Talk:Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Order of songs in the movie[edit]

A while back, I noted the order of the songs in the movie, compared to how the songs were arranged on the soundtrack. For some resaon, someone took that section out completely. I have now put the section back in again. If I accidentally switched a song or two, I can understand why someone would want to fix it. But why take out the section completely? Whoever it was, I would respectfully ask that he or she not do that again. The order is different on the soundtrack versus the movie, and I think it's a worthwhile section to have. -- Tom H12 (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modern English[edit]

Luckily, all of the historical figures speak modern English.

Not only sarcastic, but untrue. Socrates gets by with sign language, but several other non-English-speaking historical people (Napoleon among them) spend most of the film wandering around looking even more befuddled than the historical people who do speak English.

If I recall correctly, of course. —Paul A 01:38 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Pizza Puzzle

Actually, I think historically Napoleon did know some English.--Pharos 12:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was actually impressed by the detail that all historical people spoke their actual language (although Socrates had an American accent). According to the article on Sigmund Freud (who is the only one to speak in accented English), he had competence in English, French and Greek besides his native German, so he could likely have functioned as an interpreter to the others (except for Genghis Khan). 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, the family had moved to Austria, apparently, so German might not strictly have been his native language, just an early language. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct release date[edit]

Before you revert the page back to the wrong date (1989). I changed the year to 1988 because I have this movie on DVD. I bought it a couple years ago. -- Mike Garcia | talk 20:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I notice IMDB gives the date as 1989 as we previously did, and a quick google search for the title and date gives more hits for 1989, but a fair number of 1988s (and a few 1990s). Anyone have more info on that? What are we going by, copyright registration? Premier of first public showing? Also, where is the 1988 date given on the DVD-- in the film credits, on the box, both agree? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 21:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I know IMDB says 1989. But, the DVD did print 1988 on it, see. Even those sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7] agree with that year. Hmmm...some idiots might be wrong then. But, let's not change it back to 1989 right now. -- Mike Garcia | talk 21:16 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The year goes by release date, which is 1989. Look at Category:2005 films or 2005 in film. The requirement to be on 2005 in film is the release date. Wikipedia uses release dates. The mix-up with the dates is adequetly explained in the text. I see insufficient evidence to save the release date was not in 1989 nor that WP isn't based upon release date. The burden of proof is on or anyone else that wants to dish out insults [8]. Cburnett 23:58, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
And 2005 is just the current year. If it's not obvious, the same rules apply for every year. I'll even quote from Category:1989:
This category lists the titles of films originally released in the year 1989.
Cburnett 00:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
Not to keep talking to myself here, but do you post 2004 events on 2005? Of course not, you post events that happen in 2005 on 2005. Cburnett 00:24, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
Please stop changing it back to 1989, you know it is the wrong year. Who cares what IMDB, they're lying like you, you're full of fucking shit. You better see this RIGHT NOW: [9] before you revert me again. -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:24, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL The copyright date on the box is irrelevant to when the movie was released. Find me PROOF that the movie was released in 1988 and I'll let it go. Until then, you're bordering on me requesting this page be protected and user action taken against you. Cburnett 00:27, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
But this source: [10] is proof. Again, I am so sorry, but the year 1989 is wrong, I am so, so sorry. Just see the source in-case you didn't see it. The movie was released in 1988 and you will accept it from now on, okay. Jeez! -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:31, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The copyright date on the back of the DVD is irrelevant to when the movie was released in the theaters. You need more proof than that to call IMDB wrong. Cburnett 00:37, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Also for the record, MGM itself says it was released in 1989 [11]. Cburnett 00:43, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

