. Total elapsed time to this point, likely $2 1/2$ minutes

6. Everyone waits another $2 1/2$ minutes to watch the film play in reverse until it reaches the point where the joke was made, a total of 5 minutes which the Reagans and their gathered guests sit through.

If Gale is correct, then that's how the request to rewind would have played out. But look at how awkward it all would have been for Reagan and his guests, to have the film's showing disrupted in that manner. The key to Gale's believability is the on-site projectionist there simply must be one on-hand, easily accessible, in order for Reagan to "call out to". Without that projectionist sitting in the booth, at the ready, the request to rewind the film becomes a much more convoluted affair.

Another, published recollection of Reagan's reaction is markedly different Mark Weinberg, a former spokesman, adviser and speechwriter for President Reagan–someone who was actually present at the showing in question–never mentions it as happening that way. Weinberg, in a published account of the evening, describes the showing as very different from Gale's hearsay rendering: Weinberg goes on to recount how there was an unspoken ban on mentioning Wyman among the Reagan staff and that "it was as if [Reagan] had willed himself to forget about that period of his life, and was startled and resentful when [the film] asked him to return to it". With the mentioning of her name bringing so much pain and discomfort, how likely is it that Reagan asked to have it rewound and played again? Not likely at all.

I think this is compelling evidence to discount Gale's claim, a person once described by Crispin Glover as an "outright liar" someone who didn't just recast Glover's role, but rather, was comfortable with taking another actor, using heavy makeup in scenes shot out-of-focus or upside down in order to fool the audience into believing they were seeing the same actor when they weren'tso much so that they were sued by Glover for the deceptive practice of using Glover's likeness applied to a different actor, a lawsuit which Glover won. The Crispin Glover episode demonstrates the mindset of a deceiver, someone who is comfortable with telling tall tales.

I understand that there will be others who, having long been used to believing Gale's tale as truth, will claim that it's gospel and couldn't possibly be fake. This newer information should at least have us modifying the original claim by explicitly stating that it comes from Gale without any verification (e.g., "An unverified, secondhand recounting of Reagan's reaction stated..." or an addendum stating "Other evidence suggests Reagan's reaction may have been more muted...." etc.). Per the Disputed inline template's documentation, I've placed the template in the article at the place of Gale's claim, where it should remain until this discussion is closed. Feedback on this from all interested editors is much appreciated. Thanks! Spintendo 17:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorted, well researched although you probably didn't need to go as far as you have to convince me. If possible though can you add the page number from the Weinberg book to the references please because I don't know themDarkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you!  Spintendo  06:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , is that a different edition of the book from 2018? I'm trying to understand why the year and page numbers were wrong. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Darkwarriorblake Those are the page numbers from the first edition publication. The first set of page numbers I put were for the entire chapter (or rather, it was a rough approximation of where I guessed the information would appear within the chapter, my guess being somewhere in the last eight pages) but I condensed it down to the immediate pages where Weinberg discusses the evening they watched the film once I received a copy and was able to check for myself. (I ended up being very close in my guess: instead of it being on pages 144 through 151 it was actually on pages 147 through 150.) Regards  Spintendo  11:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Piccadilly 261 Radio
I suggest a reference is added to Piccadilly Radio that used to broadcast on the 261 metre frequency, originally located in Piccadilly Gardens, Manchester, UK. One of its former names was Piccadilly 261. Apparently the radio station's 261 window stickers were in some scenes of Back to the Future, as a neighbouring property in the shots was owned by someone from Manchester that was a fan of this particular radio station. 213.33.68.50 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

What is the link in the intro embedded in "threatening his own existence"
it leads to some obscure Indonesian website with apparently no connection to the topic. can anyone enlighten on why it's there and what function it serves? it looks like vandalism but not being an dxperienced editor I didn't want to revert without clarifying Starzajo (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * EDIT: clear vandalism when I checked the edit history. someone inserted the same link into basically every embed in the original version of the article. revised. Starzajo (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

== "Chuck, Chuck! It's Marvin! Your cousin, Marvin Berry! You know that new sound you were looking for? Well listen to THIS!" listed at Redirects for discussion == The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuck,_Chuck!_It%27s_Marvin!_Your_cousin,_Marvin_Berry!_You_know_that_new_sound_you_were_looking_for%3F_Well_listen_to_THIS!&redirect=no Chuck, Chuck! It's Marvin! Your cousin, Marvin Berry! You know that new sound you were looking for? Well listen to THIS!] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)