Talk:DeLorean time machine

External sites advertising rentals

It is now obvious that advertisements for renting this car should be removed just as advertisements to rent any other car should be removed from corresponding articles. Correct assumption? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.54.50 (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Liquid Nitrogen or Dry Ice

one part of the article says that liquid nitrogen was used to freeze the outside of the car while another part says dry ice. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uther Dhoul (talk • contribs) 16:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Liquid nitrogen is definitely used for creating some of that frost. However, dry ice is typically more effective for creating theatrical fog that sinks to the ground. My guess is that there was some confusion on part of the contributor. However, we need some sort of citation to confirm my guesses.—Maikeru Go (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration

A flying De Lorean-like vehicle appears in the 1984 film, The Last Starfighter. Does anybody know whether this was an influence on the Back To The Future design? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernstk (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Different Models"?

What exactly is this section showing us? Different car models the filmmakers used? Obviously not different models of the car in the film itself (it's all the same one car... not multiple cars...). Different modifications made in the film? This is not a "model". I would argue that only the former (different models used by filmmakers) would be valuable info, and I don't see any evidence that that's what this is (no sources anyway) TheHYPO (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Pop Culture"

I just cleaned up the pop culture section. Although it could be entertaining to read about every possible reference to DeLoreans and Flux Capacitors ever made, it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to have this much. Beatdown (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know, where in Half-Life is the gravity gun is mentioned to have a "flux capacitor". I just want to know, because I thought I would have heard of that by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.222.24 (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That does seem a bit odd, as I've played through Half Life 2 and Episodes multiple times and nothing is mentioned about flux capacitor. Might be fair game to remove it if no source is provided, such as a sound clip.--CLS (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Behind The Scenes"

I believe the material that has been posted there is from the behind the scenes material on the DVD set of Back to the Future. If someone wants to figure out how to cite it, that is where I would look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.83.222.146 (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Iced DeLorean in part I only. False.

"Upon arriving at the destination, the DeLorean is extremely cold, with ice covering much of the exterior (this is only seen in Part 1) for reasons not made clear in the film (although often explained away by fans as a result of Doc Brown's upgrades to the DeLorean with future technology seen at the end of Part 1). In real world terms, it was a matter of production cost/logistics of applying dry ice to the vehicle to achieve the effect, which was felt to be insufficiently important to continue in the sequels."

First, one only needs to watch the movie once to see that there is indeed ice on the DeLorean in part II. At the point when Doc and Marty go back to 1955 and park behind the Lyon Estates billboard. The hood is completely covered in ice.

Second, I don't know how anyone could claim themself a fan if they were to not know this fact in the second film and would explain away that Doc's upgrades reduced or eliminated the accumulation of ice during time travel.

Last but not least, what producer and/or director (Speilberg for that matter) would decide that the COST to produce the ice effect would be too great when it was applied multiple times in the first film and is obviously not a very complicated or involved special effect even for the 80s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molec (talk • contribs) 18:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

DeLorean or De Lorean?

Both are used. Are they both also correct? Apoyon (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The Flux capacitor chapter says the "what makes time travel possible" part twice. Too repeating.

Repetition

The same idea is conveyed in more or less the same words on two seperate occasions. Its the part about Doc getting the idea about the flux capacitor from a knock in the head. I will remove one of them to make the article read a little better. --Reballare (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Deus ex machina"

This term is used improperly to describe the Flux Capacitor... It is supposed to refer to a plot device that appears suddenly to solve away a problem. How is the time machine a deus ex machina? It doesn't just appear suddenly. It's a main component of the films.

Perhaps the term is just used because the Flux Capacitor is so advanced that one cannot explain its machanics, therefore making it a plot device that is improbable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.128.228 (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the time machine itself could be considered a deus ex machina . Im not sure I agree with this term myself. There are plenty of time travel movies, does this mean they all utilise this kind of plot device. --Reballare (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that it's not a deus ex machina. It is no more unexplained than a warp drive or stargate. It is just the nature of science fiction to have imagined technologies. Gonna change it. Matuszek (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The capacitor itself couldn't be called a deus ex machina, as the term generally doesn't refer to an actual device, explained or otherwise. In BTTF II when Marty jumps off the building to escape Biff, the DeLorean would be the deus ex machina because it was an extremely unexpected saving grace. 70.142.53.62 (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