The movie opened in US movie theaters in February, 1989.
* imdb release info
* The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 31, 1989
* The Numbers, Weekend of February 17, 1989
However it was apparently originally made for video in 1987, and it could be that it did have a video release prior to its theatrical run. Mike has problems with this kind of content dispute, which are not his fault. Please talk to Danny, who is Mike's mentor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:51, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For the last time, Cburnett, who cares what any website says? Just leave it as 1988, that's the correct year. The sources I sent about it are proof. If you continue reverting the page again, I have no choice but to report you and I've had enough, now just let the page be in peace when I leave it as 1988 and when I do that, you are not reverting it again (period). -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:51, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Tony & Mike, would you care to talk on IRC about this with a neutral 3rd party? Cburnett 01:27, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I should note that Mike is currently in a temporary ban due to 3RR violations in another edit war, so he really shouldn't be editing in the first place. *Dan* 01:30, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
Gotcha, thanks for the info. I was curious to why/how he was posting from an IP but getting his name in the sig. Cburnett 01:32, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think Tony Sidaway's response is the wisest. I have found release dates of 1988 and 1989. What I suggest is the following: release date: 1988 (video); 1989 (theatrical). Is this acceptable to everyone? Danny 01:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that that is correct. I don't see that a video was released in 1988. I presume that before the distributor ran out of money that it was to be released in 1988 on video but was postponed until 1989 when the money was available and released in the theater. I still maintain that 1989 is correct because two reputable sources — IMDB & MGM — say it as such. Cburnett 01:54, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

There are other sources that say 1988. Mike has listed them. If it was released February 1989, and released to video first, it would make sense that this was 1988. Danny 01:57, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC) By the way, the BBC says 1988 too here. It is obviously not that simple as people want to make it. Danny 02:00, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mike, also, if you have the video, watch the credits and give us the date in Roman numerals on the bottom. Thanks. Danny 02:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the credits did say 1988. -- Mike Garcia | talk 02:02, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
The dates on the bottom of cases are the copyright year. Is this incorrect? All of the 1988 years that have been provided (the case, amazon, bbc, etc.) only give a year, they never explicitly state what the year is. IMDB & MGM explicitly state that it's the release date as 1989. There's also been no evidence that there was actually a video release in 1988. Cburnett 02:05, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
Of course it is correct that it said 1988. I used to have the video, but got abandoned a few years before I moved to college from fall 2001 to June 2005 and discovered DVDs. Of course I did take it college with me, but sent it to the Salvation Army truckers along with my other old videos when I was a young kid (so as Bogus Journey, the sequel of this movie). It was a few months/weeks later after I bought this movie on DVD around 2002 or 2003. -- Mike Garcia | talk 02:08, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
No, Mike, you're not understanding me. I'm not questioning if the box actually says 1988 (I never have) but the date on the box doesn't say anything meaningful. The date on the box is the copyright date, which has absolutely nothing to do with the date it was released. The date on wikipedia is not the copyright date, but the release date. Cburnett 02:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

An archive on Reeve's website [12] in Sep 1988 says it's not out and probably won't until next year. I'm not finding anything that there was anything release in 1988. Cburnett 02:10, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

