In this video I will be going into the story of the role of George McFly being recast and how it lead to a lawsuit that changed the film industry forever.
The irony of the story. The George McFly character teaches us to stand up for ourselves to achieve our goals and when he does it in real life he gets screwed over.
@@LEWIS1992 his demand was to be paid Equal to his son character, not more money without context. Are you a Trumper? It's this type of accusation that is so trumpest and invalid
@@robertdean925 Trump's still living "rent-free" in their heads! They all know the ONLY reason why he lost 2020 was because of the stupid COVID pandemic, and nothing else! They also realize it's not looking good for their pathetic party with how badly "Pedo Joe's" ratings are plummeting down the crater as we speak, and is a great chance that Trump will be back in charge in 2025 as well! 😁
@@henrimatisse7481 how many scenes is George McFly in compared to Marty McFly ? Don’t talk soft why should he get paid equal, not only that but Michael j fox was a bigger name and one of 2 main characters! George McFly was just the supporting character!
I never saw the ending of BTTF1 as saying that money buys happiness but that George McFly had taken control of his life in a way he never did in the original timeline and financial success was just a side effect of that
Same he was just being one of those Hollywood hypocrites that pretend to hate wealth and pretend money is evil. Ive heard actors say money is the root of all evil and meanwhile they have enough money to last 50 lifetimes.
In all honesty, they got away with having him in the movie without paying him. I say this, bc I didn't know they recasted his role until just now. I went decades thinking the actor was in the whole trilogy. No joke.
There was an interview Crispin Glover where he mentioned this is why he has never made any reunion appearances to this day. Because people believed he was in the second and third films. He did not want to be associated with the two sequels. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-j-gM7hbHZNs.html
I had no idea either I just wondered why they didn’t use his incredible talent better…he was too good for that franchise and added enormous cache to the first film.
Not that I know all the details, but Glover was phenomenal in the first movie and should have been paid very well for the sequel. Nobody could have pulled off that role in part 1 like he did.
Yes he was very good. But to say "Nobody could have pulled off that role" is just silly. Many actors would have given different performances, of course, but some of them would be just as good, or maybe even better.
@@thatguy9760 Absolute statements make no sense. Just because you liked his performance, and that is the only reference you have, doesn't mean someone else couldn't have done an equally good performance.
@@kingy002 Your statement makes No Goddamn Sense thinking someone could actually replace Cryspin Glover and do a better job the proof was in how they edited the 2nd F***ing movie with some made up stand in…
@@thatguy9760 That isn't prove at all. It was just explained in the F***ing clip that that was just the producers. Nothing to do with what the public would have thought on the issue at all. It was about marketing. Your statement makes No Goddamn Sense.
@@zlcoolboy I agree with him 100% about his image being used without his permission. But his interpretation of the movie’s ending totally missed the point. George stood up his bully, greatly improved his self-confidence as a result and reaped the benefit with a much better life. To boil that down to “money can’t buy happiness” just seems goofy. 🤷🏻♂️
@@wyattmann8157 It wasn’t his image, it was his characters. If it was actual face replacement like they do now, that’s one thing, but in this case, they aged him, and used a double to replace. They used to do this with out notice in years gone by when actors aged out of their roles. Glover was a dope for not just doing the dog and getting paid. Phone it on like Bruce Willis does on all of his projects now.
The whole “money buys happiness” is not even what I got out of the ending. I feel like George’s new confidence inspired by Marty getting him to stand up for himself and believing in his writing talent caused his success. And notice how Biff stayed with him in the beginning up til his 40s, constantly bringing him down. As for the money, never apologize to ANYONE for your confidence and success.
In which scene did Marty get George to stand up for himself. If you're talking about George hitting Biff, that was all George. Marty had nothing to do with it.
@@kenchristie9214 Right here he does: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uJtJp0nJ3lo.html You're right, that was all George, but Marty accidentally got him in that scenario. George and Lorraine fell in love in a different way then they originally did as a result.
Yeah I don’t think anyone got what Glover obsessed about. He stood up against the near-rapist bully and in doing so changed the course of his life and THAT is what brought them happiness. I think we all wish we could do that. The money side was just a nice side effect of having confidence and not letting yourself get trampled over. Very inspiring for a popcorn movie.
Why would anybody need to apologize to ANYONE for confidence and success? Or you talking about those people whose success came from dishonest behavior? Or whose confidence came from sociopathic personality? Because those are bad people and they may should apologize.