De Lorean time machine → DeLorean time machine — There is no external support (that I can find) that shows a space between "De" and "Lorean" being used in everyday and common use. All sources I find (Google and BTTF) show no space. The article title should be titles on how most people spell the name. — NuclearVacuum 14:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "DVD" :
  • {{cite video | people= Zemeckis, Robert Gale, Bob|year=2002|title= Back to the Future: The Complete Trilogy DVD commentary for part 1| medium= DVD||publisher= Universal Pictures}}
  • {{cite video | people= Zemeckis, Robert; Gale, Bob|year=2002|title= Back to the Future: The Complete Trilogy DVD commentary for part 1| medium= DVD||publisher= Universal Pictures}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

6 Cars, plus a full-scale fibreglass model

"The Behind The Scenes" section lists the count at 3. While there may have been 3 for the first film I have a source that says 6 real ones were used with 1 lightweight, full-scale fibreglass model used for flying shots. One of the real ones was an easily disassemblable "process" version that was used for interior shots. The fibre-glass model was used in sequences where the miniature could not be used (shots where the actors are clearly visible and the landscape/set pieces are shown—eg. landing in 2015, rising up from beyond the roof's edge in alternate 1985, hovering above Marty while lower the rope of flags at the end of the film, etc.)

This information is from the book Back to The Future: The Official book of The Complete Movie Trilogy by Michael Klastorin and Sally Hibbin, London: Hamlyn, 1990. ISBN 0 60057104 1. "Seven DeLoreans, including one 'process' car which can be dismantled for easy access, and a lightweight fibreglass model, were used in the filming. (pg 40)" In a later part of the chapter, in a separate paragraph of text, it clarifies with, "A lightweight, full-size fibreglass DeLorean was built, complete with radio-controlled wheels. This DeLorean was flown by wires with the aid of a crane.(pg 43)"

So we can account for 1 of the 3 (the "process" car for interior shots) the original section author stated. We subtract that from the 7 total cars—as well as the lightweight full-scale, fibreglass model—and we have 5 cars left. So we can officially cite it as 7 used (one of them being the fibreglass model) for the trilogy—I'll make that change. Now the question being is what were the other 5 cars used for? This is the part that we really need citations for. I recall that there were at least 2 that were built near identically with the latter being a spare that wasn't really used, but I can't find support of that and thus we can't use it. I haven't seen the commentary or any of the behind the scenes shows on the DVDs so we may have our answer there. If someone can account for the other 5 cars and cite it that would be great.—Maikeru Go (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jigowatts ? Gigawatts ?

A gigawatt is a billion watts. What is a Jigowatt ? Ed Mercer (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A fictional unit of energy used in the film, obviously for the purpose of preventing it from being scientifically scrutinized. Nightscream (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The only obvious thing about it is the fact that it is fictional. But I digress. Is there material to support it's use ? Ed Mercer (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the spelling in the caption, why dismiss the possibility that the intent was "gigawatt"? (Has anybody seen the actual script?) According to Merriam-Webster [1] the preferred pronunciation has a soft "g".

Yes, Ed, I concede that the purpose of its use is my understanding, and not verified. As for the spelling in the closed captioning, that is the source. As for the script, the article mentions it, but I see that it is unsourced, so I fact-tagged it. As for the pronunciation of gigawatt, I'm surprised to see that Webster gives that pronunciation, though the American Heritage Dictionary gives both pronunciations as valid. Me, the only pronunciation I've ever heard is with the hard "g". I'm all for trying to discover sources for the script or the creators' intent, but it's hard with this type of topic. There are a number of books about the film (both novel adaptations and "making of" books) at Amazon.com here. If someone has one or would be interested in buying one, I'm all for it. Right now, it's not in my budget. Nightscream (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nightscream that the most common pronunciation is with a hard "g", I only hear native romance language speakers such as myself use the soft "g". I'm not sure what the course of action should be, assume the closed-captioning is propagating a mistake ? A counscious choice of the scriptwright ? Ed Mercer (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you spell the phonetic term anyway? I always thought it was "Jiggawatt" Toad of Steel (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Was the 1955 modifications vacuum tubes or transitors?

Doc said that the damaged time circuits could not be repaired until 1947 (the year the transitor was invented). However, when we see the modifications it looks like Doc-1955 used vacuum tubes. Transitors were not used much for computers until the 1960s... So whats the deal? 98.207.171.2 (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Flux Capacitor Tech

Is it possible that the flux capacitor was derived from something like "The Philadelphia Experiment"? Was it not an intense magnetic field that was helping to make the ship invisible, and supposedly moved it in time? If you take what a capacitor does (stores up an electrical charge, perhaps for a quick release later) and what flux is (measurement of a magnetic field), it seems to follow that a flux capacitor would build up a "magnetic charge" to be released in an intense burst, moving the vehicle in time (don't come down too hard on me folks... I'm no physicist and this is imaginary tech). Any thoughts? Thanks! 98.148.24.191 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)