For the case. When I looked up at they said the soundtrack was released on the following date. Sadly, I never bought the soundtrack on CD or audio tape, so as Bogus Journey. -- Mike Garcia | talk 02:26, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
San Jose Mercury News, April 16, 1989 says "Since the movie opened in February... In seven weeks it has taken in more than $33 million at the box office..." 7 weeks from the IMDB/MGM release date of Feb 7 is Apr 7. Cburnett 02:25, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
The Philadelphia Enquirer, Aug 31, 1989 (same Tony linked to) says "This week, Reeves is doing time in the video release of Stephen Herek's Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure..." so the video was released in late August of 1989. Again, nothing about 1988 and there's two articles: one for the theatrical release (confirming Feb 1989) and one for video release (late Aug 1989). And, still, again I find nothing for a 1988 release of any kind. Cburnett 02:32, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, both Mike and I have given dates for 1988. Check the links. I am not saying it is correct, but it is sourced. I am asking you to please take that into consideration. Danny 02:37, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your list:
  • DVD case: copyright date, not release date
  • Amazon: not a primary source and doesn't specify what the year means
  • BBC: not a primary source and doesn't specify what the year means
My list:
  • IMDB: a fairly reputable source of information
  • MGM: the distributor of B&T
  • San Jose Mercury: reputable source considering it's on Reeve's site
  • Philadelphia Enquirer: same as San Jose Mercury
  • New York Daily news: same as San Jose Mercury
I have taken it into consideration before this revert war started and especially so after it. I trust IMDB more than Amazon or BBC. I trust MGM more than Amazon, BBC, or IMDB. The issue is not copyright date, which knocks out your third, and final, source.
Do you have any other sources other than resellers? Do you have any sources explicitly stating the what the dates are for? Any sources on Reeve's site saying contrary to the two I've linked? So far, I'm at 2 saying release date (IMDB & MGM) and the Mercury confirms they are the theatrical release and the Enquirer confirms that the video release was in 1989. Given the evidence and the source of the evidence, I cannot conclude anything was released in 1988:
  • especially since the New York Daily says in Sep 1988 that nothing has been released.
  • The distributor who released the film says 1989.
  • The lead actor indirectly supports 1989 by having articles on his site that say it.
What else do you have for me to consider? Cburnett 03:02, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
I must say, Cburnett is making a pretty strong case here. I think some pretty strong evidence is needed before we discount the claims of the distributer themselves… --W(t) 03:13, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
So, I hear no further disputes with sufficient evidence to show the distributor and several newspapers are wrong. The longer this page stays protected because of this, the more unfortunate it is. Cburnett June 28, 2005 18:04 (UTC)

I'm probably being very disingenuous, but you might say this page literally is protected over one bit. 28 June 2005 19:17 (UTC)

Does it warrant WP:LAME? :) Cburnett June 28, 2005 19:18 (UTC)
Maybe not just yet, but it is pretty bogus... And was that really released in 1991, now that I'm thinking about it? >:-) 28 June 2005 19:22 (UTC)

Unprotecting this page[edit]

In light of no credible evidence to counter that which I have shown, I move that the page be unprotected and the date be changed to 1989 to reflect the release date (which is what wikipedia uses). All references on 1988 in film, 1989 in film, etc. be changed back to 1989. Also edit the article to discuss that the copyright date is 1988 and that it appears on the DVD case (it is not the release date).

Are there any objections to this? Mike? Danny? If there are, I expect that you will have more convincing evidence that the distributor is verifyably wrong. Weyes has interjected (thanks, BTW) that he finds my evidence compelling. Tony, can I assume you agree? Anyone else?

I don't desire making threats but I would also like to note that if Mike can't provide anything more credible than my evidence and continues to revert after the page is unprotected then I will continue to the next step in dispute resolution. Cburnett June 28, 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Are you people (Cburnett and *Dan*) insane? I already told you 1988 is right, not 1989 when both of you changed it again. I am getting tired of fighting with this bullshit. -- Mike Garcia | talk 4 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)
Mike, again, copyright date is not the same as the date a film first appeared in movie theathers. Release on videotape or dvd is usually after rather than before theater release-- the date on the box may refer to the copyright, not release on video. And again, please, do not insult people; you know that is inappropriate here. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 4 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)
I was trying to correct it to prove it, Infrogmation, that's why I changed it one more time. And again, I really don't care how old anything is. -- Mike Garcia | talk 4 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)
The references above seem to me to make an excellent case for the 1989 release date. If you have evidence that that is not the release date, you need to present it. If you "don't care how old" it is, why do you keep changing the date? I'm really trying to understand your edits as being motivated by something other than vandalism here, but you're not giving me much to go on. -- Infrogmation 4 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)
Again, I was trying to correct it to prove it (if you don't/can't believe me). That's why I always keep changing it and there's no problem with that. No. -- Mike Garcia | talk 4 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)
I can't see how your edit-warring proves anything, other than that you're a pain to deal with. *Dan* July 4, 2005 04:11 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong... Cburnett July 4, 2005 04:19 (UTC)

