My thing is when I watched 2 when it first came out way back then I immediately knew it the guy hovering upside down was not Crispin Glover. It was too obvious it wasn't Crispin. The character barely got mentioned while Lorraine and Biff got a lot of screen time. When George finally made an appearance, it was a quick scene with him hovering upside down. I knew it wasn't Crispin because the actor's acting was like him mocking Crispin playing George, not the actor playing George.
He hasn't actually said he was in the 2nd and 3rd. He just says he was not happy with the ending of the 1st film and says that they got another actor to play the "character" pretty slick and shitty to do that
@albert fish They made the guy look like Glover by using actual plastic molded prosthetics created from Glovers own face from the first Back to Future. Not exactly the same thing as getting somebody similar looking, blurring out the character or shooting from a distance or similar techniques that have been done historically when similar situations arise with actors not available. All which they did in Back to the Future II but they also replicated the Glover's likeness too (taking it beyond what had been done int he past). And the suit by Glover resulted in doing such going forward illegal as part of the screen actors guild contract. Again, it is one thing to get a similar looking actor. Another is to replicate that actor via technology that. i.e replicate that very likeness through prosthetics or CGI. Would it be OK now that producers have the technology with computers to allow them put any actor's likeness, they wanted into a movie all without an actor's (or an estate's) permission or even paying for it?
@@psykorobot6807 Yeah but it's a movie about time travel and he looked that exact way at that exact point in time - they couldn't just go back to the past and Marty's dad is a completely different person now, the audience would be completely confused Back then there were no laws about this and so using someone's likeness was only a moral question, not a legal one; from what we know publicly they had a disagreement over the contract and he refused to sign and I can't see any other option they'd have Imagine the alternative where any actor who appeared in a past scene would have leverage over the producers by threatening to not sign if they don't get a pay increase, I can see why they really weren't left with any other choice and instead had to put a lot of effort into working around it
While I think Crispin Glover misinterpreted the ending of the first film. I agree with his feelings on having his likeness used in the subsequent films without his permission and having that actors performance seen as his. I also think it’s disgusting that they offered him half of what Thomas f Wilson was getting to reprise his role as Biff when George McFly was just as if not more important to the stories and Biff was.
Bob Gale is a criminal alright, a criminally talented writer! Without him, there wouldn't be a BTTF franchise. Crispin Glover is a good actor but he's a little crazy. He put the production of BTTF1 through some difficulties when they were already dealing with the Eric Stoltz dilemma. Regarding BTTF2, what the production did was NOT against SAG rules at the time. But he went to court, got his $700K settlement, and has remained bitter ever since. Gale tells his version while Glover tells his. Whomever is 100% right, we'll never know.
To be fair it was legal until it wasn’t because of a court case, there were no laws or rules hence the changes made. I heard Crispin was a pain to work with, probably part of the motive not to bring him back on.
What Crispin states is extremely true : many narcissistic or sociopathic people who do something illegal and harm another person tend to blame the victim for their own illegal activities or crimes
People get their identities stolen, but Crispin had his actual self stolen. Must be bizarre to have to deal with that. White hot rage is what he must have felt... as well as the frustration of having his craft violated by an imposter.
He didn't have his identity stolen though did he? It wasn't his identity to be stolen. It was the identity of a fictional character that was wrote by, and belonged to the writer of Back To The Future, Richard Zemekis.
@@gutz323 well you got that completely wrong didn't you... Glover was awarded US$760,000 for the theft of his identity. Seems the courts decision left egg on your face as well. A simple Google search could have saved you the embarrassment of being so wrong... because he DID have his identity stolen, didn't he.
@@gutz323 False, You can cast any new actor as Indiana Jones or James Bond, but you mustn't make efforts to artificially make them look the same in the face like Harrison Ford or Sean Connery.
Let's not forget why though. Glover was opposed to the plot of the story yet still took the role. He was upset with the way the movie ends with Marty and his family doing well and believed people would get the wrong message. He wanted to play the white knight but should have just kept his mouth shut. This is a great example of the saying "choose your battles carefully." Why didn't he raise question with the incest issue? That is a little more morally repugnant.
That isn't true, he has said in multiple interviews since that they didn't reveal the full script because they feared leaks. The producers gave the cast scenes a few weeks in advance and he didn't know about the ending until way far in.
What was Bob Gales supposed to do when Crispin almost blew up the sequels? Should Bob Gale have gotten a completely different looking actor? Of course he couldn't do that. Crispin created his bed and should have to lie in it. Crispin turned down sequels that in retrospect became a cult phenomena.
I loved you in all the Back to the Future movies. You were such a big part in all those movies. To be clear, I was only in the first film. Yeah. It’s 100% obvious the guy doing the interview had no idea that wasn’t Glover in the sequels.
Not many actors can say they were one of the main characters in a timeless masterpiece. Crispin will always be remembered for his classic acting performance in the first film anyway. And I think the sequel benifits from having the plot where George gets murdered and Marty has to save him. Would have been great for Crispin to play the role again, but keep the same script anyway.
And he's still crying about it. While he was definitely wronged, he was an ass for demanding a ridiculous amount and ruined his potential future in film. I wonder what his acting life would have been if he didn't f' over the sequels like that?
@@Danie1_l Didn't say he did anything legally wrong. But he wanted as much pay as Fox. He forced them to rewrite the sequels because he was demanding too much money. Therefore they literally rewrote the whole movie 2 and 3 due to HIM. Meaning he DID NOT get offers to act in other movies because, seriously, who wants to hire a great actor who is an asshole and will f' you over. He destroyed his career and he can't blame anyone for that choice.
