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 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.
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. th-cam.com/video/j-gM7hbHZNs/w-d-xo.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.
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: th-cam.com/video/uJtJp0nJ3lo/w-d-xo.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.
@@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.
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.
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 :)
I never thought that BTTF1 ending sent a message of money buys happiness. I saw George as more confident and sure of himself. That confidence led to good marriage, good parenting, achieving his dreams and setting boundaries with Biff.
Exactly. Before Marty went back in time, he was afraid to pursue his dreams, his marriage was kind of rocky, and his kids also had a lot of problems with their lives. He wrote science fiction stories, but never showed anyone because he was afraid of rejection. His high school bully eventually became his boss at his job, because he never stood up to him. He lacked confidence to do these things. When Marty went back in time, he showed faith in his father and put him in a situation where he was finally able to stand up to his bully, and that gave him the confidence to pursue his dreams, it solidified his relationship with his soon to be wife, and it made his kids grow up more confident as well and pursue what they wanted to do. The ending wasn't about "Money buys happiness". It was to pursue your dreams and stand up for yourself.
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 😎
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.
It's so weird. Glover thought the ending was about money? Both Marty and his dad change. They mature, grow up. Marty and his dad had the same insecurity and self doubt at the beginning of the movie and both learned and grew. My family knows my story, but I went thru something very similar. There was a day in my life when I decided to just stop being "invisible" and hoping people never saw me to taking a risk and participate in the great adventure of life. That is precisely how I saw Back to the Future.
I know for real! The confidence they built is what made them happy and successful! Not money. Sounds like Glover was the one who was focused on money lol
I think his problem was that apparently both came at the same time. The McFly family turned from a miserable and poor family to a happy and rich one. And while the movie doesn't state that happiness comes from money, its portrayal of their family can be interpreted in a way that the two seems synonymous. Especially because the ending definitely put far more emphasis on the "rich" part. Personally I don't have a problem with it, but I do believe that making them rich is a bit unnecessary. They could've been a happy, middle class family in the end, without putting too much emphasis on being successful. I guess that would've satisfied Glover as well.
They didn’t move into some gigantic mansion. They’re in the same house it’s just cleaner and has some nicer furniture. If the parents are significantly more successful they’ve clearly been pretty frugal with their money and not gone overboard living a life of luxury. Really silly gripe to take, if they were living in some enormous mansion driving Ferraris then I’d totally get his point.
@@Navajonkee I disagree. They lived in the same house in the same neighborhood. They epitomized the middle class. They were far from "rich." In fact look at Biff. Biff went from being a "rich, crass, bully" to a service person with no skills, no talent, no education and so a manual labor job. I just think Glover can't see his own bias. Glover has a twisted vision of what determines happiness. It is him who equates money with happiness. You (and he) should read The Millionaire Mind and the Millionaire Next Door. 99.9% of American "millionaires" draw no attention. They live middle class lives and do the same things we all do. They just live modestly and no one would ever think them "rich." The only indicators the the McFlys were "rich" is the BMW in the driveway and Marty's new truck at the end. But like I said they live in the same house, same neighborhood. So I would say they are middle class "doing well." But their happiness comes from the attitude and character, not their money. I just think Glover has the problem, not the movie.
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.
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.
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 !!
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 TH-cam 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Very intereseting video and nothing I ever knew about! I've watched these movies tons of times and never noticed there was different actors for the father, you earned a sub!
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.
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.
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.
Very educational video dude, I really enjoyed it. Just to point out though, Glover dosen't hold a grudge against Zemeckis he holds it against Bob Gale, the co-writer who said that thing about George getting the same pay as Marty. This is stated in an interview with Crispin Glover and Crispin says he thinks Robert is a nice guy but he dosen't really like Bob. :) great video
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?
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
Wow, that was interesting! Never knew that at all. I do recall the George McFly character looking a tad weird or always at a distance and dodgy camera angles in the sequels. I’m glad he stood his ground on the script and how the studios used his image without permission. It’s nice to see an actor with morals and balls! 😁 Great channel, I’ve subbed and look forward to more fascinating movie nuggets 😉.