It has been three days since the release date has been changed. Can we remove the "factual accuracy" tag now? Val42 July 7, 2005 05:23 (UTC)

If no one disagrees. Whew. -- Infrogmation 7 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)

I went to see Bill and Ted on it's theatrical release date which was February 1989 when I lived in Orlando Fl at the time but as long as I can remember, movies that are put out in Janurary and February were normally credited to the previous year, in the 1970's this was true up to April but think February is the cutoff date from the previous year. ~SSM


It seems like the Wyld Stallyns article could be covered in here. What do you think? Kerowyn 06:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Otherwise the article is a stub and fairly irrelevant anywhere else. --Illnab1024 02:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, you'll cover the Wyld Stallyns information from both movies in this article? That's a good decision considering that most of the information about Wyld Stallyns is in from the second movie. Val42 02:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I definitely think this merge should happen... go for it! - JustinWick 23:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, a merge would probably be a good idea. The Wyld Stallyns page should probably also redirect here or to the section, just to keep things connected. JQF 23:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I, being a huge bill and ted fan, and normally one to keep articles seperate do have to agree, this should be merged but with the utmost of care, that is give it it's own section, and make sure the wyld stallyns redirects directly to the section rather than just to the top of the article.Solidusspriggan 02:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not possible to redirect to a section. See WP:R#How to make a redirect. Cburnett 04:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

well that sucks, but what ive done is taken all the "what links here" links to wyld stallions and made them links directly to the section, if someone trys to go directly to the wyld stallyns article they will unfortunately have to scroll down. BOGUS! lol Solidusspriggan 05:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So did I get the page at a bad time? There is no refernce to Wyld Stallyns any more. 12:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Error of image[edit]

The image was replaced by that of a bird when I click it it let back to the orginal image. Can someone tell me what is happening?

Out of place name comments?[edit]

When giving the 'lineup' of the historical characters in the plot synopsis, the aliases given to Bill's mom are listed with them. Perhaps these should be moved elsewhere, or better explained? As-written, it implies they don't know what half of the characters are called. Their errors in pronunciation are fine, but the section of the synopsis as written is just clunky.--MythicFox 04:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect trivia.[edit]

the trivia "During the presentation, Abraham Lincoln's character opens his speech saying "Four score and seven minutes ago..." which means 87 minutes ago, this scene happens 87 minutes into the movie." is incorrect. On the DVD release, it happens exactly 80 minutes into the movie.

He isn't referring to anything about the amount of time he started his journey with Bill and Ted. In fact, the movie takes places over a period of several hours. It's a play on words of his famous speech where he says "Four score and 7 years go" --sumnjim talk with me·changes 15:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Removed it, it was fairly pointless - ZEROpumpkins 11:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed trivia[edit]

I removed this trivia. If someone finds it important or can find a place in the article for it, please put it in its appropriate place. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 20:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the first bit of trivia; it's worded incorrectly anyway. Bill and Ted didn't take Napoleon to Waterloo, they found him at Waterlube after he had gotten there on his own. - johandav —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Bill and Ted take Napoleon to the waterpark Waterloo, when in reality he was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo. Napoleon is planning the Battle of Waterloo at the final show and Ted makes a comment of how he doesn't think the plan will work. It was at Waterloo where Napoleon was defeated.
  • Bill and Ted don't pick someone up everywhere they go, but the years they travel to are (corrected): 1805 (Napoleon), 1879 (Billy the Kid), 410 B.C. (Socrates), 1488 (Henry VII and the princesses, 1488 being hypothetical assuming the fact that it was exactly 500 years before their initial year of departure), 2688 (the time chamber and its keepers), 1901 (Freud), 1810 (Beethoven), 1429 (Joan of Arc), 1209 (Genghis Khan), 1863 (Lincoln), 1,000,000 B.C. (for repairs on the time machine) and, of course, 1988.
  • The Three Most Important People In The World are played by Clarence Clemons of Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band, Martha Davis of The Motels and Fee Waybill of the The Tubes.
  • Keanu Reeves originally auditioned for Bill opposite Alex Winter auditioning for Ted.