@@Danie1_l Yes he had the RIGHT to be paid what ever he demands. Even more than Fox. But no sane person is going to pay that. It's a negotiation and he lost and yes he did ruin his career. No one knows him for anything other than back to the future Marty McFly. If he wasn't as ass he could have been a famous actor earning millions instead of some guy bitching about what happened 35 years ago. That's a fact. Okay, we don't know if he world have been super successful, but we don't know that because HE ruined his career by not being in back to the future sequels. No future projects after he did that were going to risk hiring him for anything but minor roles. Fact.
I'm not saying he's wrong, but is shitting on the Back to the Future's guys the only thing Crispin Glover has going for him? That's the only thing I see him doing, there's a trillion interviews of him on this exact subject
Because people keep asking him about it and then other people cut those sections of the interview out and post it on UA-cam because it gets clicks. If people would quit asking him about it in every interview he likely wouldn't be bringing it up.
@albert fish But the suit is not about using similar looking character but using technology to replicate that actor. Imagine with today's technology of CGI how a producer could profit from doing something similar. Today you don't even need to get a similar looking actor and attach some facial prosthetics If a producer can't get an actor in a film, would it be OK to use their likeness through current CGI technology without permission and payment?
This is why most film actors now don't take any chances nowadays by ensuring that they find themselves a bloody good agent or accredited management company that is supported by much accolade from the film industry that is supported by the Oscars, Baftas etc And one that expects actors to join the actors union first! Something that SAG (Screen Actors Guild) and other acting associations would strongly recommend that you really should do incase of any disputes, damages or loses should arise! Seemingly according to Crispin Glover though it does'nt seem fair such as being allegedly misrepresented by Bob Gale for this would be very bad conduct from an executive producer but in challenging it fairly and thoroughly really is a question of weighing up ones civil clout in the film industry which in this case ended up involving Universal Pictures rather than Bob Gale personally! Is it possible that we maybe missing something over this dispute such as a cast member violating their Non Disclosure Agreement??? I doubt it but then again who knows! Thankfully from between 1984-1989 covering the entirety of the production duration of the BTTF trilogy, an actors creative time, work, effort and expenses are usually now covered and are subject to international contractual law and production agreement in regards to film management! It would be foolish to audition for a movie without hiring an agent, insured, membership of the film union and SAG etc
I always get very confused about the legal aspect. Let' say I am Universal Studios... And I sign a contract with you to be part in a movie for the amount of 1 million dollars. I shoot an X number of scenes...from which I use only 2/3rds. The movie is a success...And I decide to make a sequel. You decide NOT to be part of the sequel, which puts me in a tough spot since that will make me recast the character played by you. Since we want to go ahead with the sequel, we decide to use some of the unused footage from the first film in the sequel. I see no problem at all. Maybe in the future actors should sign contracts in which they will forfeit ANY footage the studio get during filming of the first film and have full liberty to use the unused footage if any was acquired in any sequels or prequels if the studio choose to do so.
@@mikejunior211 It was already illegal to re-use footage back in the 80s. Marlon Brando sued to prevent his deleted scences to be used in Superman 2. While the studio owns the footage, they can't use it for a different film without actor's permission (since the actor signed a contract to only be in one specific movie)
@@CoolGobyFish Yes...but what I'm saying is that a studio could have a different approach. they could sign a contract with an actor not for a single film but for a trilogy... And shoot x number of scenes. From which they use only 2 thirds. Then if for the second film the actor has an accident like it happened with Mark Hamill for Empire. And the actor dies or becomes incapacitated..then they could use the additional footage... since the contract was already signed. Also if the trilogy never happens for any reason then the actor could be released from his contract.
@@mikejunior211 they could, but that would require paying the actor way more. look at cartoons based on movies- the characters have generic faces. even cartoon Luke Skywalker can't look like Mark Hamil without Hamil's permission (and money)
Crispin made a great job in BTTF but he was in fact a great balls breaker with Zemeckis and his staff : late on the set, attitude and whims of a star he wasn t ...
Dang. I have watched almost all of crispins movies and many interviews. Never seen him get this bothered. Save for the guy scamming for autographs. He stays pretty calm. Its sad this is the legacy hes left with most people, just because he stood up to corruption.
reporter schould do his research before the interview, but on another side this suits perfectly to Crispin that people were misslead he was acting in multiple BTF films
He was in the 2nd and 3rd actually so it’s unfair for people to slag off fans for not realising it was pre existing footage. I still don’t really get what he’s on about. I love the movies and am very disappointed he was/is so unhappy about it
In the modern age there's nothing to stop studios from rendering onscreen images of actors without their consent....that is until this guy. Whatever the reason, he did not want to be involved so they basically stole his likeness. How is that not theft? Now there are rules for this because of him apparently.
Didn’t they change the laws on using people’s likeness in movies without their consent because of crispins issues with the other back to the future movies?
@@SJ-vb3tg yes i agree completely. You can’t just use someones likeness without their ok. Still those were excellent movies. Some of my favourite movies as a kid. At the time i had no idea it wasn’t the same guy in the second and third movies. They just completely recast the girl fried no problem. I wonder why they decided not to just completely recast the George McFly character too.
@@MagicAyrtonforever I know right, but you can't tell that to folks like the user, Ritajo, that who thinks him being difficult to work with allegedly is some sort of excuse smh
@@jenkinsljenkinssquire9137 Bloody oath. this is the same guy that took a non speaking role in charlie's angels just to make the character more interesting. He was told he'd be get less money and did it anyway.
