No one is denying his point. He wanted to put the production in a strangle hold, and he forced the issue. When all he had to do was compromise for a reasonable salary, for a win/win. He might have been the high brow actor he thinks he is. (I'm still trying to get the image of him trying to face kick David Letterman out of my head). 😅
Disney is doing that, but they get clearance from the actor themselves. I have no idea what type of contract deal. surely they're all similar but different. family receives this or that idk.
As a kid I found Crispin’s character hilarious in the first movie but always felt something was off in his portrayal in the sequel. But I assumed it was the same actor. So he is absolutely correct - the bad acting stuck to his name. Glad he is finally telling his story.
I wouldn't say he really "won" the lawsuit itself. Since there is no verdict of the suit, due to settlement. He did gain some from it. And the actors guild changed their rules based on this situation. But it didn't officially clarify wrongdoing from the studio.
You don't need to blacklist someone who gets a reputation for being a pain in the neck. There is an exception. IF a star can get a film or TV series greenlit then they can be all sorts of a pain UNTIL they can't get that greenlight, at which pint their career nosedives. Glover was never in the position to get a project greenlit on his name alone anyway so why would any producer want to take a risk on a character actor who has a reputation for suing producers? They will hire another equally adept character actor who isn't a pain instead.
And THAT is one of the reasons Glover chose to pursue his rights. Sure, Hollywon't used their wealth, power, connections, and influences to push back, but that doesn't make it right.
Unpopular opinion. After re-watching back to the future for the 200th time Chris Glover performance has George McFly is so greatly underappreciated for the entire fabric of the whole movie. He’s absolutely brilliant in this movie, he is the heart and soul his sympathetic, mild mannered ways, captivated me this time in a way I have never felt. I would go as far as to say he was just as good as Michael J. Fox and just as important to the movie.
This gives me more respect for Crispin here. He stood up for himself and what he believed in despite what he was up against and its effect on his career. It's a bold move most wouldn't make. It's really too bad they wouldn't just pay the man what he was worth. He was amazing in the first film.
His performance was great and then using his face on a different character that's illegal and that's why he sued I would have sued as well if they used my face from the movie before and put it on different actor. The actor that wore the mask could sue because they didn't even want to use his face
He is very intense. When you watch his interviews you understand that he is very motivated by his craft. I love his role in "Charlie's angels" and at first he was supposed to be a regular bad guy that would drop exposition during the fight. He refused and thought his character should be mute with some sort of mental uniqueness, or autism. In the end it became the best decision for the character. He is pretty out there, intense and I can imagine that he might ruffle feathers in the bad way but I love how he acts
Crispen, who do you think you're fooling writing these. You were clearly the worst actor and thankfully we never had to suffer thru that again in your non career. Still nuts, huh?
Yes. But there was also the point that he tried to take the sequel ransom to get more money and influence. Nowadays, when an actor (who plays an important role in a TV series) tries to negotiate a raise, they just cancel the whole series.
@@ascgazz lol, you say that like that's a good thing? Appealing to idiots and the lowest common denominator by copying and spamming the most cringe, cliche, and I.Q. destroying comments for idiots and children. But hey, you got some virtual thumbs up online!
I understand his point. I never knew that it wasn't him in the second movie. That's crazy they used a real mold of his face to make prosthetics, that's like an early version of the AI stuff we're seeing now
Using the likeness of an actor without their permission is nowadays a discussion more relevant than ever. Generative AI used to emulate actors' voices and visual resemblance it's being used to cut budgets, but it's also an excuse for companies to get a bigger chunk of profit without compensating the artists. In the case of big names they are obviously being well compensated for being full scanned to the pore (for now), but emerging actors or extras are getting their faces' data scraped and being underpaid, less work just to feed the algorithms that will replace them.
During Superbowl 28, Pepsi did a commercial with a bunch of actors and actresses from old Hollywood mixed in with present-day actors. I said right then that would be the future one day and it would be problematic.
It really did come full circle. That was one of the major disputes of the strike. The studios wanted to own the likeness of the actors in perpetuity and use it without paying any compensation.
I’m with Glover on this one. As a child of the 80’s I always wondered why George McFly was dialed way back and every scene he was in seemed phoned in, it wasn’t until later in my life that I found out Glover wasn’t the one in the makeup.
Yup. It's one of the reasons he pursued his rights. Hollywon't is wealthy, powerful, and influential though. The media also bends to its will and controls the narrative to everything. Consider "Snow White" and that Zegler clown. The media wanted her to look empowered, strong, intellectual, charming, etc. It didn't work on intelligent people, but the media did its best to paint it as if she (and the film) were going to be the best revisiting of SW ever. Fortunately, film commentators with actual ethics and intelligence exposed those manipulative tactics.
It’s fine. He was right but, he should just let it go now. Not talk about it anymore. Send everyone a nice note and gift and say I really appreciate you all and I’m glad we’ve come through this lawsuit amicably.