Removed the citation needed about the time travel machine in bill and ted having a different interior to the tardis. this is too commonly well known to warrant a citation, and those who are unfamiliar with doctor who can follow the tardis link to the wikipedia article anyways.

It still needs a source to verify the connection. Just because it appears similar to the Tardis doesn't mean that Solomon and Matheson was inspired or took the idea from Doctor Who. That's like somebody seeing Superman for the first time and being reminded of Peter Pan. So they come to the conclusion that the creators took the idea of Superman's flight ability from Peter Pan just on the grounds that it reminded them of such. We can't just add that kind of information without a source to verify the claim. They might not have been aware of Doctor Who at the time when they settled on the phonebooth idea. Sarujo (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Years later, removed a mention that the phone booth is a reference to Doctor Who. Chris Matheson has explicitly said it's a coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:F989:AC01:DC6E:4A5:3648:D897 (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I deleted the following sentence because it is written in an absurdly obtuse and pretentious style:

"The abundance of flagrant macroscopic time travel flouts the chronology protection conjecture, which one may handle via suspension of disbelief."

When considering a literary work that deals with time travel, one must necessarily suspend one's belief. Thus, the quoted sentence is a tautology, and does not conform to encyclopedic standards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:15, 28 January 2007

While obtuse and pretentious, the sentence is not a tautology as suspension of disbelief is not inherently required for all films about time travel as time travel is possible if improbable, as are most things. Moreover, the reference to the chronology protection conjecture is perfectly relevant even if sentence had been a tautology. However, the sentence is most likely original research, and so should never have been submitted.21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill & Ted's Excellent Musical Adventure[edit]

Anybody have any idea how to work in a reference to said musical (best page I've found about it is here)? "In October 1998, Dean Collinson would win the Vivien Ellis Award for Best New Musical Composer for the music to Bill & Ted's Excellent Musical Adventure." Sounds notable enough to at least mention, even if there isn't enough material for its own article. Sukael 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure the following bit of trivia is incorrect

'The band Primus appears on stage directly prior to Bill & Ted's performance with Wild Stallions.'

I can only recall Primus actually appearing in Bogus Journey. I haven't deleted it myself because chances are high that I've forgotten something. Spugmeister 16:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It must be bogus journey cos wild stallions never perform in excelent edventure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wyld Stallyns[edit]

So Wyld Stallyns directs to "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" per Merge above. But there seem to be no Wyld Stallyns content in this article, was it removed? 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. In my opinion Wyld Stallyns should have it's own article again. JoseySmith (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. Only Bill and Ted should have character articles, and even then they should only share one character article. If an article on Wyld Stallyns is made then it would mean that the princesses and that bass player from the comic series are notable - which they are not. Sarujo (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public reception and Critical Review[edit]

This article doesn't say very much about what critics said about the movie, nor does it say how much money the movie made, or how much it cost, and the list goes on. Anyone up for fixing that? 05:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cite-request happy[edit]

A number of points are marked with "citation needed", for which the most logical source is the movie itself. How can these be properly cited? Somegeek 22:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Henry VII[edit]

