I’ve already voted for #1 but I feel the need to come to the defense of similar voters.
I doubt this will impress anyone, but I’m a screenwriter, and I wrote mostly sci-fi and fantasy.
My writing partner and I are very conscious of explaining magic or technology or future history to viewers who are, shall we say, less than smart. And I think that philosophy very much strengthens #1 (the rain was predicted, not scheduled, to end at a certain time).
Writers Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale seem to make no effort to explain that some machine or agency is controlling the weather. The absence of them doing so, I believe, is evidence that they mean that the Weather Service predicts the weather, and has it down to a by-the-second science in 2015.
For example, they have Doc saying “The Weather Service,” a term that 1985 audiences would understand. The Weather Service, then as now, predicts the weather. If Zemeckis and Gale had wanted viewers to think otherwise, he would have had Doc say something like “If only the Post Office was as good as the Weather Control Commission!” BTTF is full of such made-up terms, so the writers clearly aren’t reluctant to use them (those terms are part of the fun) so by NOT choosing to use a new term here, they’re implying it’s the Weather Service we all know in 1985 and 2010.
Similarly, if the government controlled the weather, Doc would have said some version of “Hang on – the Weather Panel is about to stop the rain!” There would have been visual effects and sound effects of some kind of machine zapping the rain. Again, the films are all about special effects like this – Mary’s jacket and shoes are about to shrink in this scene, if I recall. Yet there are no effects showing that the rain stopped by human intervention. To the contrary – the shot of the clouds parting is a natural occurrence, just sped up for comic effect. Nothing artificial seems to be happening to the clouds or the sun.
Again, as a writer, you would want to explain this to make sure your joke came across. You would have to tell viewers that some government agency is affecting the weather right now. Hear that machine? See those lasers? Hear what Doc said about them controlling the weather? But none of these things happen.
With all this, it seems to take a lot of retconning to conclude that some organization, which we never see and is never named and seems to have no lasers or other cool effects, controls the weather.
Let’s use Occam’s Razor on this puzzle, with all the evidence above. Are we supposed to assume that some kind of agency *controls *the weather? Or is it more likely that the Weather Service, which predicted the weather in 1985, has simply gotten better at predicting the weather? I vote for the latter.
Your argument is that predicting the weather is more impressive than controlling it? How’s that again? Name something else for which that’s true.
I’ve always interpreted that scene as controlling the weather. I think most of the reasons have been pointed out. But I think the most effective argument is how it contributes to the totally overblown and fantastic future that’s presented in BTTF. We’ve got hover cars (and -boards), hologram movie posters, dust-repellent paper, video games you play with your mind, auto-sizing and drying clothes, insta-hydrating pizza, etc. More accurate weather prediction just doesn’t fit when control of the weather has been a pulp sci-fi standby for decades.
I’m not sure I agree with this analysis. Using “Weather Service” instead of “Weather Control Panel” or some other name just makes the joke more subtle. And BTTF is full of subtle jokes as well as zany futurespeak. If you think about it, “Weather Service” is a better name for a service that provides weather than one that simply reports on it, and in a future where we control the weather, there’d be no need for another such body.
I think if you go with the prediction interpretation, the writing is clumsier. Why would Doc call a prediction agency “efficient” rather than “accurate”? “Efficient” implies production, and the comparison to the Post Office delivering mail reinforces that.
Excellent points, Flying Saucer. I’d also like to restate your comment about how Marty says “Since when can weathermen predict the weather, let alone the future?” in the first film. In a trilogy where everything said and done means something later, this is a pretty good indication of the joke that’s going to come in Part 2.
And walrus, no, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying his use of the word “Amazing” seems to me to imply a prediction, not control of the weather.
Balance, I can see where you’re coming from, I really can. But we’re just going to have to agree to disagree because you will never in a million years convince me that they were implying weather control would be possible in 2015. Look at it this way: We watch movies like Independence Day and we enjoy them even though we’re fairly certain aliens like that don’t exist. We accept it in a movie. BUT. If the fighter jets were attacking those aliens in such a way as to violate the physical laws of the universe, you’d have every geek from here to Gamestop crying foul, including me. There’s suspension of disbelief, and then there’s just reaching.
FWIW I thought it was option 2 (I didn’t mention my opinion in the OP because I was more interested in what others thought) but I think Flying Saucer has convinced me I am wrong.
