Back to the Future 3, the saloon, the 3 guys sitting together each starred in westerns. Also, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Eddie Valiant uses a toon gun that shoots toon bullets. Some of the voices belong to actors from westerns. If I'm not mistaken, I believe some of voices are the actors in the saloon in BTTF 3.

In the original the Dwarves placed her in a glass box. Anything I put in to a glass box, I see as precious and seek to protect it. Museums put items on display, many of the most precious items are behind some level of security. The classic Snow White is fragile, so much so, she requires protection. In the classic Snow White, the Huntsman spares her. He's a hero and he earned that status. The original Snow White deserves its accolades but it's also a relic. Disney owns these properties and has every right to make changes they see fit. Are they taking a risk, yes. Frozen was a blockbuster and the females in it are incredibly capable. I really don't understand what critics want, strong and capable or weak and fragile? Frozen and Moana both exude strong and capable. Critics want things unchanged, yet denounce weak and fragile. The most vocal critics want a product that cannot exist.

To me, happily ever after should be earned. Snow White's quality of character should be enough of a justification to deserve a happily ever after. The trope that, only a man can give you a happily ever after is an old, predictable trope. The classic was a product of its time. Snow White purists need not worry, the new Snow White doesn't erase the classic. I enjoyed the new Dumbo, the story was quite different. Creative liberties were taken. The new Pinocchio with Tom Hanks, didn't impress me. The story was a carbon copy, there might have been some creative liberties taken. Disney went the safe route. Now Disney is taking a route less traveled. This new Snow White will be vastly different and Disney is being unapologetic about. If you don't agree with changes, don't watch. Disney is fully aware that this new adaptation was going to cause a firestorm.

Didn't age well? Movies are a product of their time. Underage marriage has been taboo for quite some time, people are just more vocal about it; thank you social media. The sequel didn't offer up anything compelling. The story was ok and props to Burton for going with practical effects. If anything the feelings of nostalgia the practical effects illicited show that CGI can backfire. I'd like to see something like a Who Framed Roger Rabbit style of movie. Not a remake or sequel, but something that uses those techniques used in the movie. Acting with a blue screen has become far too common. The bar scene with the penguins, I watching ET or something like it showing how they brought the penguins to life and how Bob Hoskins interacted, there were animitronics used. Something the actors can interact with in real time, practical effects. If Hollywood wants to stick with this legacy sequel concept, tapping into methods that worked quite well at the time seems like a no-brainer.

I've heard of some of these, the only 2 that stand out for me are Broken Arrow and The Long Kiss Goodnight. I thought they were both great movies. I can't but I think I even saw Broken Arrow in the theater. I NFL star Howie Long and his plummet off the train.

I think time travel leaves artifacts. When traveling through time in the DeLorean, a bubble envelopes Marty. The bubble preserves the Marty 1. The bubble protects the traveler. That explains how old Biff was able to return to the original 2015 in BTTF2, but Doc and Marty can't return to that same 2015 after they traveled to dystopian 1985. Timecop presented changes as being instantaneous while still protecting the traveler. While BTTF posits that any changes made in the timeline become apparent over time. Why isn't Doc aware of his imminent death in 1885? Doc from 1885 had a different life then that of the young Doc in 1955. It's that bubble that protects Doc and keeps him immune to changes. Marty 1 will never suddenly develop new memories of his past, because he's in that bubble. Infinite timelines are created at life defining moments. The Twin Pines mall still exists, in an alternate timeline. When Marty hit the one pine tree in BTTF 1, an alternate timeline was created. But the time line where the pine tree didn't get knocked down still exists.

Griff's hoverboard is called a Pitt Bull, pitt bulls have often been seen as a dangerous breed of dog. It's already foreshadowing enough. In general, most of the foreshadowing in the series is subtle. Even in BTTF 1, the opening scene showing a clock with a figure hanging from it. This clock references a classic movie that I, as with most viewers, were unfamiliar with. It's also foreshadowing. Pitt bull is just fine IMO, calling the hoverboard Mad Dog would amount to practically waving a groaning foreshadowing in the viewers faces. I think most viewers realized upon learning about Buford, that Pitt Bull was foreshadowing.

