Talk:Back to the Woods (Family Guy)

Plot summary
Some sources say that this episode involves James Woods stealing Peter's identity and Peter attempting to ruin his career. Other sources say that James Woods tries to kill Peter (and Brian), prompting the Griffins to run for their lives. Never until this article have I seen these summaries together. My point is that until the episode airs, there is no way of knowing if both of these occurances will appear in this episode and, if so, when they will occur; in other words, we must rely on the official sources to get an idea of what the episode will be about before it airs. Immblueversion (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * what sources say he is going to kill peter? granted that might happen, but I believe we should stick with the official press release by fox about the identity stealing. Grande13 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Besides, I don't even think that the whole "James Woods tries to kill Peter" thing is really on any official source, but rather fan speculation. I just saw it on the wikia site of Family Guy, though it never says where it found that information. Immblueversion (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

More episode information revealed
It was revealed on the site Spoiler TV that James Woods steals his identity and family after finding Peter's wallet, which was lost at a Barry Manilow concert. Also, Manilow guest stars as himself. Immblueversion (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That maybe, but I would stick to the FOX press release. There the ones airing the show. But, the again, who knows Toolazy21 (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to tv.yahoo.com, James Woods does steal Peter's wallet, and said wallet is indeed connected to Barry Manilow somehow.
 * But are we so impatient we can't just wait for the episode to air before we start shooting off our mouths? Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to stop guessing about what's happening. Barry Manilow is connected, but who knows how. Cromulent Kwyjibo is right. We need to wait until it actually airs.Toolazy21 (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FGBackToTheWoods.jpg
Image:FGBackToTheWoods.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 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) 20:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

9/11 spoof
Isn't it the same as the Postal teaser?--Svetovid (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New Footage?
The Fox promos for the next showing of this episode are saying that there will be "never-befor-seen footage." And Adult Swim hasn't aired this episode, but they did air Play it Again, Brian, the episode after this one. Am I the only one who finds this strange? I understand taking stuff out for PC reasons after the episode aired (taking out the Twin Towers out of the "You've Got a lot to See" musical number), but puting stuff in? Are they airing the Adult Swim version for some unknown reason? Or did Seth Mac and the other staff diddn't exactly finish their editing job, and they went back and fixed it up? Any thoughts?--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Either way, we need a breakdown of what's different in the new version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some edited out things, and in the new one, for example, there is the 2 girls one cup reaction thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.174.233 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Strike
Shouldn't we mention that this episode was originaly suppused to air during the srike, but it ended, so the producers were able to edit it, and it was the first episode to air after the strike?--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)