Crispin Glover's grudge over this issue isn't actually with Zemeckis, but producer Bob Gale. He appeared as a voice actor in Zemeckis' Beowulf film, demonstrating that they are on good terms today.
💯 he has stated that Bob Gale screamed at him for 5 minutes after he complained about the end of the first movie. He also said that Gale was behind the low ball offer for the sequel. the narrator mixed up his Bobs
In the mid-90s I interviewed Crispin Glover for a radio show. Before we spoke, his publicist sent us a document stating that we could ask him about anything we wanted, EXCEPT Back to the Future.
@@stickman-1 : A good point. It was a LOOONG time ago, but I feel like the lawsuit had ended and it had more to do with non-disclosure agreements because they settled out of court. But I could be wrong. I should say as well that Glover was a good interview and generous with his time, but had no idea what to say when I told him that "Little Noises" is maybe the best thing he's done. He just sort of laughed it off.
It's sad he felt that way. The message I got at the ending was that they received the material stuff because he followed through and nurtured his talents. They even delivered his new book to him near the end.
in way they fulfilled the “american dream” right? do the hard work, follow your passion and it will be “all yours” but i think in one way we can agree with “George”: the future changed too much and in a somewhat confusing way: if they are so rich that they can go on a morning tennis game, buy a new car for their youngest; how come they are still living that cheap area? as in it has to be cheap if poor George and Alcoholic Loraine can afford to live there. but also the shift in everything was a bit to much, while previously a fastfood employee now an office worker - this actually can convey that if YOUR PARENTS are rich, then you can do whatever and if they are poor, you are then fffed. not to mention that Marty has no recollection of this family at all. His parents, brother, sister are all different personalities now, and has no clue about them, except he is the onlyone who is still a “slacker” :) at least in his own head, his “previous version” which he replaced, might be a better student, but that person is gone now with our returned Marty. so the Ending on surface delivers the american dream, but the contrast it shows through the children’s future is more about privilege of the rich, rather than the hard working follow your dream kind of stuff. (and thus: it is pretty realistic) note: i love the series
I disagree with Glover here too. If in fact it was all about the $$$, wouldn't George have bought a mansion instead? They lived in the same house the poorer version of the family lived in.
@@patrickdezenzio4988 well, they couldnt do that: Marty did not have any knowledge about that mansion, so if they moved, Marty could have ended in someone elses house (like in EP2) so the script did not allow them to move to a different location :)
Im in my 40s and just found this out now! I do remember as a kid thinking some scenes of Glover looked odd but put it down to the make up. Glover had a point though. Underhanded trying to use his face in the movie like that. Real sneaky. Thank you for sharing 😎
I saw this for the first time in Melbourne, Australia in 1986 and many times since, and I have never thought that the end was about money. To me it was about how a boy lacking confidence and being bullied had such a different life when he started to stand up for himself and get confidence. They had to make it so much different to how it was at the start.
The message was that you can be a coward and get pushed around or you can stand up for yourself and the ones you love. The money part was that George was no longer a coward and was able to have the confidence developed from standing up to Biff to believe in himself; i.e. the courage to publish his stories.
Didn't know. I loved his performance in the first and wondered why he sucked in the next lol. I'm surprised the big 3 actors didn't stand up for him and stood by seeing a fellow actor not getting paid but being used in the movie (sequel) they were in. Happy he won the law suit.
Word of mouth was he was difficult to work with first movie. I agreed they shouldn’t have done what they did, but he bc was no sww as not in the issue either.
@@5280caden THEY NAMED THEIR CHILD AFTER HIM... So they apparently remember him very, very well. And he mysteriously is trying to force them together. that's memorable. I'm pretty sure they would remember what he looks like.
The irony of Glover not liking the ending because it portrays money as the key to happiness then him not taking the part in the next film because he says they didn’t pay him enough.
Crispin stated on a Sirius XM podcast that that was untrue. He just wanted to be paid at least as much as some of the other supporting actors in the movie but not as much as Michael J Fox
I believe Glover said on the Collider podcast that he and Zemeckis were friends again after working on Beowulf. Its Gale that he still very angry with.