Couldn't someone take elements of the story that are synonymous with the time travel genre and do a movie that is unrelated to the Back to the Future triology? Movies like Hot Tub Time Machine and The Butterfly Effect are both modern examples. A hot tub being a time machine is a rather absurd premise. A refrigerator is also a rather absurd time machine. Time travel itself, has well defined rules. Few movies stick to these rules 100%. BTTF2, how did old Biff return to a 2015 that shouldn't exist, according to Doc, yet Doc and Marty can't? In BTTF1, Einstein skips over that minute, so for that specific minute Einstein was gone from the time line. Using this example, Marty and Jennifer skipped over 30 years, they should also have been gone from the time line. Old Biff even states that he hasn't seen a flying DeLorean in 30 years, that should also be true for anyone in the DeLorean. Flight of the Navigator clearly states the boy had missing for 8 years. Rule 1, the past can not be changed. Rule 2, when traveling to the future, the traveler skips over the span of time so effectively they go missing during the span of time they are skipping over. There are areas within the BTTF trilogy that aren't perfect. Multiple time lines are probably the best way to subvert the time travel rules. You have 2 decisions, X and Y. At each X and Y moment, 2 possible time lines are created. Under this premise there are an infinite number of time lines that could exist. Perhaps there's a time line where the Titanic didn't sink? This could be a time line vastly different than our own, I might not even exist in this alternate time line.

Speed 3 could go slightly meta and poke fun at Speed 2, the premise, the budget, the lack of Keanu. Perhaps Speed 3 could suggest that the events of Speed 2 were a fabrication of Bullocks character. Or Speed 3 could serve as a more direct sequel of Speed. Anything that sort of "erases" Speed 2 from our collective minds, I would be okay with.

This article seems like it's written for someone who doesn't watch TV or movies. Many, many movies contain elements and nods from previous movies and television It's called inspiration. It's a well known fact that Disney does this a lot with their animated features. And featuring veterans in small cameos, yeah not something new dude. I do like the BTTF series and these nods are cute references. When I was a kiddo, these nods went over my head. I was 8 years old every nod to previous works, I really wasn't familiar with. Even now, I've seen H.G. Wells The Time Machine and I've watched The Twilight Zone, I seeing some episodes. I only know that William Shatner was in one episode, but I have no clue of the plot of that particular episode. As far as BTTF, the Vader/Vulcan reference, that's an easy one to spot. One of the cool things that I suspected a long time ago was the tunnel scene in BTTF 2. The tunnel Biff drives into is the same tunnel that Eddie Valiant drives into in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. WFRR came out in like 1988, BTTF 2 1989, that location/shot was easy to spot if you had seen both movies within a very short time. I think the music played around the time of tunnel scene in both movies is similar too. BTW, Robert Zemekez was involved in both projects.

Most of these seem plausible. However, I think Married with Children is the most unrealistic. The kids look well fed and dressed. He remodeled his garage and added a bathroom. Plus that vacation early on in the series? He sells women's shoes and given the typical customers he'd have, we're not talking expensive designer shoes. The store he worked in, he was the manager, stockboy, maintenance, and custodian. Also, his penchant for frequenting the local strip club. It's T.V. and most of it is unrealistic. We're not supposed to question the feasibility of the living standards in these fictional settings.

Yeah, He-man really missed the mark. Bringing He-man and Skeletor's battle to Earth made no sense. Where were Orko and Cringer/Battlecat? Frank Langella was well cast, I like the casting. The writing is a little campy, but so was the show. Origin stories have gained some traction in recent years. An origin story could make this quasi-original.

I'm a liberal, I enjoyed the movie. Those "problematic" parts the critic (used loosely) is pointing out clearly show his bias. Not every movie is intended to be a metaphor for the viewer to analyze. Sit back, relax and just enjoy the movie for what it is. It's titled Forrest Gump because it's a movie about an individual named Forrest Gump. I can recognize those significant events Forrest shows up in. Realize though that this movie isn't about the Vietnam War or racial desegregation or another significant event in the movie. Forrest is just one character with a limited perspective of the world around him. What we see in this movie is limited because we are seeing these events through Forrest's eyes.