The question of whether a classic film can be made today or not, after all, oxymoronic. Every film that has ever been made is a product of its age, in ways they are deliberate and completely incidental, and therefore an easy answer to that question is that no movie can be made in another era, not its own and remain exactly the same. Despite that truth, people are wondering what an old movie can look like in our modern era, which only further indicates that what we are really talking about is the differences between two different time periods. For some people, watching a classic movie with modern eyes - whether after a long period of time you don't see it or watch it for the first time - it has the same effect as they really accidentally traveled back in time.

The collision of cultures between nowadays and not-so-pink past is exactly the impetus The 1985 Classical Scientific Adventurist Comedy "Back to the Future", Written by Robert Krequis and Bob Gale and directed by Kabisis. It is a movie about a teenager of the 1980s, Marty McFley (Michael J. Fox), who accidentally gets stuck in 1955, introducing her parents who are the same age. In addition to the film about Gail's basic concept of whether he and his father would be friends, if they were contemporaries, the movie okesira holes in the painting both in the 1980s and in the 1950s. It is a satirical approach that allows the film to be both timely and timeless.

Saturation of the film in its two time periods is a big reason why you can't make "back to the future" today and end up as the same. According to Gail, this is just one of the long lists of reasons why the film elements would not fly. While Gale's bundles are objectively accurate, they are a little reactionary and whether or not they have hit the differences in culture since the 1980s and our culture in 2025.

As Gale advocated When you talk to the Guardian (through cracked) On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of "Returning to the Future", the prospects for making the film in 2025 will probably mean that it will never be done:

"Oh, man, the film wouldn't even be filmed today. We got into the studio and they would say," What is the deal with this link between Marty and Doc? "They would start interpreting pedophilia or something.

Indeed, as this reconciliation is imposed, there is much to unpack in the "return to the future" of a modern view. Separating the obvious political change - EMMET "Doc" Brown (Christopher Lloyd) has been killed by the Libyan Terror Cup - there are numerous cultural differences between then and now in the film. Much of this stems from how critics, comedians and other cultural commentators have made unusual folding about how weird characters and the film's premise are when they are taken at nominal value. In addition to an unusually close link between Marty and Doc, there is also an incest conspiracy about Marty and his teenager, Lauren (Leah Thompson) and wraps where Marty's guitar plays school dance allegedly inspiring Jacques to create rock and roll music.

However, Gale also comes to a place of remembrance, as it is not just the film is likely to be rejected today; It was almost rejected by every large studio in the mid-80s, also for several similar reasons. "Back to the Future" is an adventurous comedy, after all, and as we have seen throughout the history of Chinese comedy, it is a genre that tends to get older because of constantly changing culture and standards. Despite the movie crossing the barrier during space, there is no doubt that "Back to the Future" is a product of its time.

What hit Gale and Thompson in their recent interview is that the core of "returning to the future" is a cultural comment. For his part, Thompson points out that the difference between 2025 and 1995 is unique, different from the more realistic gap between 1985 and 1955:

"If you returned to the future" in 2025 and they returned for 30 years, it would be 1995 and nothing looked different. The phones would be different, but it would not be like the strange difference between the 80's and 50s and how different the world is. "

Indeed, although there may be a lot of cultural shock for the "Back to the Future" mine today, there would be no momentary shock of aesthetics given by the 1980s. The contrast and watershed of those two special periods are part of what makes the film so special, especially since it allows the Satira brand to shine. "Back to the future", Like most of the Kabisis moviesis a subversive and sly-cynical satire in the way it points out the hollow core and the materialistic 80s and supposedly squeezed pure (still something other than) the 1950s. All cultural differences in the film are not arbitrarily, or just pushing the envelope. Is it the unintentional "invention" of Marty's rock and roll, dirt that accidentally rewards our all-American white hero? Or there was a reason for Kosekis and Gail were so happy to throw Fox, Then, known for playing neo-conservative son of the liberal parents of the "family ties" of the TV, ",", In the role of a child who is only rewarding for making a few nearly disastrous mistakes?

If there is a problem with "returning to the future", it is that Wamkis and Gail have made a film that is so fascinating and fun that its satire can be lost in the mixture. He certainly did for co-starvazda Chrispin GloverAnd even he did with the general audience, who saw the movie Clifancher ending Gag As a promise of a sequel that Waykis and Gail never wanted to actually. So, while "Back to the Future" may not function as a reconciliation for our current culture, it is invaluable as a time capsule all of its, both since the 1980s and the way it looked back in the 1950s. "Returning to the Future" could not and would never be done today, but there is more than enough space for anyone else to make a cultural comment as much incisive, sly and fun.