It's interesting to me that Glover's take on the change in his entire family's life was about "becoming rich." I interpret the films intent is to show us that our decisions have a great impact on our success & wellbeing derived from success. George's new courageous decision (for him) to write the Sci-Fi novel leads to personal accomplishment, a better marriage & a bunch of later successes in his son & daughter's lives. Money is a byproduct of his achievements. In my opinion, He should have understood this positive message & carried on with the series.
OMG I honestly never realised that the part of George McFly was played by two different people in part 1 and part 2 !!! And also Marty McFly's girlfriend was also played by two different actresses - You learn something new every day !!
This trilogy was the best thing in my childhood, I watched all films more than 100 times. It felt a little bit odd with the party two, but I never noticed it was because of the different actors, I was too young and they used prosthetics in the first movie as well.
Way to miss the point. I didn’t interpret the original movie the same way at all. Marty built George’s confidence and character throughout the film, encouraged him to believe in himself. Anything is possible if you put your mind to it. George’s timeline improved because he made personal improvements in his past, and money/success was merely a result of that, but not what gave happiness.
Very well put. The he didn't like the message about money makes it odd he would then sue for money. Because that could send the message money does mean happiness. Must be different when he was the one receiving the money, ah hollywood.
@@cardinaloflannagancr8929 Just because he may not have agreed with the ending message, doesn't mean he wasn't due money. It's not contradictory at all.
Just a correction, in a recent interview, Mr. Glover clarified he did not have a bad relationship with Robert Zemeckis on the contrary, they are in quite good terms. He only has a very poor relationship to this day with producer Bob Gale who has perpetuated rumors of Mr. Glover just being a "weirdo". Glover has worked with Zemeckis in other projects after Back to the Future.
Glover definitely has his eccentricities but so do a lot of people in Hollywood. Maybe Glover reminded him of somebody that he didn't like in high school or something.
The message at the end of the first film wasn’t that “money buys happiness.” It was that having the courage to believe in and stand up for yourself and actively try and make your dreams true can lead to a better life. I’ve seen interviews with Crispin Glover on this topic. The producer he really hates it Bob Gale,who he calls an unrepentant criminal. Saying to this day people still think he appeared in all the films. I can agree with Glover about his likeness being used without his permission in an attempt to fool the audience into thinking he was involved in the other films when he wasn’t. And that as an actor he had legitimate concerns about the possibility of that other actors performance being attributed to him wrongfully and seen as a measure of his own abilities and skills. Ultimately though I think Glover misinterpreted the first films ending and egos got the best of both Glover and the producers of Back to the Future. I think offering him LESS than what Thomas F Wilson was making to play Biff was an insult and shameful on the part of the producers. George McFly was every bit as important to the story as Biff was. My personal favorite character would be Doc Brown though.
Lies. He did NOT ask for the same money as Michael J. Fox, and he did NOT have a problem with the ending of the movie. People lied to make him look bad.
Yeah, that message was there, but they showed that happier life as just having loads of money and having Biff as a slave to bully around... So there WAS a "money buys happiness" message too, quite blatantly. There was also a questionable message of them becoming the bullies instead of Biff, also making them happy, suggesting that wealth, power and domination of others is what makes a happy life. I'm afraid the messages at the end of BTTF are very questionable indeed.
If you were in his shoes you would absolutely have felt wronged on a deep level. I don't think you can fathom what that feels like until it happens to you.
@@saulgoodman7858 I agree completely. It was wrong of them. He stated he made peace with Zemeckis,but Bob Gale continues to spread lies and defend their actions. I truly wish he would have returned for the second and third sequels. In one interview Glover stated they originally had a completely different story for the sequel that would have taken place in the 60’s.
"Likeness" is "likeness" is "likeness". It is akin to including a sound recording in a movie - You Must Have Permission AND royalties must be paid. If an actor refuses a casting offer, the producers CANNOT employ CGI just to get the actor's "likeness". The current state-of-the-art provides technology to 'manufacture' a character. Consider. . . animation. Don't think for a minute that animators start from scratch creating a character. Surely, they 'borrow' certain features of actual people - features that can be tweeked into a character that is attractive, endearing, and 'eye-candy'. All the while hoping not be discovered. Why do you think these studios and production companies hire so many lawyers to cover their collective asses. Granted an actor that ransoms for more money by refusing to sign on is going to be frowned upon - but that's his or her choice. The studio CANNOT duplicate their 'likeness' to move the production forward. That said. . . actors that disagree with premise, plot, storyline et.al - have a right to voice their opinion. But, in the last analysis, it's a damn job - not a soapbox to broadcast your convictions; and if you don't agree with where the producers and directors are taking the story. . . produce your own movie. As an employee - shut up and do your job and leave your ego in your trailer.