This is a good practice. I commend you on it, and generally do the same in my own work. However, I offer a counterpoint in this case: The mechanism behind the rain stopping has no relevance to the plot, nor is it really necessary to support the joke. Further, since it is a joke, belaboring the point is likely to ruin it. I think avoiding details on the tech is a defensible choice. We don’t get any explanation of the principles behind hoverboards, either, and they’re arguably more plot-relevant, as a peculiarity of their function (not working on water) actually affects the outcome of a scene. For that matter, we don’t get any explanation of the flying cars beyond “getting a hover-conversion” done. The movies go into a fair bit of technobabble about the time machine and time travel, but not much about other tech–the exception that springs to mind is the alpha-wave gadget Doc used on Jennifer and Marty, Jr, which was a pretty plot-relevant device.
If we developed weather control, which government agency would be the logical choice to handle it? It’s perfectly plausible that the Weather Service would evolve to deal with weather control as well as prediction, and there’s no reason to change the name.
He didn’t say, “Hang on, the Weather Service says the rain will stop in five seconds”, either. Doc is fond of drama. Witness his actions during the first trial of the time machine–he didn’t even tell Marty the DeLorean was a time machine until after it vanished. I would also argue that the “Wait five seconds” is a better setup to the joke.
Why? Clearly most or all of us here got the joke, despite have completely contradictory interpretations of the event it’s based on. Explaining a joke is prone to killing the humor. We get a brief shot of the clouds clearing away with unnatural speed, implying some kind of intervention, and that’s good enough. It’s a throwaway–there’s no need to waste screen time on explanations.
I don’t see how it requires any rectonning. It doesn’t contradict anything previously established in canon. I’m sure that if the weather in 2015 had been relevant to the plot, we’d have been treated to some sort of show, but it wasn’t. My take on the rain, from a writing perspective, is that it was chosen to provide a strong visual contrast for the transition from 1985 to 2015, then disposed of with a quick joke.
In the real world, perhaps. I actually suspect that we’re more likely to develop control of that precision than prediction–though I doubt we’ll ever manage either. Since we don’t know the mechanism behind the possible weather control in the BttF universe, it could be a brute-force approach that overwhelms all the chaotic little factors that make prediction so difficult. Even allowing the Razor to apply in a world with time machines, flying DeLoreans, and possible temporal nexuses, I don’t think it can shave this particular whisker. It doesn’t give the “right” or “best” answer, anyway–only the easiest one to test, which isn’t particularly relevant in this case.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter–we all got the joke. As DooWahDiddy said, I’m content to agree to disagree. I hardly think either interpretation is nuts, however.
I understand this is getting absurd and we each have the right to enjoy the joke in our own way, but I just want to see if I understand something from all the #2 voters upthread.
If Doc had said something like, “Wait 5 seconds – the Weather Control Agency is about to stop the rain!” and lasers shot into the sky, dissolving the clouds, you would see that as complete certainty that the weather was scheduled, not predicted, to stop at a certain time. Right? There would be no debate.
But Doc doesn’t say that, and there are no lasers shot into the sky…and you see that * non-evidence* as proof that the rain was scheduled, not predicted.
So I’m curious – what evidence would you require to admit, “Yeah, the rain was scheduled to end at a certain time”? Is it just Doc saying the word “accurate” instead of “efficient”? Because, as has been pointed out several times, the Post Office is never described as “inaccurate” and the joke wouldn’t work with that word. Ask anyone in 2010 and they’ll say the Post Office is “inefficient,” which is why Doc has to say that word. Again, I’m not a screenwriting expert, but I’ve written a few dialogue jokes in my time.
Doc calls it the Weather Service, an organization that predicts the weather. The fact that Doc’s statement makes perfect sense with weather prediction somehow isn’t evidence for #1. Why is this?
Some people say, “Isn’t it cooler if the Weather Service actually controls the weather?” I guess. I suppose it would be cooler if Griff fought Marty with a laser gun instead of a telescoping baseball bat. But something being cooler in your opinion isn’t evidence.
Some people say, “Are you saying that there are hoverboards and time travel but NOT weather control?” Again, there is no evidence for weather control. So while it may be disappointing, that doesn’t mean the joke is what you want it to be.