It is criminal what Gale and Zemeckis did. Not content with trying to screw Crispin over, they steal his likeness thinking he’ll just roll over and accept it. He questioned the ending of BTTF1 regarding them now being rich and they then decided to teach him a lesson to keep his mouth shut. Was it fair to pay him less than half of Tom Wilson? Or a quarter of Leah Wilson? I’m sure if Crispin had toed the line he would’ve had much bigger parts in 2 and 3, which were slimmed down massively for Jeffrey Weissman.
That's why he filed his lawsuit and won. They took molds of his face from the 1st movie and put it on a different actor to trick the audience into thinking he was in the movie.
What a shamed! I just don't know why he can not embrace the awesome footprint he put in Movie Cinema with his George McFly character. He has pushed himself away from I'm sure many good rolls because Producers are to afraid to hire him due to his flaky attitude. He blames Bob Gale for stealing his character "FACE PROSTHETIC" and having another person use his face and play the roll he Mastered. That's why he says he is mad. However, that's bullshit! That's his excuse to make people be on his side when the real reason is he was pissed because he thought he should have been getting paid as much as Michael J. Fox. That's the real reason why he is mad and so they fired him from the 2nd and 3rd film because he was greedy. He wishes he could have been in part 2 and watching another person play as George McFly using his prosthetic sent him over the edge. What was Bob Gale to do? George McFly was a big part of the franchise! They needed him but he was to greedy. So they found another actor who was honored and not greedy to play the roll and that is why he is pissed! Glover should have been humble! Maybe his life would have been a lot more simple and better! Too bad he had to be Butt Hurt over who got paid more. What a shame...................
He also has a tendency to use sexual allegories when discussing things, which is disturbing when you consider that BTTF is supposed to be a family-friendly franchise.
I don't agree with the phrase "money doesn't bring happiness". It does, you buy things with money that make you happy. But I absolutely agree that what Bob Gale had done was 100% illegal.
@@creekwalker62 You can be rich and happy or poor and miserable. It's absolutely true that money won't solve mental health problems or a bad marriage/relationship. That's not the point.
@@creekwalker62 Money does make happiness much much easier. The opposite statement "money doesn't bring happiness" is a lie. It alone MIGHT not, but it certainly improves things without question.
You can buy things that will deteriorate and stop existing, your life will stop existing, materialism is just an illusion of happiness. What about having eternal life and the promise from God himself that there will be no more sadness, illness, death, or anything negative in the afterlife with him? I personally think that is vastly superior than be more or less happy for like 60-90 years and then be separated from God for the rest of eternity.
Crispin can take satisfaction in the fact that the George Mcfly character is a very minor role in part 2 and is the character even in part 3? Everyone remembers his performance in the first movie and when people think of that character they are going to think of his performance in the first movie. I honestly don't even remember most of Part 2 and Part 3 was terrible and not even worth watching
Even though Crispin glover is not in two or three, I feel his acting improved and the first movie suffered from his first very weird and out of place performance. Mike Fox really saved the movie along with Doc brown and Biff.
Its been time to move on for atleast a decade....Jesus Christ its almost sad now that he can't get through an interview anymore without having to go on about BTTF and Bob Gale....He's starting to look like a Clowny, Clown, Clown when he's still going on about it...It was settled move on....
As cool as he is. I think him being upset about the ending of the first film is kind of stupid. The point is Marty ended up giving George the confidence he needed to better himself, be successful and make a better life for his family. Its n8t like they lived in a Mansion and were super rich. It just sou ds like George was able to have confidence in himself. They still lived in the same house. Just nicer things within it. How do we know for sure George bought him the truck? It's never stated. Maybe the Marty they raised had a job at nights in high school saving up for a car. But since he was doing good in school and working hard. May e George made a seal with Marty that he would help him get the truck now and Marty agreed to slowly pay his Dad back for the truck. They could have gone halves o. That truck as far as we know.
I disagree. This was the height of the yuppy era when materialistic nonsense was being pushed on everyone. The ending was pure Regan. The furnishing in the house was more expensive and everyone looked richer. The fact George would keep the almost rapist of his wife around as a servant was also stupid and creepy. I love the movie but the ending always felt a bit off.
They all were greedy. Especially the producers. And in the end, it costs the producers more from their pay out from losing Glover's suit than the amount he actually was asking for in the first place. Glover's suit led to similar likeness protection clause as part of screen actors collective bargaining agreements. By the way, Glover has worked consistently since Back to the Future. He is a quirky guy, who tends to like quirky acting roles. Just watched him recently in American Gods. And I am not saying Glover is easy to work with (or it didn't play a role in role in Back to the Future negotiations) I would bet the producers just didn't want him around at any cost not that they weren't willing to pay him more if he wasn't so difficult.
@@ScottSullivanTV he did not act in the second film instead they took old footage and on top of that got a lookalike to play some parts with out his consent. The is why he sued them for illegally getting a actor to play him by putting on fake ugly prosthetics to mimic him.
That is the lie Bob Gale claimed. He did not want to get paid as much as Michael J Fox. He wanted to get paid as much as Lea Thompson and Tom Wilson who had equal parts as him but were being paid considerably more than him. And he won the court case and got paid what the court felt he should have been paid, which was the rate Lea Thompson and Tom Wilson were paid.....
Two things can be true at once. They shouldn't have done their rubber mask trick in Back to the Future 2 to make it appear Crispin was in it. ALSO Crispin Glover is a weird opinionated guy who thought he should have a say in how the 1st movie ended, pissed off the director and producer in the process, and that is why he isn't in all 3 films.