Wow, never knew this. I was a movie usher during the release of BTF2, which means I saw it maybe 1000 times. Part of the job is sitting in the theatre and observing customers, making sure they aren't smoking or something worse. And you get free popcorn, you can steal soda, but you have to put your own quarters in the Ivan "Ironman" Stewart's Super Off Road video game machine. The job paid $3:35 before tax.
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.
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
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!
Thanks so much for this video. I just subscribed! Funny enough, I saw BTTF as a double feature with Red Sonja (LOL) in 1985 as a 17 year old and I was not a rich person at all. In fact, we were pretty poor. But I never got, for one moment, anything about class or affluence as a result of that ending/choice. WTF I didn't think about that at all. I just thought that by choosing another option, the future changed. It was a better future because he stood up for himself so he was happier - nothing about money. Sure they had more probably than before but I didn't even think about it. I just thought about their family. Whatever dude.
He also tried to kick David Letterman in the face in the middle of an interview. You can't blame it all on the lawsuit, he was having some problems back then.
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."
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 agree with Glover (the ending is dated) as the money message is the main one: it’s the idea of selling what is essentially the American dream but only for a few. At the time, we swallowed this pretty easily. Glad that Glover’s work was eventually recognised. Haven’t come across your channel before -❤ from Brisbane.
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.".
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)
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
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.
So Glover didn’t like the idea that money can’t buy happiness and then wouldn’t sign on for the sequels because he didn’t get enough money? Sounds like a hypocrite.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I never thought the ending was about money guys happiness. I thought it was about how things can change when you stand up for yourself. I am shaking my head in shock disbelief at this video.
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.
Holy shiiit... I had no idea he was replaced, although I did find it odd rewatching it later on. I noticed he didn’t sound the same. Didn’t know he had a issue with the ending too.
![LISA - ROCKSTAR (Official Music Video) REACTION [SHE'S BACK!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QBxE30vavMQ/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
And the irony of him complaining about the "money buys happiness" ending, while also demanding more money...
@@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
@@henrimatisse7481 Trump has nothing to do with this, smh you liberals can't go one day without talking about him lol 😂😂😂😂
@@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
Exactly.
Me too.
It’s just an excuse Glover used to save face when he didn’t get a raise
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.
The writers may have had fun with that premise: money didn't buy Biff happiness.
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.
That could have been because he was in litigation at the time.
@@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.
Kind of like interviewing a famous porn star and not being allowed to mention any subject regarding sex.
@@stickman-1 Or because he realized he was wrong...
@@enki9013 Fuck no, he wasn't at all "wrong."
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.
Never noticed this until now. It’s bizarre as bttf films are on constantly in the UK.
Thanks
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. th-cam.com/video/j-gM7hbHZNs/w-d-xo.html
Same here. I thought it was Crispin Glover all the way.
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.
Agreed, I'm glad he sued them over it. It's like selling fake art as the original.
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.
@@kingy002 No one could’ve played that role like Crispin Glover….PERIOD!!!
@@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.
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:
th-cam.com/video/uJtJp0nJ3lo/w-d-xo.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.
@@DisgruntledPigumon Tom Wilson doesn't get enough credit for playing Biff. Like all good villains, his character made the movie successful.
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.
Two things:
- I didn't know Glover wasn't in the sequels until now.
- How do you _not_ love the ending of Back to the Future?
His reasoning is valid honestly, but it's a weird hill to die on.
@@zlcoolboy couldnt have said it better myself
@@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 yeah I agree, it’s crazy.
@@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.
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.
Exactly, I didn't think it was about money at all. When you grow up having confidence, it will inevitably contribute to having money
I didn't know it mattered where you watched it at in 1986.
I saw it for the first time in New York, USA in 1986
I saw it in WA in 1985….didn’t realise Victoria was behind😂
Crazy how you all saw it before it was released considering back to the future 2 the film they are talking about didn't come out till 1989 !