That the English king at whose court Bill and Ted meet the princesses is Henry VII is not OR, but supported by the two Bill & Ted movies. In Excellent Adventure, the monarch is named as 'King Henry'. In Bogus Journey, the princesses celebrate their 521st birthday. As they are physically in their early 20s, they have therefore travelled forward 500 years. The date of Excellent Adventure is given in the movie as 1988. Therefore the monarch can only have been Henry VII (1485-1509). Henry VI's brief readeption in 1470-71 is too far back for it to be him. Jess Cully 19:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That this was one of the King Henry's is supported by the movies and is not original research. However, doing the even the simple and obvious calculations that you have done does seem to be original research. I certainly won't have a problem with you putting this type of information in the article because I like this type of information, but there are many others who will remove it. When you put it in, be very careful in how you word it so that you give the factual information and let the readers draw their own conclusions, which should be obvious from the information that you've given above. Good luck. — Val42 03:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also like this information, but since it wasn't explicitly stated in the movie, I believe the way you arrived at the conclusion is a form of synthesis described in the original research policy. I'm not going to remove your edit, but I think having it backed up by a citation is important. --GargoyleMT 12:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't find a citation, so I'll reword. Jess Cully 19:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent analysis. But unless my research is lacking, there is a problem: Henry VII was born in 1457, and none of his 8 children and one illegitimate child were named either Joanna or Elizabeth. Who knows if he had more illegitimate children?
But the fact that he was born in 1457 makes it impossible for both girls to have been born around 1469-70. He would have been a father at 12 or 13! Could Henry VII have fathered illegitimate children at this young an age? It's a possibility, but I doubt it. His only known illegitimate child on record (according to Wiki) was a son in 1474, while he was 16 or 17.
That leaves only one probable explanation for the existence of these two girls, and it can be explained by the hostile disposition of the fictional Henry VII, and his insistence upon forcing those two girls into marriage to two older men: Most likely, they were either stepchildren or the equivalent of adopted children. That may explain why he was so anxious to marry these 2 girls off. If he did father these 2 girls at 13, that would perhaps make a bigger case. It is only by these scenarios that the fictional tale can be applied. But then again, if both girls were 17 or 18 in that scene when Bill and Ted arrived, then Henry VII had to be 31. The actor who played Henry VII in this movie (John Karlsen) looked to be in his late-50s or early-60s. Henry VI died at 49, and Henry VII died at 52.
That brings me to another problem, which actually makes it easier for the inclusion of these fictional princesses: John Karlsen is actually listed in the credits as the "Evil Duke". My knowledge of the English monarchy isn't that sharp, but what's a duke doing with a crown? If this duke was actually a brother or cousin, or even an uncle, of Henry VII, that would certainly make sense for him to have 2 daughters he's trying to get off his hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CookyMonzta (talkcontribs)
Or they could be daughters of Edward IV. Henry VII liked to boost his dynasty's claim to royal blood by emphasising the royal descent of his wife - a daughter of Edward IV. So he'd have been happy to have her sisters at his court and acknowledge them as princesses. Jess Cully (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the Henry VII mention from the article, because it had no citation. Honestly, I really doubt the filmmakers had a particular ruler in mind (although I wish they had). Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Throughout the movie there are pieces of music attributed to Wyld Stellions, what band actualy performed them? 12:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The most obvious one that can be attributed to Wyld Stallyns was the song that played as Bill and Ted (along with Billy the Kid and Socrates) arrived in San Dimas in the year 2688, after escaping 15th-century England. As soon as the phone booth touches down and they're about to step out, a lone guitar riff is played in the background, and they are in awe of the "excellent music" they play.

The guitar riff comes from Stevie Salas, the lead-in to the song "In Time" by Robbi Robb, which you hear throughout the scene, as word of Bill and Ted's arrival reaches fans in the complex, and they come to greet them with the windmill air-guitar strum.

Robbi Robb's "In Time" also plays near the end of the movie, when Rufus arrives in present-day (1988) San Dimas with the princesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CookyMonzta (talkcontribs) 02:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


where does the origins of Bill and Ted's names come from? I was told that they were named after the producer's sons. Is this true?

Retrieved from "" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prank Page[edit]

Okay, somebody's gone and made a prank article where they've taken this article and changed it to being about some bogus movie. To find it, go the the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate destiny link in the legacy section, and then from there use the Bill S. Preston link in the list of participants in the showdown.