35 years later, Glover is still clinging to this grudge like it happened yesterday. This bitter irrational behaviour perfectly demonstrates why he was frozen out of the sequels in the first place. "Bob Gale is a criminal"? Really?
I completely agree! They offered him the role, he wanted more money, they wouldn't pay him what he wanted, he didn't take the role, end of story. And then he whines about it every opportunity he gets for the next 35 years, I can see why they didn't seem too unhappy about him leaving, and the fact none of the other cast members have ever jumped in on his side is rather telling too.
Bob did something illegal. Crispin sued over it and won. Then Bob started spreading rumors and lies about him that people evidently still believe judging by some of the replies.
Kind of a click baity and misleading title. Crispin Glover sued Bob Gale and won $760,000. And the law declaring the actions of Bob Gale to be illegal were not written until AFTER the law suit. The law was written a because of that law suit. I have to roll my eyes at someone, who earned over 3 quarters of a millions for two movies he was not in, complaining about someone doing an illegal act before it was illegal.
@MAFIOSA E How about at this point we just start addressing him as Clowny, Clown, Clown since it was so god damned long ago and he won a lawsuit....You start to look sad when you cant do ANY interviews without having to drone on about it......
Pathetic. He didnt want to do part 2 and 3 so the director obviously brought in another actor and he still moans about it. They should have never hired him in the first place.
No they used the prosthetics from Glover’s face and put it on another actor and used his likeness without his consent. Then Bob Gale lies about it. Now that’s illegal.
We can all agree that Crispin did an outstanding job playing George McFly!
Only in the first film.
@@simplechronology2605 also Idk if you know, he didn’t play in the 2nd film
absolutely great job
for sure!
My thing is when I watched 2 when it first came out way back then I immediately knew it the guy hovering upside down was not Crispin Glover. It was too obvious it wasn't Crispin. The character barely got mentioned while Lorraine and Biff got a lot of screen time. When George finally made an appearance, it was a quick scene with him hovering upside down. I knew it wasn't Crispin because the actor's acting was like him mocking Crispin playing George, not the actor playing George.
He looks amazing for his age. Hard to believe he's almost 60 years old.
Little work perhaps , but good genetics and a healthy diet & lifestyle I’m sure.
60 next year
He’s a time traveller. That’s why.
He's a narcissistic sociopath who thinks too much of himself.
I wish the feud between Crispin Glover and Bob Gale NEVER happened in the first place!
i agree with crispin, but i think he needs to dial the bitterness and anger back a bit. its 30 years ago...
So this guy knows about the controversy but yet still says Crispin is in the second and third movie??
He hasn't actually said he was in the 2nd and 3rd. He just says he was not happy with the ending of the 1st film and says that they got another actor to play the "character" pretty slick and shitty to do that
@@jackcack69 I reckon the OG post meant the interviewer..
@albert fish They made the guy look like Glover by using actual plastic molded prosthetics created from Glovers own face from the first Back to Future. Not exactly the same thing as getting somebody similar looking, blurring out the character or shooting from a distance or similar techniques that have been done historically when similar situations arise with actors not available. All which they did in Back to the Future II but they also replicated the Glover's likeness too (taking it beyond what had been done int he past). And the suit by Glover resulted in doing such going forward illegal as part of the screen actors guild contract. Again, it is one thing to get a similar looking actor. Another is to replicate that actor via technology that. i.e replicate that very likeness through prosthetics or CGI. Would it be OK now that producers have the technology with computers to allow them put any actor's likeness, they wanted into a movie all without an actor's (or an estate's) permission or even paying for it?
@@psykorobot6807 Yeah but it's a movie about time travel and he looked that exact way at that exact point in time - they couldn't just go back to the past and Marty's dad is a completely different person now, the audience would be completely confused
Back then there were no laws about this and so using someone's likeness was only a moral question, not a legal one; from what we know publicly they had a disagreement over the contract and he refused to sign and I can't see any other option they'd have
Imagine the alternative where any actor who appeared in a past scene would have leverage over the producers by threatening to not sign if they don't get a pay increase, I can see why they really weren't left with any other choice and instead had to put a lot of effort into working around it
I believe Crispin was upset they used his image (ie made the other actor look like him, used footage from previous film) without his concent
Crispin is so great as George Mc Fly in Back to the Future 1.... I cannot imagine any actor doing that better than him.
While I think Crispin Glover misinterpreted the ending of the first film. I agree with his feelings on having his likeness used in the subsequent films without his permission and having that actors performance seen as his.
I also think it’s disgusting that they offered him half of what Thomas f Wilson was getting to reprise his role as Biff when George McFly was just as if not more important to the stories and Biff was.
Why didn't they go the same route with George as they did with Jennifer?...Just recast the greedy bastard.
Bob Gale is a criminal alright, a criminally talented writer! Without him, there wouldn't be a BTTF franchise. Crispin Glover is a good actor but he's a little crazy. He put the production of BTTF1 through some difficulties when they were already dealing with the Eric Stoltz dilemma. Regarding BTTF2, what the production did was NOT against SAG rules at the time. But he went to court, got his $700K settlement, and has remained bitter ever since. Gale tells his version while Glover tells his. Whomever is 100% right, we'll never know.
To be fair it was legal until it wasn’t because of a court case, there were no laws or rules hence the changes made. I heard Crispin was a pain to work with, probably part of the motive not to bring him back on.
Crispin was great in the remake of Willard!
William Shatner should sue over all the Halloween films.
the likeness was altered. it doesnt resemble it enough.