It was released in the Cinemas in 1985, it was released on VHS in late 1986 @@westaussie965
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.
Yeh. So he'd really rather see his eldest son work in fast food?
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
Not money but success. Being bullied and insecure and overcame that. I like the ending. Great movie
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 :)
I never thought that BTTF1 ending sent a message of money buys happiness. I saw George as more confident and sure of himself. That confidence led to good marriage, good parenting, achieving his dreams and setting boundaries with Biff.
Exactly. Before Marty went back in time, he was afraid to pursue his dreams, his marriage was kind of rocky, and his kids also had a lot of problems with their lives. He wrote science fiction stories, but never showed anyone because he was afraid of rejection. His high school bully eventually became his boss at his job, because he never stood up to him. He lacked confidence to do these things. When Marty went back in time, he showed faith in his father and put him in a situation where he was finally able to stand up to his bully, and that gave him the confidence to pursue his dreams, it solidified his relationship with his soon to be wife, and it made his kids grow up more confident as well and pursue what they wanted to do. The ending wasn't about "Money buys happiness". It was to pursue your dreams and stand up for yourself.
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 😎
Bot
Same. I didn't know either.
literally copied from a 4 day old comment, fucking bots
Same
Same here!😆
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.
"Hey, George! Y'ever think of running for class President?"
It's so weird. Glover thought the ending was about money? Both Marty and his dad change. They mature, grow up. Marty and his dad had the same insecurity and self doubt at the beginning of the movie and both learned and grew. My family knows my story, but I went thru something very similar. There was a day in my life when I decided to just stop being "invisible" and hoping people never saw me to taking a risk and participate in the great adventure of life. That is precisely how I saw Back to the Future.
I know for real! The confidence they built is what made them happy and successful! Not money. Sounds like Glover was the one who was focused on money lol
I think his problem was that apparently both came at the same time. The McFly family turned from a miserable and poor family to a happy and rich one. And while the movie doesn't state that happiness comes from money, its portrayal of their family can be interpreted in a way that the two seems synonymous. Especially because the ending definitely put far more emphasis on the "rich" part. Personally I don't have a problem with it, but I do believe that making them rich is a bit unnecessary. They could've been a happy, middle class family in the end, without putting too much emphasis on being successful. I guess that would've satisfied Glover as well.
They didn’t move into some gigantic mansion. They’re in the same house it’s just cleaner and has some nicer furniture. If the parents are significantly more successful they’ve clearly been pretty frugal with their money and not gone overboard living a life of luxury.
Really silly gripe to take, if they were living in some enormous mansion driving Ferraris then I’d totally get his point.
@@Navajonkee I disagree. They lived in the same house in the same neighborhood. They epitomized the middle class. They were far from "rich." In fact look at Biff. Biff went from being a "rich, crass, bully" to a service person with no skills, no talent, no education and so a manual labor job. I just think Glover can't see his own bias. Glover has a twisted vision of what determines happiness. It is him who equates money with happiness. You (and he) should read The Millionaire Mind and the Millionaire Next Door. 99.9% of American "millionaires" draw no attention. They live middle class lives and do the same things we all do. They just live modestly and no one would ever think them "rich." The only indicators the the McFlys were "rich" is the BMW in the driveway and Marty's new truck at the end. But like I said they live in the same house, same neighborhood. So I would say they are middle class "doing well." But their happiness comes from the attitude and character, not their money. I just think Glover has the problem, not the movie.
@@VAFranky Exactly!
Pretty amazing... I've seen both movies more times than I could count and never knew they re-cast Crispin Glover. Glad he stood up for himself!
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.
@@davidpowell3469 he’s a Canadian eh,
yes, MJF is such a hero. don't you know
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.
He is one of the three big actors, he is way more prominent than Lea in Part 1 unless you mean Michael, Chris and Thomas.
They said he was difficult to work with. That's why.
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.
$$$$$$
True. This guy gave up researching halfway through
why do you have a picture of spiderman, peter?
The producers should have told Glover that if money doesn't buy you happiness, why are you asking for so much?