Actually, Crispin Glover has a pretty good relationship with Robert Zemeckis; he doesn't have a good relationship with Bob Gale. Crispin was upset with Bob Gale over the recasting and his supposed lies about it. Crispin specified that in a 2019 podcast and stated that it was in his book.
Bingo - every time I heard Zemeckis this or Zemeckis that... I cringed. It should have been Bob Gale, this and Bob Gale that... he's the one that decided to talk smack about Glover. I used to think Crispin was a problem - but there is something super creepy and vindictive about what the production team did to basically flip off a guy that just wanted to be paid and who called it right that the ending of the first flick did send a bad message.
The ending wasnt about money buying happiness as the actor claimed, it was about George having the strenght of character to defend the ones he loves and himself, to construct a life in wich he reached his dream of been a sci-fi writter thru wich he can provide a stable enviroment and education for his children. Remember, before this change George was a labor slave to biff because he never stood up on his ground, this generated a detriment to his family that ended up with everyone (except Marty) having their lives way bellow the average mark. Long story short the ending was about fighting for your place in life and realizing your dreams, and that was brutally clear in the entire scene. Happyness was measured by the strenght in George and his will to protect his loved ones, not about the cash he did writting science fiction.
Exactly! - plus in that podcast he talks about how he never asking for the same money as the lead actor, Michael J. Fox got, but as I recall, he wanted to be paid the same as the other supporting actors playing Biff and Lorraine, but Bob Gale refused.
@@PointReflex uhhhh - okay - but Biff did sexually assault Lorraine - so it's creepy. The last guy I would want around my family is a dude like that... regardless of the time period. It isn't just about the money buying happiness element.
Cool video man. George McFly was a tough part to recast, I wish they had all just worked out a deal or something. This story has always been a bit of a stain on the otherwise awesome BTTF franchise.
@@ron.hertzberg Yeah, I can respect the hustle but he should have known he wasn't getting Michael J. Fox money. A bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I just thought it was the prosthetics making him look weird when he was upside down. Didn't even know he was recast so it's a good thing this happened when it did. I always used to refer to Crispin Glover as "Willard" so it makes sense I wouldn't recognize this actor I didn't really know at the time and if it weren't for the RU-vid algorithm presenting me with this video, I might've gone my whole life thinking Crispin Glover was in BTTF2.
Sad part is Jeffrey Weissman is best known for playing as George McFly stand in despite having sone film roles later. So his best known role is a recast with sneaky prosthetics in Part 2 and 3 of a film trilogy that started in the mid 80s and ended in the early 90's
Ditto to never knowing about this situation with Glover. His performance as George McFly is phenomenal, it’s sad that this was going on behind the scenes. I hope he still has some positives to reflect on when he remembers this iconic series.
He was also cool in Charlie’s Angels….in fact he made it cooler by playing a cool villain we got to love……he is a supreme actor 🔥💯🔥 and underrated His portrayal of George Mcfly made the movie……I don’t think anyone else on this planet at that time could’ve pulled it off better than him so why not pay his dues…….anyone could play BIFF….his fee has and was warranted…….should’ve paid the dude and got on with it…….I actually believe if he had stayed the movie sequels would’ve been more thought out and better by 💯%…… kinda fizzled out towards the end of the trilogy
I think glover did a great job in other movies after back to the future. He plays amazing character rolls and has a really unique style and look he brings to his characters.
Clover had issues with Bob Gale not Zemeckis. It does stem from the ending which he argued with Zemeckis and Gale about the message that the film gives that money buys you happiness. Clover claims that Gale lies about the reasons why he didn't return for the sequels, such as wage demands. Apparently he claims he was offered half what the other actors were being offered.
If that bit about being set in the 60s was true, i think we were better with the plots to write around him. Otherwise it sounds like 2 would have just been 1 all over again, but in the 60s this time
Shame he didn't like the ending. I never thought they were happy because they had money! Great trilogy of films and I never knew it wasn't him all the way through! They done a great job on the films.
I didn’t really see the ending as, “because they have money means their life is better” I saw it more as, since the circumstances of George and Loraine’s relationship changed, their life was better and the money was just a perk.
