squeegee joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#486,960
@486,953 (Metæ)
they'd better step on it with the personal fusion reactors, flying cars, hover boards and weather forcasting. we got huge wall screen TVs, 1000s of channels, self tying shoes and... smaller computers? idk.
where's my god damned flying car!
McBeagle !ckOEHONKEY joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 31 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#486,963
Syntax joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 44 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#486,965
squeegee replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#486,977
@486,963 (McBeagle !ckOEHONKEY)
that's as fake as the pixels used to make it. just look at them fake ass pixels.
The Captain !PundosRBSM joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#486,978
Shit movie.
dw skg replied with this 12 years ago, 10 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#486,980
80s. Diners.
Syntax replied with this 12 years ago, 14 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#486,981
@486,978 (The Captain !PundosRBSM)
LOL Really? Not according to the marketplace/critics/ Movie cost under $20 million to make and yield was over $384 million. As a former Universal/MCA Executive (Not directly movie related as in film) It sure entertained a whole hell lota people including me and put money in2 may wallets as well as MANY #2 & 3 made money but not as much percentage wise.
Academy award - Looking at film critics 96% liked the film (which amazes me) That's a very high score - unique among films
Television series
Animated television series.
Comic book series
Back to the Future video games
Theme park ride
Theme park ride to open in Japan next year
Stage musical deal signed beginning of this year
You can be sure its more then possible for more movies - after all look at how they found a way to do that with Star Trek
(Edited 1 minute later.)
squeegee replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#486,982
@previous (Syntax)
the first one really was a very good movie. i'm sure critics were just so entertained, like everyone else, that they found it hard to see anything wrong with it.
HaikerensGuide !ckOEHONKEY replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#486,984
@486,977 (squeegee)
They have the Transition for now.
squeegee replied with this 12 years ago, 32 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#486,986
@previous (HaikerensGuide !ckOEHONKEY)
airplane. look at the wings.
Syntax replied with this 12 years ago, 27 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#486,994
@486,982 (squeegee)
Yea I read a revue recently about a movie I was looking at watching via Netflix - Forget what it was but critics said - There were all kinds of flaws in the movie YET it was so entertaining who cares.
Back to the Future is comic book in nature, so Science accuracy is about as necessary as it is in Superman. Recently I was curious to see if a Flux Capacitor could actually exist - Sure nuff progress and scientific papers have been recently presented and one wonders IF Science labs wood have bothered without the movie.
Those GEO Satellites as One I am currently in ruin with my life with - It was Science Fiction Arthur C. Clarke writer of fame with 2001. Back in 1945 he published his idea in a UK ham radio rag - He worked out the Math re position/distance from Earth to Space to make it useable as communications Satellite.
Later Science fiction exploited by my former employer Hughes Aircraft for the Syncom's and One is still in full working order but of course the Direct TV's by Hughes now Boeing truly are amazing machines.
Flux capacitor when I last looked at it has a weeeee bit to go for 1.21 gigawatts of energy.
HaikerensGuide !ckOEHONKEY replied with this 12 years ago, 57 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#487,000
@486,986 (squeegee)
Flying cars will come soon enough.
Syntax replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#487,001
@previous (HaikerensGuide !ckOEHONKEY)
Skycar M400, is designed to take off and land vertically, like a Harrier Jet, in small spaces. It can reach speeds of 400 mph (644 kph), but will cruise at around 350 mph (563 kph), and it has a range of 900 miles (1449 km). Gasoline, diesel, alcohol, kerosene and propane can be used to fuel the Skycar, and its fuel mileage will be comparable to that of a medium-sized car, getting 20 miles (32.2 km) to the gallon. The initial cost of a Skycar will be about $1 million, but once it begins to be mass produced that price could come down to as low as $60,000.
The four-seat Skycar is powered by eight rotary engines that are housed inside four metal housings, called nacelles, on the side of the vehicle. There are two engines in each nacelle so that if one of the engines in one of the nacelle fails, the other engine can sustain flight. The engines lift the craft with 720 horsepower, and then thrust the craft forward. The Wankel engine replaces pistons of a conventional engine with a single triangular rotor spinning inside an oval-shaped chamber, which creates compression and expansion as the rotor turns. There are three combustion chambers in the Wankel, with a crankshaft between them.
HaikerensGuide !ckOEHONKEY replied with this 12 years ago, 32 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#487,003