It helps to buy alcohol so I can drown my sorrows.
@@gorillaau I like that, funny
EXCELLENT BURN!
@@darrenokeeffe2452 That's cool, I am all for someone to get as much as they can get, it just sounds like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
I could say, he asked for too much because he is gonna use to pay his financial problems, I think it's the reason why he asked too much.
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 !!
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.
The most overlook part of this movie Franchise storyline is, no one in present seems to remembers meeting Marty in past or future
They named their son after him. (Paradox alert!)
@@cjburian1 But you’d think they’d realize he looks exactly the same lol
@@logicaldude3611 but if you think about it he was there for a week and never showed up in their life again
@@logicaldude3611 could you vividly remember a guy you talked to for only a week 30 years ago?
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
I remember asking my dad for a hoverboard. Everyone thought they were real. Well, every 10 year old did
What your dad replied?
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.
It's weird that Crispin Glover doesn't like the message that "money can buy you happiness" but then proceeded to ask for more money lol.
I just discovered your gem of a channel tonight and I can't wait to binge your stuff! Subbed for sure!!
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 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 TH-cam 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.
You deserve so many more subscribers!
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.
@@AD-kv9kj
Oh ya so blatant about being rich that he lives in the same middle class home...
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.
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.
Same thing when they brough back to live Walter Disney...
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.
@@PointReflex It's funny how Crispin did some standing up in real life that his character was too afraid to do for most of the movie
I was aware about Jenny's recasting, but I was wholly unaware they recast George!
All things considered, they really pulled it off!
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.
"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.
Agreed. No one really cares what actors think. They are being paid as part of the entertainment. 🤷♀️✌️
@@ItsMeAnn628 again he wasn’t being paid, so they were stealing.
@@horacesmith2130 That’s not at all what I was talking about 🤦♀️
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 is a weirdo lol. but that is why most people like him.
Jesus loves you!😊❤ so very much!
Um, that's not really a rumor... truth is a defense.
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.
@@davelanger
He is definitely his own breed of cat.
Well. Learn something every day! Thanks!
HUGE fan of the Back to the Future movies and I've NEVER heard this until today. Blew me away.
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.
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.
Wow u guys both saw the collider clip
Very intereseting video and nothing I ever knew about! I've watched these movies tons of times and never noticed there was different actors for the father, you earned a sub!
Now I need to rewatch these movies now
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.
Well if he wouldn't have demanded the same pay as as actual star
@@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.
@@ron.hertzberg and you believe corporate Hollywood over the individual actor? a little naive don't you think?
@@joshbrookes6439 In this case I do. But I am glad he set the standard for actor's likenesses.
What an insignificant part of the story, he was dropped and didn't choose to leave
Great Scott!
How did I miss that, lol?! This is the craziest thing I have ever heard of.
Glover's performance was amazing as the father. Perhaps the best.
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.
Thanks for the info, this was interesting
Thank you very informative
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.
Thanks for sharing this story. I never knew what the issue was that Glover had against the franchise. 👍
Interesting story. Thanks for the insights!
Thanks for sharing
The upside down thing is very clever as we as a species find it hard to recognise people upside down
That and he was heavily made up. Just watched part 2 the other day and never realized he was missing from the movie.
Also that scene happened do quickly you really couldn’t see the difference.
Very educational video dude, I really enjoyed it. Just to point out though, Glover dosen't hold a grudge against Zemeckis he holds it against Bob Gale, the co-writer who said that thing about George getting the same pay as Marty. This is stated in an interview with Crispin Glover and Crispin says he thinks Robert is a nice guy but he dosen't really like Bob. :) great video
Interesting, good video, thank you 👌👍
Wow, I had no idea about this. They definitely got me!
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?
The sequels could have been great with Glover
so damn agree!!!
They were great without him.
Agreed!
You right ❗
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
Wow, that was interesting! Never knew that at all. I do recall the George McFly character looking a tad weird or always at a distance and dodgy camera angles in the sequels. I’m glad he stood his ground on the script and how the studios used his image without permission. It’s nice to see an actor with morals and balls! 😁 Great channel, I’ve subbed and look forward to more fascinating movie nuggets 😉.
