There was that scene in Speed where the bus hits the baby stroller but it's okay because the stroller is full of cans not babies.
It is made clear to the audience that the stroller is full of cans and not babies not only by showing cans spill all over the street but because the person shoving the baby stroller is a homeless person.
That seems bumist to me.
Why the stereotypical cans? Couldn't a homeless person be pushing a baby in the stroller?
I guess I'm a little conflicted making this argument. If in the movie Speed there had actually been a baby in the stroller instead of cans, Sandra Bullock who is driving the bus would have been hitting a baby, not cans. That might have adversely affected Sandra Bullock's career. Probably Keanu Reeve's career too, because he was standing right next to Sandra Bullock and he even kisses her at the end.
Can you imagine what life would be like if Sandra Bullock's career had ended with Speed and we never got the likes of Practical Magic or Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous?
Keanu Reeves might never have made The Matrix, which I liked. At least the first one where he flies like Superman.
You know, now that I think about it, it would have been terrible all by itself that there was a baby in the stroller. Crap, why didn't I think of that to begin with? What's wrong with me?
I guess that even though having cans be in the stroller was kind of bumist, I'm glad it wasn't babies.
Baby strollers . . . eh.