Really interesting to consider the CGI aspect of bringing someone back to life as it were like the Paul Walker example. Does his estate get a say in his likeness being used or compensated? I should hope so. It is odd to think they’re animating a dead person. I remember them doing this with Steve McQueen for a commercial. It was either for the Mustang or a watch. Can’t remember exactly.
Paul Walker's own brother took part as a stand-in for Paul in several scenes, as he looks rather like Paul. For closer shots, Paul's face was superimposed through CGI. So yes, Paul's family cooperated with the producers. But Paul had already completed most of his work when he died, and he would have been paid already. I'm not sure what other payment was provided to Paul's brother for his work As for other cases where a dead star was featured in a commercial or something else, using CGI or Photoshop etc., yes, that could only be done with the permission of the estate of that star, and for a fee. Audrey Hepburn's animated image was used in a Dove chocolate commercial, and her face and name have appeared in other commercial uses. Her sons control her estate and only give approval to selected parties.
They usually do need permission from the family or estate, yes. But this video makes me wonder if that would be the case without the Crispin Glover lawsuit.
Glover read an early draft of the script where George was still hanging upside. He thought that was put there to "punish him" and it was yet another reason why he was annoyed. So that didn't exist merely to disguise the other actor.
Yeah, I've heard it was written to make sure Glover didn't pace around, ruining some very difficult to create compositing shots. He apparent got very mobile when he was in character while filming the original, having a bad habit of wandering out of frame.
My understanding is that bringing people "back to life" with CGI, or things of that nature typically requires an agreement with the deceased person's estate, which typically means their family. In some cases, studios will actually have clauses in the contract that allow them to use the actor's likeness in future projects related to the original content, of which I'm sure the finer points are often negotiated.
The message of the first movie's ending wasn't "Money buys you happiness". It was that you have to stand up for and believe in yourself in order to succeed in your goals. Remember the emphasis on George's book being published, and the phrase "When you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything.".
I always thought Crispin almost kicking David Letterman in the face was what scuttled his career. Is it really that easy to recast a role when there are idiots on the Internet crying about how confusing they find it when an actor plays a different character on the same series?
They probably ended up paying just as much in added time, trouble and even expenses, with all the shenanigans they went through instead of just negotiating a salary that Glover would accept. You take into account, their getting sued over it, and it's a no brainer, it did cost them more in the end to replace Glover. Glover was right, without him, the movie wouldn't have been so good. His performance was pretty unique, and was a great complement to the other performances. He was necessary. They just should have paid him. Thanks for the content. Keep up the good work. בס'ד
From what I understood from interviews was that he was a free spirited guy and he wanted the George McFly character to end up being more of a hippie instead of someone who was clean cut as the writers wanted him to be. Supposedly he fought so hard on the issue it became contentious, and everyone got ticked off and they ended up leaving him out of the sequel.
Actually, Glover blames BTTF producer and co-writer Bob Gale. Zemeckis and Glover worked again on "Beowulf" and Glover said the subject of the lawsuit "never came up."
I was sorry to hear this news. I never for one moment thought that Glover had been recast. I knew Elisabeth Shue had replaced Claudia Wells. I understand Glover’s point of view, but it was not what I took away from it. I’m happy that he was able to bring about a change in what studios can and cannot do with an actor’s likeness. In the 50’s, George McFly is an intelligent, science fiction nerd and occasional peeping tom who is an easy target for bullies. He lacks proper self-confidence and his social etiquette is forced to the point of rejection by girls. This is the 50’s remember, it’s all about the jocks and the bad boys. Intelligent guys end up as teachers or professors and eventually find someone to marry - sometimes - never. Anyway, the biggest bully here is Biff Tannen. He is unrelentless and his only weapon is intimidation of others by his sheer physical size. Something he uses as a bully to boys and as a molester of girls. He got handsy with Lorraine even though she kept saying no. A more universal view of respect for everyone, and consent in the matter of physical intimacy was not as well-known as it is today. Ironically, it is an even deeper fear of the yellow-suited spaceman driving loud throbbing noises into his head that starts a change in George McFly and transforms him into a very different person. Even though he is about to turn away when he find