What Back to the Future Got Right… and Wrong

Movie culture in America comprises a decent portion of the popular culture. So I wasn’t the least bit surprised by the tremendous excitement Back to the Future Day was met with. The predictions made by the writers are kind of astounding, especially alongside the small number of discrepancies the film possessed.

The first prediction is one many would consider shocking and yet today is a passé part of life in the first world, flat screen televisions. It’s comical to think this technology was science fiction in the eyes of Americans during the 80s and 90s. Another correct prediction that is now taken for granted in our eyes is video conferencing technology. I can’t begin to fathom and describe the number of people I see throughout my day using snapchat or facetime or whatever the latest app that’s trending among kids these days is. Two of the predictions made by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale that even I still see as futuristic whilst living in this day and age are 3D movies/ televisions and hologram technology. I still remember being enthralled and amazed by my first 3D movie.

Although these are the more technological in nature, the most sophisticated prediction to come through is the presence of biometric identification technology. We see this now most predominantly in Iphones but it’s sure to surge into our lives in the near future.

There were three predictions that would have been written off as discrepancies but the companies or franchises behind them jumped into action to make these daydreams a reality. These companies were Nike with their self-lacing shoes alongside Pepsi with its Pepsi Perfect. The Cubs Franchise even attempted to fulfill the Back to the Future II prophecy of Chicago winning the World Series by playing well enough to make it to the NLCS. Sadly, they got swept by the New York Mets. The strides made by these franchises prove how profound an impact a movie can have in our culture. Nike has also taken a socially progressive direction with this release by using the shoes as a chance to publicize the Michael J. Fox Foundation.

The major discrepancies of the movies are its most “science-fictiony” aspects; the fact that these devices don’t exist slightly grinds my gears. We’ll start simply: hoverboards. The hoverboards portrayed in the film are still an intangible concept and are not widely distributed technology yet, but no one knows what the future has in store.

Next, I still don’t understand what's holding us back from flying cars. Why are these not yet a thing? Also, I’m not too distressed over the film being incorrect over rejuvenation clinics and masks. I may be biased because I’m still young enough to not worry about it. A funny faux pas the film contained was the presence of fax-machines and phone booths. As a member of the twenty-first century, I’m glad to see these stone-age devices fading into oblivion with the use of digital email and smart phones.