What Crispin states is extremely true : many narcissistic or sociopathic people who do something illegal and harm another person tend to blame the victim for their own illegal activities or crimes
You don’t even have to be narcissistic or a sociopath. It’s human nature to feel attacked when called out on something you did wrong.
I wish there was no feuds on the set of any Back To The Future movies.
People get their identities stolen, but Crispin had his actual self stolen. Must be bizarre to have to deal with that. White hot rage is what he must have felt... as well as the frustration of having his craft violated by an imposter.
He didn't have his identity stolen though did he? It wasn't his identity to be stolen. It was the identity of a fictional character that was wrote by, and belonged to the writer of Back To The Future, Richard Zemekis.
@@gutz323 well you got that completely wrong didn't you... Glover was awarded US$760,000 for the theft of his identity. Seems the courts decision left egg on your face as well. A simple Google search could have saved you the embarrassment of being so wrong... because he DID have his identity stolen, didn't he.
@@RestorationWatch Well you got everythng wrong. He got fired for demanding the same money as M J Fox. Of course he didn't have his identity stolen.
ua-cam.com/video/qge0E9WYeks/v-deo.html
@@gutz323 False, You can cast any new actor as Indiana Jones or James Bond, but you mustn't make efforts to artificially make them look the same in the face like Harrison Ford or Sean Connery.
Let's not forget why though. Glover was opposed to the plot of the story yet still took the role. He was upset with the way the movie ends with Marty and his family doing well and believed people would get the wrong message. He wanted to play the white knight but should have just kept his mouth shut. This is a great example of the saying "choose your battles carefully." Why didn't he raise question with the incest issue? That is a little more morally repugnant.
I heard he didn’t see the full script because of leaks🤷🏽♀️
That isn't true, he has said in multiple interviews since that they didn't reveal the full script because they feared leaks. The producers gave the cast scenes a few weeks in advance and he didn't know about the ending until way far in.
@@Ben-pd2bx Look at what happened to him because he poked his nose where it didn't belong. derp
@@Ben-pd2bx It wasn't his place to take a stand.
@@Ben-pd2bx obvious troll is oblivious
What was Bob Gales supposed to do when Crispin almost blew up the sequels? Should Bob Gale have gotten a completely different looking actor? Of course he couldn't do that. Crispin created his bed and should have to lie in it. Crispin turned down sequels that in retrospect became a cult phenomena.
I loved you in all the Back to the Future movies. You were such a big part in all those movies.
To be clear, I was only in the first film.
Yeah.
It’s 100% obvious the guy doing the interview had no idea that wasn’t Glover in the sequels.
Face palm he didn't know he was only in the first film. Jeez. Read up.
huh? I knew he wasn't in them. However, they used footage of him in the 2nd.
Didn’t say he is a criminal. Said he did something illegal and rationalised it in the way criminals often do.
Not many actors can say they were one of the main characters in a timeless masterpiece. Crispin will always be remembered for his classic acting performance in the first film anyway. And I think the sequel benifits from having the plot where George gets murdered and Marty has to save him. Would have been great for Crispin to play the role again, but keep the same script anyway.
it would have been nice for Crispin to have been in the end scenes of three at the very least showing he was saved from the events of number 2.
Poor crispin, had to go through this
30 something years and still the same damn interview with Crispin.
And he's still crying about it. While he was definitely wronged, he was an ass for demanding a ridiculous amount and ruined his potential future in film. I wonder what his acting life would have been if he didn't f' over the sequels like that?
@@MH-Tesla he did no wrong
@@Danie1_l Didn't say he did anything legally wrong. But he wanted as much pay as Fox. He forced them to rewrite the sequels because he was demanding too much money. Therefore they literally rewrote the whole movie 2 and 3 due to HIM. Meaning he DID NOT get offers to act in other movies because, seriously, who wants to hire a great actor who is an asshole and will f' you over. He destroyed his career and he can't blame anyone for that choice.
@@MH-Tesla no he didn’t destroy anything and he has the rights to be paid as much as fox
@@Danie1_l Yes he had the RIGHT to be paid what ever he demands. Even more than Fox. But no sane person is going to pay that. It's a negotiation and he lost and yes he did ruin his career. No one knows him for anything other than back to the future Marty McFly. If he wasn't as ass he could have been a famous actor earning millions instead of some guy bitching about what happened 35 years ago. That's a fact. Okay, we don't know if he world have been super successful, but we don't know that because HE ruined his career by not being in back to the future sequels. No future projects after he did that were going to risk hiring him for anything but minor roles. Fact.
I think had he said yes to parts 2 and 3 the plot would have been very different.
bummer that he wasn't in them
Back then it wasn’t illegal
This breaks my heart……it really does…
right on
I often think how much better BTTF2 would have been if Crispin was actually in it
Shame how it ended for him in BTTF. He was awesome as George McFly. He was right about trying to make Jeffrey Wiessman look like him
I'm not saying he's wrong, but is shitting on the Back to the Future's guys the only thing Crispin Glover has going for him? That's the only thing I see him doing, there's a trillion interviews of him on this exact subject
Well, David Letterman retired, so kicking him in the head again would be unseemly.
Because people keep asking him about it and then other people cut those sections of the interview out and post it on UA-cam because it gets clicks. If people would quit asking him about it in every interview he likely wouldn't be bringing it up.
If you haven't seen Crispin in an episode of Happy Days, look it up. He's great.
Honestly, I wouldn’t care if they used me in the second or third film, but if I didn’t get paid that’s a different story
Interesting
I always thought crispin Glover, harmony korine, and chris gains were trying to say something
Terrible interview. Please do your research and don't interrupt the person when they are giving their answer
Crispin is always well dressed in any interview 👍👍👍👏
I didn't even know
I forgot, did they use his likeness in BTTF3?