It seems – correct me if I’m wrong – that the only evidence that leads to #2 is that Doc says “efficient,” which leads to “schedule,” as opposed to “accurate,” which leads to “prediction.” But the joke wouldn’t work with that wording.
I don’t hate my opposition. I’m just trying to understand them. Can a #2 voter please outline their evidence? Because it seems to me that all evidence points to the most obvious explanation – that the Weather Service, which predicts weather in our time, has improved by 2015 to the point that it can predict exactly when a storm is going to end. I honestly see no evidence pointing in the other direction.
Yes, although I would frankly consider that unnecessarily heavy-handed and less entertaining.
The lack of lasers has nothing to do with my opinion on the state of things in 2015 BttF. The possible means by which weather control might be effected have no bearing on my argument. The scene doesn’t even show the sky when the rain stops–how can something we aren’t shown have probative value?
The absence of the evidence to the contrary that I’ve described repeatedly would go a long way in that direction. In fact, without it, I’d assume (as you do) that the Weather Service was still just predicting the weather in 2015 BttF. Short of that, it would require further dialog from Doc–checking the newspaper he had and mentioning the forecast or weather report, for instance.
If you have read my posts above, you will see that a single word choice by Doc is hardly the only reason for my position. That said, I think it would have been nonsensical to compare a service that only provides predictions–and thereby would generally be criticized as “inaccurate” or “imprecise”–with one that delivers material objects and is generally criticized as “inefficient”. I’ve heard many complaints about the Weather Service, but never really any that it was “inefficient”. I would contend that the scene and the joke make much more sense if you consider the Weather Service in 2015 BttF as an agency that controls the weather. Otherwise, the comparison Doc makes is unnatural and forced.
It would make perfect sense for the 2015 BttF Weather Service to be in the business of predicting the weather. If there is an agency in 2015 BttF that controls the weather, it would make equal sense to call it “the Weather Service” because–get this–it would provide weather-related services. The fact that Doc calls it “the Weather Service” is not evidence either way. All it proves is that there is still an agency that has something to do with the weather that is called “the Weather Service”. You’re assuming that a government agency won’t experience scope creep over a period of thirty years (remember, this is the future of the 1985 BttF Weather Service we’re talking about, not our own Weather Service). Scope creep is practically a defining characteristic of government agencies.
No, it isn’t, and I have not presented it as such. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. The only thing I have said along those lines is that weather control would be “amazing”–which I said in counter to an argument that Doc would surely only say “amazing” about incredibly precise predictions and not, you know, controlling the weather. Either would likely be considered amazing by a native of 1985 (or real-world 2010), therefore Doc’s choice of the word “amazing” is consistent with either situation. That word choice has no probative value. (Though frankly, given that Doc can easily find out precisely what the weather will be like at any point in the future, he might find the prediction version rather less amazing than the average denizen of 1985. Still, I regard Doc as a man likely to give credit where it is due.)
Again, a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of my position. My point is simply that technology wildly at variance with our own exists in the BttF universe. We do not have flying cars, hoverboards, or time travel, nor are we likely to invent and put into common use any of those within the next five years. Therefore, our intuition about technology in 2015 BttF is not reliable. In my opinion, the assumption several of you are making–that prediction is more likely than control–is founded in large part on that intuition.
You are hereby corrected. The dialog, for the most part, could support either interpretation. Two dialog choices lean in favor of #2 to some degree, in my opinion:
“Right on the tick”–Generally suggests that something has been accomplished on schedule, but it could go either way.
“efficient”–Generally suggests that someone has accomplished a task in a timely manner, with reasonable economy of resources. If applied to a predictive Weather Service, one would expect it to mean that the agency had produced a prediction on time and within budget; it would not make much sense in context of an actual change in the weather.
I have been trying to avoid addressing this out of courtesy, but…the reason the joke doesn’t work with wording consistent with interpretation #1 is that the joke doesn’t work with interpretation #1. It’s your right to interpret it that way, and you could be right that that’s what the writers intended, but it makes it a bad joke. The comparison becomes forced, and it falls flat.
Did you read my previous posts at all? I’ve pointed to dialog and FX choices that support my position upthread.
“On the tick”, as I already discussed in this post.
“Efficient”, as I already discussed in this post.
Cessation of heavy rain in a manner that is, if not indisputably unnatural, at least highly unusual. Yes, I have seen rain stop abruptly; however, I have never seen it stop that abruptly, and I would venture to say that it’s an extremely rare occurrence, at best.