Biff in the car, and not Marty as he had expected, George hesitates briefly before the final transformation. George standing up to Biff, even when his voice wavers at Biff’s taunts, is THE pivotal moment of the movie. He sees Lorraine pleading for help and he finds the courage within himself and strikes Biff. This leads to Biff developing a servile respect for the skinny kid who finally stood up to Biff’s bully bluster. The movies never elaborate on the other victims of Biff’s bullying or the other girls and, later the women, who might have been affected by Biff’s disregard for consent, or indeed the other nerds who he would have intimidated so that he could rise to a managerial position with all the perks while doing little work. That pivotal moment also changes Lorraine’s perspective of George. In the mere moments before what was likely to be her darkest hour. She begged for help and the only person who was there to help her was George. Even though she had ignored him and had been infatuated by Calvin… surely the thought must have crossed her mind, “George has no chance here. Biff will grind George into the ground or worse.” George made a sacrifice against virtually unwinnable odds. He was either going to end up as roadkill or he might get some grudging respect for standing up to Biff. In the end, George didn’t become a different person, he evolved into the person he should have been. If you are still reading this, kudos to you. Money cannot buy you happiness. It can buy you many things that give the illusion of happiness. If George had gone down a different route and not into writing, something less profitable, Lorraine would still be with him because he was there when she needed someone to be. He saved her honour and he saved her life. And why I am so passionate about all this? I’m George Prime. No Lorraine. No peeping either, honest. But I didn’t stand up to my bullies. I stood up to the ones outside the family, but not the ones inside the family. I envy the role that Crispin Glover got to play. He needs to see it for what it really is. They should rename the movies. BTTF: The Rise of George McFly BTTF II: The Rise of Biff Tannen BTTF III: The Rise of Emmett Brown Marty McFly is really just an enabler across the three movies.
Lies. He did NOT ask for the same money as Michael J. Fox, and he did NOT have a problem with the ending of the movie. People lied to make him look bad.
_"He is unrelentless and his only weapon is intimidation"_ *Relentless* (or unrelenting), not unrelentless. If you put UN at the front and then put LESS at the end, it basically means a double negative, which ends up meaning "relenting", which isn't what you meant, presumably.
He was also impossible to work with and would be acting crazy on set. The director said he would pace back and fourth when told to stay still during a scene and would act like a crazy person. Also wanted 2 million for the next back to the future. If your going to act like that then what did he expect
Glover did not 'win' the case as such, as the matter was 'settled out of court' for $760,000 - the studio knew it was losing and didn't want bad media to compound their loses!!! .... However it resulted in a landmark case that a few actors have used as reference to stop their identity theft - like Michael Biehn in Alien 3, where the production studio used his likeness on a corpse without his permission...
i was merely sad he just simply was not in part 2. 2 is entertaining, but Crispin, man, he could have made it just as good as 1. He was sorely missing.
@@mondomacabromajor5731 Getting paid for being a corpse, with zero lines and no need to appear on set. I call that a good win, especially if busy with another project.
@@gorillaau Well, it is a win for sure - just a pity the film killed off the best characters and scripted a daft plot of Ripley with no guns on a prison planet full of british guys!
Glover walks to the beat of his own drum and - rightly or wrongly or whether you agree with him or not - this is mainly why his career has been what it is and, by the sounds of it, with no regrets from his side of things.
I heard on an interview with Glover that he disagreed with the ending of one as you said but in relation to pay he was being offered less than half of Lorraine and Biff when they had the same screentime. I saw some scripts for the 70s were made assuming Crispin would agree but he didn't. Hence the alternate reality when he was dead. I also thought part of the upside down scene was to cover up the different actor but apparently not as Jeffrey Weissman commented on here and responded to my post to my delight recently. I respect Crispin re the pay thing if his story is true. I found his views around the end of one a bit odd. I love back to the future 2 as it is and the alternate reality. It intrigues me what it may have been like with Crispin in it but much respect to Jeffrey Weissman for carrying out his different role and he deserves respect for that. No issues with his performance in my view. I think Crispin had every right though to sue for what occurred though. Jennifer was replaced for Elizabeth Shue so why not just do the same ? Or maybe they were happy paying the legal fees while pushing him out. Again respect to Jeffrey Weissman for his job well done. No criticism at all to him.