Don’t think so but wondered the same
Yes in the ending when Marty gets back home.
@albert fish But the suit is not about using similar looking character but using technology to replicate that actor. Imagine with today's technology of CGI how a producer could profit from doing something similar. Today you don't even need to get a similar looking actor and attach some facial prosthetics If a producer can't get an actor in a film, would it be OK to use their likeness through current CGI technology without permission and payment?
When interviewers on TV ask him about the situation , what else is he supposed to do in a paid interview?
That opening question was definitely an instigation on the interviewer's part.
Huh!? :)
Bro has beef with Bob Gale 💀
I wish there was NO hostility on the set of any Back To The Future movies!
This is why most film actors now don't take any chances nowadays by ensuring that they find themselves a bloody good agent or accredited management company that is supported by much accolade from the film industry that is supported by the Oscars, Baftas etc And one that expects actors to join the actors union first! Something that SAG (Screen Actors Guild) and other acting associations would strongly recommend that you really should do incase of any disputes, damages or loses should arise! Seemingly according to Crispin Glover though it does'nt seem fair such as being allegedly misrepresented by Bob Gale for this would be very bad conduct from an executive producer but in challenging it fairly and thoroughly really is a question of weighing up ones civil clout in the film industry which in this case ended up involving Universal Pictures rather than Bob Gale personally! Is it possible that we maybe missing something over this dispute such as a cast member violating their Non Disclosure Agreement??? I doubt it but then again who knows! Thankfully from between 1984-1989 covering the entirety of the production duration of the BTTF trilogy, an actors creative time, work, effort and expenses are usually now covered and are subject to international contractual law and production agreement in regards to film management! It would be foolish to audition for a movie without hiring an agent, insured, membership of the film union and SAG etc
Technically he IS in the second film. They used some of the Original footage from the first.
correct!
I always get very confused about the legal aspect. Let' say I am Universal Studios... And I sign a contract with you to be part in a movie for the amount of 1 million dollars. I shoot an X number of scenes...from which I use only 2/3rds. The movie is a success...And I decide to make a sequel. You decide NOT to be part of the sequel, which puts me in a tough spot since that will make me recast the character played by you. Since we want to go ahead with the sequel, we decide to use some of the unused footage from the first film in the sequel. I see no problem at all.
Maybe in the future actors should sign contracts in which they will forfeit ANY footage the studio get during filming of the first film and have full liberty to use the unused footage if any was acquired in any sequels or prequels if the studio choose to do so.
@@mikejunior211 It was already illegal to re-use footage back in the 80s. Marlon Brando sued to prevent his deleted scences to be used in Superman 2. While the studio owns the footage, they can't use it for a different film without actor's permission (since the actor signed a contract to only be in one specific movie)
@@CoolGobyFish Yes...but what I'm saying is that a studio could have a different approach. they could sign a contract with an actor not for a single film but for a trilogy... And shoot x number of scenes. From which they use only 2 thirds. Then if for the second film the actor has an accident like it happened with Mark Hamill for Empire. And the actor dies or becomes incapacitated..then they could use the additional footage... since the contract was already signed. Also if the trilogy never happens for any reason then the actor could be released from his contract.
@@mikejunior211 they could, but that would require paying the actor way more. look at cartoons based on movies- the characters have generic faces. even cartoon Luke Skywalker can't look like Mark Hamil without Hamil's permission (and money)
Shouldn't have been greedy bub.
He's a genius actor.
Crispin made a great job in BTTF but he was in fact a great balls breaker with Zemeckis and his staff : late on the set, attitude and whims of a star he wasn t ...
And that's why Glover the (one hit wonder) does straight to vhs movies...👍🏼
Similar to what they did with Martha wash. They stole her voice and used it on a song without her permission
What happened
I actually could tell it wasn’t Crispin in the 2nd and 3rd film.
Man, Crispin and Woody Harrelson would make awesome brothers on screen.
Dang. I have watched almost all of crispins movies and many interviews. Never seen him get this bothered. Save for the guy scamming for autographs. He stays pretty calm. Its sad this is the legacy hes left with most people, just because he stood up to corruption.
reporter schould do his research before the interview, but on another side this suits perfectly to Crispin that people were misslead he was acting in multiple BTF films
Glover is a typical method actor .......
Don't they do it anyway to all actors with cgi???
He was in the 2nd and 3rd actually so it’s unfair for people to slag off fans for not realising it was pre existing footage. I still don’t really get what he’s on about. I love the movies and am very disappointed he was/is so unhappy about it
In the modern age there's nothing to stop studios from rendering onscreen images of actors without their consent....that is until this guy. Whatever the reason, he did not want to be involved so they basically stole his likeness. How is that not theft? Now there are rules for this because of him apparently.
What's illegal there?
Didn’t they change the laws on using people’s likeness in movies without their consent because of crispins issues with the other back to the future movies?
Yes. He won the lawsuit and Hollywood can no longer use an actors imagine without permission.
He was 100% in the right
@@SJ-vb3tg yes i agree completely. You can’t just use someones likeness without their ok. Still those were excellent movies. Some of my favourite movies as a kid. At the time i had no idea it wasn’t the same guy in the second and third movies.
They just completely recast the girl fried no problem. I wonder why they decided not to just completely recast the George McFly character too.
Judging the fact he still can’t move on from that issue
You can tell it really ruined his life
Hope he gets more peaceful on this matter
Finally someone with the intelligence to understand the REAL situation for him.