@@monicapowers3208 Your acting as if he's buying full page ads in newspapers and doing the rounds on late night talk shows to talk about it. These are clips spanning years from smaller interviews where he's been asked about it specifically.
I agree but we don’t know how integral George was in the original script. It’s phoned in cause they couldn’t show him too close or people would know. Which was the goal of the film maker
@@xXCdOg24Xx Gale said in this video that George originally played a significant role in the film and then they had to dial it back and add the Biff and Lorraine married storyline. I also completely understand why the filmmakers went that route. When I said I am with Glover i mean I agree with him when he said they tricked people into thinking he was in the film and a bad actor. I was legitimately 35 years old when I learned he wasn’t even in the film and BTTF 1&2 are in my top 10 films of all time. Even as a child I noticed how poorly George was portrayed in part 2.
Great video! But I wish you had mentioned that Glover reunited with Zemeckis on Beowulf some 22 years later! I would have loved to hear Bob and/or Crispin talk about how they buried the hatchet and got back together. Another interesting element to the story.
I consider it more as extortion. He knew that his character was far too pivotal to the plot to be recast. A recast would have been a disaster. It's easier to just write him out. Therefore all he had to do was make heavy salary demands and bam, they either have to accept or do something rash to course correct. Him making less than Lea Thompson is a no brainer; not all actors are paid equally.
Was it worth it? He stood on his principles, which I would do, but was it worth it? Lawyer took 1/3 and taxes took probably 50% so he got a nice $280k paycheck but his career is toast. Seriously he wanted script approval? He should have realized but there’s probably on a half dozen actors who’d be considered non replaceable and he’s not one of those. Also it’s someone else’s movie not his. He’s just an actor and not a particularly remarkable one.
His ego let him miss out on being in a classic beloved movie. Doesn't sound worth it to me especially since he was talking about how the love was more important than money in the interview he was doing.
He doesn't own the George character. His only right was his scenes from the original not being used in the second. Using a character that resembled him in the second is a grey area at best.
@@nemonucliosis did you watch the full video? They used a mold of his own face and likeness without his consent to make another actor look like him. He most certainly owns his own likeness and therein lies the main issue he’s been fighting. Had they not used the cast from his face to change the new actor’s appearance there would have been no issue. He articulates these arguments very well in the video.
I've noticed whenever a director or studio and an actor have an issue. The director/studio always makes the claim that the actor asked for ridiculous things.
@@VitaKetaccording to him, they got offered fair compensation and he didn't because Bob Gale and possibly Zemeckis had a grudge against him for questioning things while filming the first movie. It's hard to know who's telling the truth but listening to him and listening to Bob Gale I tend to lead towards Crispin Glover, especially because there is no disputing that they used his prosthetic likeness and Bob Gale refuses to acknowledge they did anything wrong even though they settled. Listening to him, Bob Gale sounds like a real dick.
@@davidnappyhoose204 "Bob Gale refuses to acknowledge they did anything wrong even though they settled" - I don't know what planet you live on, but here on Earth, not having to admit any wrong doing is part of any settlement...
IMHO, I think it's because his agent screwed up the negotiations. It's common tactics for the demand to be high and the offer to be low and then work towards the middle. I think his agent started too high and the producers thought it was ridiculous. Then they made a counteroffer that was low so that they could negotiate, but Crispin took it as an insult and gave up. Lea and Tom were totally on board, so negotiations were much quicker.
It boils down to Glover wasn't a big enough actor to scare them into using him for 2. Gale even says as much. From there, the situation shook out pretty naturally. Crispin didn't miscalculated Gale's level of a-holiness.
0:33 "Bob Gale, he lies about things." One of Bob Gale's biggest whoppers was Reagan's so-called reaction to seeing the Back To The Future scene where Doc Brown is surprised at hearing Reagan is President. According to Gale, Reagan laughed so hard he asked the White House theater's projectionist to play it a second time. Only that never happened. The reaction to that scene was much colder in reality, as the mention of Jane Wyman's name in the very next scene made Reagan and everyone in the room uncomfortable. The fact that Gale got the location wrong -- it was Camp David and not the White House theater where it was shown -- is another clue that he made the whole story up.
Reagan definitely loved the movie; he quoted it in his 1986 stare of the Union address. Jane Wyman was Reagan's first wife so Nancy hated any mention of her. It's entirely possible for them to rewind the line before Nancy heard the Wyman bit... even if the private screening was at Camp David, according to you, instead of the White House.
@@BrianRatkus I can imagine that what actually happened is that Reagan wanted the scene rewound to check what was said again, not out of enjoyment but to scrutinize it. There are reasons someone might rewind a scene other than the one Bob Gale claimed. What's most likely is that Bob Gale greatly exaggerated or inaccurately portrayed (intentionally or otherwise) a claim he heard about Ronald Reagan's reaction to that scene.