I have found online before copies of the early scripts for BTTF part 2 and these early scripts appeared to not include George McFly. In the early script George McFly passed away in 2013 and in 2015 Lorraine dedicates a new wing at the Hil Valley Hospital to George McFly, she makes the mention about how there were plans to not build the hospital in the 1970s and how George McFly survived a car accident thanks to that hospital being nearby hence the decision to dedicate a wing to George McFly. In the early script future Marty and Jennifer get a divorce as a result of Marty's financial incompetance, this pushes Marty to purchase the Sports Almanac. In the alternate 1985 in the early script Biff's casino is in the location of the Hill Valley hospital and George did not survive the car accident because there was no hospital in 1973. In the early script Marty and Doc travel back to the 1960s and have no issues getting the book off Biff, Marty then burns the book in a public place resulting in him getting arrested and 1960s Lorraine bails Marty out using the money she planning on spending for a trip to see George who was working in Washington. Lorraine not being able to afford to go to Washington means Marty wouldn't be conceived that weekend. Marty has the mission to get Loraine to accept the money from another source so that she will go to Washington. Also the time machine Fusion reactor is destroyed after it was shot by old man Peabody, this means Marty and Doc have to fly the Delorean across high voltage lines over the Grand Canyon to get the power needed to return to 1985. The early script does not allow for a third movie but appears to not include Geroge McFly as a visible charcater.
And of course, we all are so massively concerned how Crispen Glover (George McFly) feels about this incredibly iconic film. Marty McFly and Doc, and the Delorean, are the film. Period.
Crispin wasnt happy with the ending of part 1, implying money cant buy happiness?.... Ironic that the guy demands as much money as Fox to consider the sequel.
Crispin Glover is a one of a kind type of Actor and he most certainly should be paid a significant amount seeing as emulation of his likeness contributed so very much to the continuity of this successful series of films (That has made ridiculous income over the decades)
Got all the way to 2024, 23 years of age watching these movies all my life and never realised it wasn’t him until now, I am in shock can’t wait to tell everyone I know wtf (I know I’m late but let it slide)
Concerning 6:18, Crispin Glover did not win his case on the merits (though he might have done if the case had continued), but instead it was settled out of court. The change to SAG/AFTRA's rules may very well have been motivated by Glover's experience, but it wouldn't be the direct result of Glover's lawsuit against Universal even if Glover had received final judgment in his favor. The union wasn't a party to the lawsuit and is free to set its own rules independently of whatever the court might have decided in Glover's case.
Did Glover really think (at the time) that he was going to get the same money as Michael J Fox? MJF was an established, well known tv star and he was the star of this film. It's easy to hide behind claims that you didn't like what the ending may have projected, yet he had no problem playing a role with violence in Charlie's Angels.?.? There's usually 3 sides to every story and we may never know the whole truth. The claims that the end in the first movie represented becoming rich, that seems like nonsense. The end was more about a bully getting what he deserved and a good guy coming out on top. It sounds like the being rich claim was something to use as a smokescreen. Let's be honest, the family was much better off than they previously were but they weren't in a mansion with servants either. Sounds like BS from Glover.
Mostly angry that he wasn't in the movie and replaced by a double ganger to play an act he knew he could pull off. Actors lives on being seen on the screen.
Lies. He did NOT ask for the same money as Michael J. Fox, and he did NOT have a problem with the ending of the movie. People lied to make him look bad.
When this came out I was a kid, and I never thought it was money that created the 'rewards'. I always thought it was because there was character growth, even at that age, even though I would have struggled to explain it. So Glover missed out.
I've seen Glover and others from the movie including a producer and Leah Thompson in interviews, and they all say the original ending to BTTF 1 was changed and the wealth of the McFly family toned/played down compared to how rich the family was written as having become originally. This was the producers/directors’ attempt to address Glover’s concerns. Also, Glover agreed to return for BTTF 2; he just asked that he be paid as much as Leah Thompson. She was paid significantly more than him in the first movie, despite the fact the two had pretty much equal amounts of screen time.
5:18 I didn't know they re-cast him, but always though these scenes actually worked better being kind of obscured in the background and assumed it was an artistic choice.
Same here. It was not about money with George Mcfly. It was about taking control of his life and being happier because of that. The money was an effect of an assertive and confident person that didn’t exist before Marty intervened.
One of the sticking points of the most recent actors' guild strike was about the use of likeness. Imagine having graduated from a prestigious acting school with student debt then spending years living gig to gig while working other jobs to pay the rent only to land one high-profile acting role after which the studio just copyrights your likeness and never pays you any royalties on that anymore. Coming up soon: studios will just AI generate all faces and voices. Who needs humans to act as... humans... Notice how many movies are now trying to drug audiences into accepting overuse of CGI action hoping that in the long run CGI becomes cheaper than actors.