I wish people would stop bringing it up! Let Crispin bring it up himself if he wants to.
@@MagicAyrtonforever I know right, but you can't tell that to folks like the user, Ritajo, that who thinks him being difficult to work with allegedly is some sort of excuse smh
Crispin would make an awesome Joker
What Crispin always neglects to add to the story is that he wanted the same money that Michael J fox was getting
Crispin has said in interviews that that isn't actually true which is why he doesn't say it.
@@mattyw633 And you believe him
@@jenkinsljenkinssquire9137 Bloody oath. this is the same guy that took a non speaking role in charlie's angels just to make the character more interesting. He was told he'd be get less money and did it anyway.
Does he know that Michael J. Fox has parkinson's?
of course he does
Why?
Lol seriously? Wow stupid comment
Bob gave it to him.
@@dr.emilschaffhausen4683 I wouldn't bet against that assertion.
It is criminal what Gale and Zemeckis did. Not content with trying to screw Crispin over, they steal his likeness thinking he’ll just roll over and accept it. He questioned the ending of BTTF1 regarding them now being rich and they then decided to teach him a lesson to keep his mouth shut. Was it fair to pay him less than half of Tom Wilson? Or a quarter of Leah Wilson? I’m sure if Crispin had toed the line he would’ve had much bigger parts in 2 and 3, which were slimmed down massively for Jeffrey Weissman.
Crispin Glover was best in Back to the Future II.
He was not in the sequels, that is the issue… Dissociated for sure!
@@MegaVince09 I feel bad for the dude. I don’t like Bob Gale for what he did
I 100% thought he was in all 3.
That's why he filed his lawsuit and won. They took molds of his face from the 1st movie and put it on a different actor to trick the audience into thinking he was in the movie.
At this point we all know it was not you. Too bad you can’t move on and go to some conventions
What a shamed! I just don't know why he can not embrace the awesome footprint he put in Movie Cinema with his George McFly character. He has pushed himself away from I'm sure many good rolls because Producers are to afraid to hire him due to his flaky attitude. He blames Bob Gale for stealing his character "FACE PROSTHETIC" and having another person use his face and play the roll he Mastered. That's why he says he is mad. However, that's bullshit! That's his excuse to make people be on his side when the real reason is he was pissed because he thought he should have been getting paid as much as Michael J. Fox. That's the real reason why he is mad and so they fired him from the 2nd and 3rd film because he was greedy. He wishes he could have been in part 2 and watching another person play as George McFly using his prosthetic sent him over the edge. What was Bob Gale to do? George McFly was a big part of the franchise! They needed him but he was to greedy. So they found another actor who was honored and not greedy to play the roll and that is why he is pissed! Glover should have been humble! Maybe his life would have been a lot more simple and better! Too bad he had to be Butt Hurt over who got paid more. What a shame...................
Let's just say Glover is eccentric in the extreme. If you see him walking toward you on a sidewalk, cross the street.
Bob Gale is an absolute creep. Something about his manner is really unnerving.
He also has a tendency to use sexual allegories when discussing things, which is disturbing when you consider that BTTF is supposed to be a family-friendly franchise.
I don't agree with the phrase "money doesn't bring happiness". It does, you buy things with money that make you happy. But I absolutely agree that what Bob Gale had done was 100% illegal.
Money gives/brings temporal happiness.
Would you rather be rich and miserable or poor and happy?
Money only pays the bills.
@@creekwalker62 You can be rich and happy or poor and miserable. It's absolutely true that money won't solve mental health problems or a bad marriage/relationship. That's not the point.
@@creekwalker62 Money does make happiness much much easier. The opposite statement "money doesn't bring happiness" is a lie. It alone MIGHT not, but it certainly improves things without question.
You can buy things that will deteriorate and stop existing, your life will stop existing, materialism is just an illusion of happiness. What about having eternal life and the promise from God himself that there will be no more sadness, illness, death, or anything negative in the afterlife with him? I personally think that is vastly superior than be more or less happy for like 60-90 years and then be separated from God for the rest of eternity.
@@JesusProtects Afterlife does not exist
2024 and now find out why the acting was so bad and different in the movies that now we found out wasn't him 😮
Crispin, cuando vas a dejar ver tu pelo canaso bien sexys c:
Crispin can take satisfaction in the fact that the George Mcfly character is a very minor role in part 2 and is the character even in part 3? Everyone remembers his performance in the first movie and when people think of that character they are going to think of his performance in the first movie. I honestly don't even remember most of Part 2 and Part 3 was terrible and not even worth watching
part 3 was ok. part 2 not worth watching
Crispin is 100% correct.
Bob ain’t gonna like this
My man crispin glover…
I loved Crispin Glover in Back to the future part 2 and 3. He was such a good actor in part 2 & 3.
Sorry, can´t tell if you´re trolling or not XD
He was ok in 1 but I felt his acting was definitely better in 2 and 3 to be honest.
Even though Crispin glover is not in two or three, I feel his acting improved and the first movie suffered from his first very weird and out of place performance. Mike Fox really saved the movie along with Doc brown and Biff.
@@pearlzie9118 stop vaping spoiled milk ya hobo
@@M60gunner1971 excellent. You're a hero
Meh. Never heard of him before Back to the Future and never heard of him afterwards.
I think this was settled quite a while ago, time to move on.
Its been time to move on for atleast a decade....Jesus Christ its almost sad now that he can't get through an interview anymore without having to go on about BTTF and Bob Gale....He's starting to look like a Clowny, Clown, Clown when he's still going on about it...It was settled move on....