Somebody delete that stupid page. It's not funny and it shouldn't even be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, it seems they've altered the page itself; I got to the original via gogle, but when I returned to the article after writing this post, I was at the prank page again. Somebody fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why would they go through all the trouble of shooting the film in the Phoenix area and call it San Dimas? Would it have been so hard to shoot in San Dimas, or have the movie be set in Phoenix? I was really surprised to hear they shot the movie there. -Rolypolyman (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Castle location?[edit]

Which castle was used for the exterior shots of King Henry's castle? brain (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Word from the official Bill & Ted site was that the castle was located in Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speech Patterns[edit]

I would tend to think that there should be some coverage in the article of the distinctive speech patterns of Bill and Ted used in the movie-- it's Valspeak as cited in various places, but with a rather unique variation that eschews profanity and obscenity and tends toward florid and even antiquated constructions (e.g. "most excellent", "You are truly a just and noble Creator", etc.), and creatively loquacious words for superlatives ("massively", "fully", "full-on", etc). I think it's fair to say that this movie's unique characterizations had a profound effect on American youth culture (I personally say "excellent" far more often than I probably otherwise would have), and subsequent movies like "Wayne's World" owe a lot to Bill & Ted in the vocabulary and characterization department, and the setting of seemingly alert and intellectual hipsters living in loser-like squalor with a provincial outlook and a private language all their own. (Beavis & Butt-head is another descendant, one that veers more into the realm of impoverished vocabulary and dulled wits, but sharing the characteristics of a shut-in, provincial outlook on life and supreme importance placed on trivial matters like music and babes).

Has there been any independent research on stuff like this? Brian Tiemann (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Film credits for the princesses reversed[edit]

In the movie credits, Diane Franklin is credited for the role of Joanna, and Kimberley LaBelle (Kates) is credited for the role of Elizabeth. In actuality, Franklin played Elizabeth, and LaBelle played Joanna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CookyMonzta (talkcontribs) 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monty Python's Flying Circus[edit]

The idea behind selecting the historical figures was probably copied from Monty Python's Flying Circus in which one episode has very similar charactors shown in a list, St. Stephen, Richard III, Jean d'Ark, Marat, A. Lincoln, G. Khan, King Edward VII.--Jrkso (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blind assumptions are not reliable sources. If the film's plot was copied from that sketch, you'll need a reliable source making the connection. Sarujo (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That genre of travelling-through-time, meeting-historical-figures often tends to include similar characters, anyway. I thought about Time Bandits, that - before it veered off into Fantasy territory - included Napoleon Bonaparte, Robin Hood (of Medieval Europe) and Agamemnon (of Mycenaean Greece). 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third re-appearing.[edit]

In a Smodcast podcast with Kevin Smith this week, Ralph Garman said that the third movie was int he works again with Reeves having agreed to appear in it. Alreadyinuse123 (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP Feedback[edit]

IP editor (talk · contribs) used the feedback system to leave the following comment about this article:

The song "The Boys And Girls Are Doing It" was recorded by the San Francisco Bay Area band Vital Signs, NOT the Pakistani band that you linked to. The band's website is: The song was written by British rocker Frankie Miller. The song was released as the single from the soundtrack album with an accompanying rock video which debuted on MTV the week the movie was released. Source of this<Personal information redacted>. Contact: <email redacted> for confirmation.

As the feedback is now hidden, I thought it should be addressed here. I don't know whether the feedback is accurate, so it would be helpful if someone knowledgeable about the subject took a look at it. Monty845 05:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A minor emendation is needed[edit]

Hello, all,

Having just watched both movies last night (with the subtitles playing) in a Bill and Ted marathon, I note that this article does not quite get Ted's name right. The subtitles make it clear that he considers his christened name to be Ted, and his nickname to be Theodore. To be precise, the subtitle captions read Ted "Theodore" Logan. The joke is so subtle prior editiors may have missed it.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comic books[edit]

There are a lot more Bill and Ted comics then the ones currently mentioned on the page. I'll try to put them in later. Lots42 (talk)