Clearance of dense, horizon-to-horizon cloud cover within seconds, in a visibly accelerated fashion. Less than 10 seconds after the mark, over half the cloud cover is gone, and is continuing to vanish at a rate that will leave the sky cloudless at around the 15-second mark. This is patently unnatural, and the strongest single piece of evidence for weather control. The fact that they actually devoted FX budget and time to showing this–rather than simply stopping the rain and brightening the scene–argues that they intended to convey the impression of weather control.
You haven’t presented any evidence that actually points to the “prediction” interpretation, as far as I can tell. You’ve made some assumptions, based on your writing style and on your intuition about technology, and you’ve made an appeal to Occam’s Razor. If you’re comfortable with that, that’s fine, but kindly don’t pretend that I’m not making reasoned arguments based on actual evidence. I will admit that I could be wrong, but I reached my conclusion by a logical process, and I would think less of the writers if they intended something else. Like I said, I’m willing to agree to disagree, but you wanted a summary, and I was not inclined to allow my arguments to be misrepresented.
Now we can move on to more productive discussions…like whether or not Old Biff died right after he returned to 2015.
If they didn’t bother to clarify this onscreen, that means they didn’t care how you interpreted it, because it had absolutely nothing to do with the joke.
But I’ll pull up script and see if it says anything. (Having to type it by hand since it won’t copy-and-paste)
[INDENT]DOC
First you're gonna haveto get out and change clothes.
MARTY
Doc, it's pouring rain.
DOC
Oh, right...
(checks his watch)
Wait 3 more seconds....
[/INDENT]
In three seconds the rain abruptly stops, replaced by bright sunlight!
[INDENT]DOC
Right on the tick. Too bad the post office isn't as efficient as the weather service.[/INDENT]
Looks to me like the script was ambiguous, so the director and the effects people probably made the decision.
Lasers? Really? How about…the clouds being swept away instantaneously? Yeah - I’m from the midwest, and have seen rainfall stop abruptly on a dime. But NEVER have rainclouds disappeared without a trace instantaneously. THAT’S the proof (or “lasers” if you prefer).
Know what else is described as inefficient? Trains. No one predicts trains - they compare their arrival with their scheduled arrival.
If they wanted to make a real joke about weatherman, they would have had Doc say, “the rain is scheduled to fall every day between 4:00 and 4:15 - and yet the weathermen STILL can’t predict it correctly!”
Because if the tech to control the weather was developed, it would be the National Weather Service who would control it.
Watch the clouds being swept away. It’s about as blatant as lasers ever could have been.
I’m firmly a #2-er. Doc says “Amazing” because even with all the time he’s spent in the future, he’s still amazed that the Weather Service schedules 1.3 inches of rain to fall every Tuesday from 2-3:15 pm, and keeps on that schedule right to the second so that the rain stops just before kids head out of school to get home on their hoverboards. If they only Predicted when the rain would fall, he might have to consult a news information service to determine what time the rain stops that day. But if it is Scheduled, then just knowing that it is Tuesday and 3:14:55 means you know the rain will stop in 5 seconds.
I agree with everything Balance said. He is my new god.
That’s absurd. The movie-going public doesn’t understand “the rain stopped”? Sorry - that’s WAY too much hand waving to jam your round peg into a square hole.
No need to be mean, Munch. After all, #1 is the far simpler explanation; and simple explanations, in both science and storytelling, are usually the correct ones.
For what it’s worth, the Back to the Future wiki – which is, admittedly, written and edited by fans like us – is also unsure of the answer to this question, as shown in the full trilogy timeline:
Bob Gale hasn’t worked in Hollywood for six years, and has no blog, Facebook, or Twitter account. There’s a Facebook fan page for him but I doubt he’s involved with it. I’m not even sure he still has an agent, though IMDb Pro might answer that question – I don’t have an account. Or I suppose someone could write to him via Marvel Comics, as he currently writes some of the Amazing Spider-Man books on a rotating basis.
Another possibility is the novelization. I had it as a teenager and it did seem to explain some of the sci-fi aspects of the film. Does anyone still have it? Of course, it might just reiterate the movie dialogue and say “The clouds parted,” which would keep the question unresolved.
Anyway, those are some ideas. Or we could never find out, each side thinking its right, and being happy about it.