McFly completely missed the point of the first movie - stand up for yourself, be true to your calling, life works out. But to want the same pay as Fox? Dude is crazy. I never knew he was recast. I had not even heard about the lawsuit, until a couple years ago. He made a stupid choice, and his career shows it. 😎
I watched this because of a Tarkin short I saw earlier that briefly mentioned the George situation at the end. Now this video shows Tarkin at the end. The circle is now complete
I guess today when you sign a contract you also agree your likeness being used for sequels, just in case. I remember Carrie Fisher saying something about that, revealing that her likeness could be used in future movies. It makes sense if you get paid for it, and surely asking for as much money as MJ Fox was out of the question. Also, "money don't buy happiness", so I guess you can act for free for the sequels, right?
They also usually get the actors "estate" (immediate family) to sign their approval of using the deceased actor's likeness as well, and they also sweeten the deal by throwing some extra cash their way.
You kinda need money to fulfill ur basic needs. I think the "money doesnt buy happiness" thing is sorta true but also not. Having money certainly helps
When I first saw BTTF1, I never really noticed that the McFly's were in a modest way, so when at the end Marty was shocked to see the living room, I was like "what's so strange about the living room?" I didn't make a connection of a status upgrade until they were shown wearing nice clothes. They would more likely be in a bigger house in another town. Anyway, the movie tried to push the message, "Believe in yourself, and you can achieve anything". But the "rewards" were definitely seen as material (to which Marty gets to receives simply because) and about "just deserts" (to Biff). Eh, it's a comedic romp.
Yeah, they still live in the same house, in the same neighbourhood. I always saw it as George’s accomplishments in the revised timeline bringing better structure to the lives of the McFlys, not that good homemaking is equated with increased wealth lol
I looked at the ending of the first movie differently than Glover. I saw it as how confidence can be a big factor in a persons success in life. I had major self esteem issues in those days. So that probably influenced my perception a bit. Anyway I had no idea he wasn't actually in the sequels. He was really good in the first one so I can't help but wonder what would have been different if he was in the others as well. Shame it ruined his career.
He actually reconciled with Zemekis years ago (which is why he appeared in Beowulf for him). It is Bob Gale (producer/co-writer) that Glover still has a problem with.
I love the first one and the ending that he was talking about money buying happiness I always consider like Marty help him take control, I mean after he whacked Biff he was offered so many different things that his alter self never got a chance to, he got brave to show off his book, so possible with that new confidence he told his kids to be the same way. Why another reason Marty other siblings look so different. Hell when biff said “yeah I just finishing up the second coat!” And he says “now biff...” you think the old one would’ve done that? The thing I got from BTTF is that sometimes you gotta take those risk Doc took the risk to read the letter that saved his life, And George took the risk to show off his book that made him wleathy
Also I never got the message that money brings happiness even though it actually kind of does. I got the message that they had a completely messed up life, we're in financial shambles, and when he fixed everything they were successful, happy, and not dysfunctional. That's the message I got.
You know what's kind of sad about this whole thing? It all boils down to HIS opinion of the end of the movie. How HE took it personally. I watched that movie when I was a kid (I was like 6 when it came out) at an influential age. I absolutely loved it and watched it SO much growing up. I NEVER took the ending or movie as the "money buys happiness". Being much like George myself, being into "dork" stuff and being bullied a lot as well. I actually took a completely DIFFERENT message from it. That standing up for yourself or not being afraid to try new things or express yourself regardless of fears of failure can get you where you want to go. A completely wholesome message. I WAS sad to see what his character became in the 2nd movie. Funny that he thought the movie delivered a negative message but in reality it was pretty amazing.
"he didn't like the idea that money buys happiness" what?!?! That's what he took from that? He was happy in 1955 which came from confidence and it was also clear that he was poor in 1985 because of the lack of confidence to stand up to Biff.
What a shame. I saw the ending of the first film to mean that if you stand up for yourself and live with confidence in yourself you’ll be more successful and happy. Not that money buys happiness. It’s a real shame he wasn’t in the sequel, it was kind of lame without him.
The girl who replaced Marty's girl was actress Elisabeth Shue, same girl in Karate Kid whom Daniel Larusso and Johnny Lawrence were fighting over. Also she won best actress in Oscar for the film Leaving las Vegas with Nicholas Cage.