As cool as he is. I think him being upset about the ending of the first film is kind of stupid. The point is Marty ended up giving George the confidence he needed to better himself, be successful and make a better life for his family. Its n8t like they lived in a Mansion and were super rich. It just sou ds like George was able to have confidence in himself. They still lived in the same house. Just nicer things within it. How do we know for sure George bought him the truck? It's never stated. Maybe the Marty they raised had a job at nights in high school saving up for a car. But since he was doing good in school and working hard. May e George made a seal with Marty that he would help him get the truck now and Marty agreed to slowly pay his Dad back for the truck. They could have gone halves o. That truck as far as we know.
I disagree. This was the height of the yuppy era when materialistic nonsense was being pushed on everyone. The ending was pure Regan. The furnishing in the house was more expensive and everyone looked richer. The fact George would keep the almost rapist of his wife around as a servant was also stupid and creepy. I love the movie but the ending always felt a bit off.
He got greedy, and he hasn't done much if anything noteworthy since then.
They all were greedy. Especially the producers. And in the end, it costs the producers more from their pay out from losing Glover's suit than the amount he actually was asking for in the first place. Glover's suit led to similar likeness protection clause as part of screen actors collective bargaining agreements. By the way, Glover has worked consistently since Back to the Future. He is a quirky guy, who tends to like quirky acting roles. Just watched him recently in American Gods. And I am not saying Glover is easy to work with (or it didn't play a role in role in Back to the Future negotiations) I would bet the producers just didn't want him around at any cost not that they weren't willing to pay him more if he wasn't so difficult.
A brillisnt mind & actor.
He is so handsome. Loved him in Charlie's angel
LoL
They should make another back to the future movie with him going in the time machine to fix the past and make the movie end right.
That is a stupid idea
Does Crispin not know he IS in the second movie for one archival shot?
2 shots
@albert fish I understand. But he keeps saying he’s nowhere in the movie.
Yep the newspaper photo
@@ScottSullivanTV he did not act in the second film instead they took old footage and on top of that got a lookalike to play some parts with out his consent. The is why he sued them for illegally getting a actor to play him by putting on fake ugly prosthetics to mimic him.
Crispin Glover is unique, he is the only intelligent actor in Hollywood and we can see that in his eyes.
Love Crispin!
I agree except for one thing. He’s not the only intelligent actor. He’s one of the intelligent actors.
You didn’t like the ending and you wanted to get paid like the main character, which you wasn’t and you felt you can sue? Lol what a joke…
That is the lie Bob Gale claimed. He did not want to get paid as much as Michael J Fox. He wanted to get paid as much as Lea Thompson and Tom Wilson who had equal parts as him but were being paid considerably more than him. And he won the court case and got paid what the court felt he should have been paid, which was the rate Lea Thompson and Tom Wilson were paid.....
He's sooooo handsome
Totally.
Check your glasses lmao
Two things can be true at once. They shouldn't have done their rubber mask trick in Back to the Future 2 to make it appear Crispin was in it. ALSO Crispin Glover is a weird opinionated guy who thought he should have a say in how the 1st movie ended, pissed off the director and producer in the process, and that is why he isn't in all 3 films.
Get over it dude. It’s been 35 years.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. Time to let it go..
Look up Back to the Future predicts 911 by Barley Human.
35 years later, Glover is still clinging to this grudge like it happened yesterday. This bitter irrational behaviour perfectly demonstrates why he was frozen out of the sequels in the first place. "Bob Gale is a criminal"? Really?
Bob Gale did worse things than what you think he did
I completely agree! They offered him the role, he wanted more money, they wouldn't pay him what he wanted, he didn't take the role, end of story. And then he whines about it every opportunity he gets for the next 35 years, I can see why they didn't seem too unhappy about him leaving, and the fact none of the other cast members have ever jumped in on his side is rather telling too.
@@293940cabster I would love to hear some stores!
Bob did something illegal. Crispin sued over it and won. Then Bob started spreading rumors and lies about him that people evidently still believe judging by some of the replies.
Right it’s been over 30 years and he won the court case. No need to be this spiteful all these years later
Crsipin Glover is wrong IMO.
Kind of a click baity and misleading title. Crispin Glover sued Bob Gale and won $760,000. And the law declaring the actions of Bob Gale to be illegal were not written until AFTER the law suit. The law was written a because of that law suit.
I have to roll my eyes at someone, who earned over 3 quarters of a millions for two movies he was not in, complaining about someone doing an illegal act before it was illegal.
It was wrong. Maybe he should have used a different term?
and it was over a decade ago, probably more like 20 and he's still droning on and on about it.....
@MAFIOSA E How about at this point we just start addressing him as Clowny, Clown, Clown since it was so god damned long ago and he won a lawsuit....You start to look sad when you cant do ANY interviews without having to drone on about it......
Crispin knew what Bob Gale did was illegal prior to the lawsuit and the judge agreed with him. That’s the way these things work!
@@lutherheggs451 he was asked a question
Greed cost himhis roles...
He’s right. But he can carp about it all he wants to while he’s cashing royalty checks. Most likely
Crispin, just a whiner.
Crispin "Get over it" Glover
He sucked in the second and third film...
Those two movies are the only good things he was ever in!
Pathetic. He didnt want to do part 2 and 3 so the director obviously brought in another actor and he still moans about it. They should have never hired him in the first place.
Terrible opinion.
No they used the prosthetics from Glover’s face and put it on another actor and used his likeness without his consent. Then Bob Gale lies about it. Now that’s illegal.
Exactly
How is he ageless?….seriously?…..that’s unworldly and remarkable!🫡🤷🏻♂️🫡