u/precita

In the first movie when George punches Biff to save Loraine in the car that was the last we saw of him when he was knocked out. So back in the present when Biff is working for George and submissive to him you assume it's because of the punch that knocked him out.

However in the second movie we then see Biff knocked out a second time by Marty, and then Biff just gets back up and drives his car and tries to scrape Marty off the road with the sports almanac in his pocket. So as we see now, the punch from George didn't change Biff at all because he's the same asshole when he woke up as he was before. So eventually Marty escapes with the hoverboard and Biff crashes into the horse manure truck again.

So why would Biff be so submissive to George in the present when the second movie now showed him getting knocked out didn't change anything about him? Are we just to assume George knocked him out again at some point off screen in the following days or something? George is still frail and weak and Biff is twice his size, so one lucky unexpected punch wouldn't work a second time.

Also this movie has other time paradoxes that don't quite work with the lore established either and Marty just leaves the 2015 hoverboard back in 1955 too.

At this point Scott is now an aging hipster. A 52+ year old middle age man. If they ever make a fourth movie they need to play into this, with Scott now being double the age Dr. Evil was when he tried to take over the world.

Joe versus the Volcano in 1990

Sleepless in Seattle in 1992

You've got Mail in 1998

They play people who fall in love in all 3 movies, and the funny thing is You've Got Mail is almost the same exact movie as Sleepless in Seattle, they just changed the technology of how they met from the radio to AOL e-mail since we went from the early 90's to the late 90's. The last two movies really are a time capsule of how people met from radio shows to the very first e-mail chats on AOL.

I don't believe the two were dating in real life at the time (unless they were?) so why were they cast in the same films together 3 different times in 8 years?

If you look through her imdb page, her last movie was in 1994 and she didn't act again until a one-off in the early 2000's. And even then a lot of her movies after Gremlins 2 in 1990 weren't well known or popular. I'm honestly surprised how quickly she fell out of the spotlight, it feels like she should of been like Meryl Streep, Jamie Lee Curtis or Sigourney Weaver where she remained popular and acted as she aged through the decades like they did.

I know she had a modeling career but I'm surprised she dropped acting only like a decade after she rose to fame in Fast Times in Ridgement High in 1982. She barely lasted a decade before stopping in the early 90's.

For example at work I have to do a certain number of cases with different number documents by the end of the day and it's all logged in a specific column. I basically have to do at minimum 600 images worth of documents logged, and its tracted on the sheet.

How do I add an extra number to the columns, (like for example if I put in a "5" I want to say include an addition "10" to make that column add up to 15, but still only show 5), and that way the autosum feature at the bottom will count 15 and not 5 (in addition to all the other documents I do adding up to the 600 minimum)

I know some people say to simply change the font color of the number to "white" so it blends in with the background, but that doesn't really work for me because the first number still needs to be shown. So how do you "hide" a second number in the column so it gets counted by autosum?

Halfway into this movie Bruce Willis appears, playing himself (!) and not a character, because one of the main characters pretends to be Julia Roberts in the movie undercover.

Bruce Willis has no other role in this movie other than this 20 minute scene, and he's playing himself in a movie with George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, etc. Matt Damon even shakes his hand and says he's a big fan of him as an actor.

Like why did he get included in this movie, was it a favor from the director or something? It's such a weird minor role in a big film at the time. Also this was back in 2004 when Bruce Willis was still a fairly big mainstream actor.

The Boys might have had higher highs and at least two amazing actors for Homelander and Butcher, but I think Heroes was a better show overall? It wasn't entirely based on the same characters, sex jokes, gross-out humor, and the budget was less (I assume for the time?), but Heroes actually had a decent narrative of people with superpowers learning to live among society.

The only thing Heroes screwed up with was Sylar never dying at the end (how do you not kill your main villain?), but Claire was a better blonde female protagonist and Starlight. Sure Homelander and Butcher are better than everyone else from Heroes, but I still have a soft spot for Hiro and his time traveling powers and the story with the girl at the diner living in the past was great after he tried so hard to save her.

Much like Sigourney Waver rose to fame in the late 70's, 80's and into the 90's doing a mix of sci-fi, action, and drama roles and excelling at all of them, Emily Blunt seems to be the modern version of that from the late 2000's and especially the 2010's onward.

Emily Blunt in sci-fi films like Looper, Edge of Tomorrow, A Quiet Place, action films like Fall Guys and Sicario, fun movies like Disney's Mary Poppin's reboot and The Jungle Cruise, drama roles like Oppenheimer and Devil Wears Prada 2.

Like I can't help but feel she carved out the same niche for herself that Sigourney Weaver had in the 70's, 80's and 90's. And Emily did this WITHOUT being cast in superhero films like Marvel or DC which would feel like an easy way in for her, she did it all with original roles

Man, if only she could be in a John Wick movie, or the spinoffs or something similar. She would rock.

So I've had pfizer stock for like 10 years, and since covid died down I've gone down 10k from 25k what I originally had in it. This is what it just closed at, and you can look back through this year and the last few years and it remains relatively the same:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PFE/history/?p=PFE

I've only kept it as long as I did because people keep saying they're coming up with miracle drug vaccines every couple of years, but then it never really happens. It feels like the money I have in it is just stagnating.

I have roughly 15k in it right now, wouldn't selling it and then using the money from it and dumping directly into VT be a better choice (for the record I have 2,000+ shares of VT already). I feel like the same amount of money would grow higher in 1 year in VT than leaving the same money in another 10 years in pfizer.

Also I'm in the lowest tax bracket, so I wouldn't lose 15% of my gains, right?

When Mission Impossible 2 came out years after the original in the year 2000, it felt like one of those "late" at the time disappointing sequels that would have been one and done and killed off the franchise. If you look at rotten tomatoes, Mission Impossible 2 has the lowest scores of the franchise.

Back then it didn't seem like Tom Cruise would even continue Mission Impossible after that, and John Woo seemed to have an obsession with slow-motion motorcycle crashes and Tom constantly flashing his long hair around and smiling. If it weren't for Ving Rhames in the movie it would feel entirely divorced from the rest of the franchise. Like one of those "late sequel movies" nobody ever talks about. Man I can't get over Tom Cruise's hair in this movie.

The tonal whiplash is crazy too. Mission Impossible always had some humor and cheese in every movie, but MI:2 takes it to absurd levels. It feels more like an action superhero movie rather than an espionage/spy movie. It's just weird to look back on it now before Mission Impossible 3 happened and then it was obvious the franchise took off from there.