This is hilarious! lmao I never knew this. I'm laughing so hard here.
I never ever noticed this and BTTF 2 is my all time fave film! Lmao, great work 😁
Wow, never knew this. I was a movie usher during the release of BTF2, which means I saw it maybe 1000 times. Part of the job is sitting in the theatre and observing customers, making sure they aren't smoking or something worse. And you get free popcorn, you can steal soda, but you have to put your own quarters in the Ivan "Ironman" Stewart's Super Off Road video game machine. The job paid $3:35 before tax.
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.
Why
@@alukuhito I read that his career died because he tried to expose hellywood for the pervs they are.
_"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.
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
Marty is the protagonist, but George definitely has the best BTTF 1 character arc.
Watching these films as a kid growing up I didn't even notice this.
This just blew my mind. I am 58 and saw all 3 in the theatre on the original release date. I never knew until now Glover wasn't in all 3.
This is Mandela Effect as fuck. We have crossed into the Crispinless-verse
Never knew this thxs for info
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.
@@GisherJohn24 Totally - they should have just paid the man - instead of doing identity theft ... what assholes.
@@mondomacabromajor5731 amen brother
@@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!
Thanks so much for this video. I just subscribed! Funny enough, I saw BTTF as a double feature with Red Sonja (LOL) in 1985 as a 17 year old and I was not a rich person at all. In fact, we were pretty poor. But I never got, for one moment, anything about class or affluence as a result of that ending/choice. WTF I didn't think about that at all. I just thought that by choosing another option, the future changed. It was a better future because he stood up for himself so he was happier - nothing about money. Sure they had more probably than before but I didn't even think about it. I just thought about their family. Whatever dude.
so, this series of movies are up there with my favorites of all time. born in 82, i grew up on these. i never even noticed
He also tried to kick David Letterman in the face in the middle of an interview. You can't blame it all on the lawsuit, he was having some problems back then.
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."
How does this not have millions of views?
If you go back in time today the same amount of time as Marty went back in 1985, it would be 1992. Great Scott!!
It is amazing that as years go by Crispin Glover keeps looking more like his father (Bruce Glover, Diamonds are Forever Bond film)
I never knew this. I’d be pissed, too!!
Thanks. I had wondered what the outcome of this lawsuit was.
It’s such a shame. Choosing not to do the films damaged his career but he went on to find his own success which was impressive
I wish they had just agreed to pay him more...
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.
Dont agree with the likeness being used without permission but on the other hand, I do miss him in the role of George McFly
His dad was exactly the same way and @0:59 Crispen looks a lot like his dad in that shot.
I agree with Glover (the ending is dated) as the money message is the main one: it’s the idea of selling what is essentially the American dream but only for a few. At the time, we swallowed this pretty easily. Glad that Glover’s work was eventually recognised. Haven’t come across your channel before -❤ from Brisbane.
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.".
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)
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
Nice video!
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.
So Glover didn’t like the idea that money can’t buy happiness and then wouldn’t sign on for the sequels because he didn’t get enough money? Sounds like a hypocrite.
Those are two different stories. It’s either or not both.
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.
Great information. Thx for the detail.
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.
Him: "money doesn't buy happiness!"
Boss: "yes it does!
Him: "ok... give me more money, please."
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.
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.
Haha yeah, if he dosent like that concept why does he want more money?
@@Splatinum69 exactly my point..... Sounds like a tool to me.
I was today years old..... ^^ Nice video dude
I never thought the ending was about money guys happiness. I thought it was about how things can change when you stand up for yourself. I am shaking my head in shock disbelief at this video.
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.
100% on point
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.
@@FIGNAS83
👍
@@robertagren9360
Spot on brother. 👍
Holy shiiit... I had no idea he was replaced, although I did find it odd rewatching it later on. I noticed he didn’t sound the same. Didn’t know he had a issue with the ending too.
He’s a true “THESPIAN” Thank you!!!!