I'm 46 and probably haven't seen BTTF2 since I was a child and I had no idea that Crispen wasn't in it until I saw this video. He had every right to sue.
Yeah, I'm a casual fan of the franchise since the 80s, and its my friend's favorite movie, and neither of us had a clue until I mentioned it a couple months back.
I’ve always appreciated Glover’s idiosyncratic approach, though I get how it might not be everyone’s cup of tea. But his lawsuit was great for actors to be able to retain their likeness rights, which is more important now than ever with the advent of AI in the industry.
@@NoMoreBsPlease Pretty sure he set precedent which is why those guidelines were introduced, and in the most recent labor deals, were further applied to modern technology.
@@gdn86 the only precedent he set was that if you whine you can yet a payout. There is no legal precedent being set unless you see a trial to completion.
Crispin is an actor/actresses savior. He literally saved likeness issues. I 100% support his dialogue and feelings. Sacrificed his career essentially to give the future of others more stability. And, he easily should have been paid close to Fox. There is no BTtF without HIS portrayal of the character. That second movie was rancid, and nothing that actor did came close to how Crisp played it. Too clunky and forced.
Crispin was very very good, as George mcFly - - - - - he put th ESSENCE into that character, definitely.. Come to think about it, Marty, th professor and McFly WERE th most memorable characters of th film, to my mind
Second movie was great lol. The whole trilogy was. They wrote George out of the films because they knew no one else could play him. The replacement was only in one or two scenes out of btf 2 and and btf 3. I think they did genuinely want him back, they obviously knew how good he was.
@donniem7979 I do remember he declined to do the sequel, yet they used his likeness and voice without paying him. He deserves a whole lot more, they really did a number on him.
Not sure he saved anything long term, but not sure what came about after the last strike. I know there was some controversy around Snowpiercer season 4 because the actors all had full body scans done where it sounded like they were tricked into signing away the use of their likeness going forward. Even if that didn’t ultimately happen, the fact they are still trying to find ways around that even in the past few years shows they never learned from this.
Who cares if they did him dirty? He shouldn't have been such a whiner. He should have just done the movie. He shouldn't have been difficult to work with. He's obviously a nut bag. The movie is amazing. Loved the movies who cares if he's upset. Get out of acting if you don't like it, but no, you're gonna spend your entire life complaining about it.
@Sloth55Chunk That's an idiotic thing to say. Has nothing to do with my comment Whatsoever, you're just purposefully being a dick for no reason. Pointless comment. Do you have a 2 inch penis?You'd have to respond like that.
As a close, personal acquaintance of Crispin Glover, who's met him at least 3 times between 2005 and 2010, he's the entire reason people own the rights to their own likeness. He was right about Spielberg, too.
Crispin's part in the first Back to the Future is soooo underrated. It wouldn't be the same without him and they should have given him more to be in the sequels. He was worth it
@@BlackHatCinephilesounds fair if that's the case. Although his part would have to remain as important throughout. Tom Wilson earned every penny they paid him and more.
@@crankfastle8138 They had to rewrite the movie and infringe on Crispin's likeness, just to not pay him fairly. All things considered, paying Crispin fairly probably would have been cheaper, and the movie would've been better with Crispin in it. Movie bosses get too bossy just for the sake of being bossy, sometimes.
@@ilaser4064 Marty was the protagonist of BTTF, but the character's that experienced the most growth and character development were his parents, specifically George. Marty at the beginning shares similar traits to George (fear or rejection), which they both overcome for different reasons, but Marty is still basically Marty when he arrives back in 85, while George overcomes his issues and then continues to grow for thirty years before they are reunited in the timeline again. The plot of the first film is initially about getting Marty back to 85, but inadvertently becomes about 'fixing' George. Marty had no future to return to if he'd have left matters alone in 55. Glover shouldered an enormous portion of that film, whether the producers want to acknowledge that or not. If he'd failed to hold his own, sharing the screen with Fox or Lea, they'd have replaced him, like they did Stolz or the film just wouldn't have had the same magic it did, and not had the sequels. Of which the second one his character was a chief plot focus despite not being in the film. Basically Gale inadvertently wrote a story where the protagonist ceases being the main character in the second act, and no one noticed; but when he realized he'd written two main characters, only wanted to pay one of them 'main character' money, while still demanding perfection from the other.
Considering how nuanced a performance Crispin Glover gave to part 1, I'm surprised that Michael J. Fox didn't have any input onto making sure that he came back for part two. The fact that Fox went ahead with someone who used the prosthetics that were created for Glover doesn't seem too kosher. Either we stand together or we stand alone.
I really appreciate the availability of this video and its more accurate representation of Clover's conflicts with the "Back to the Future" legal situation. In fact, this video showcases Clover in a rare form. Usually, we see the quirky essecentric, over-the-top fringe performer. Instead, we saw him as an articulate and sincere person with a definitive position to defend.
@@andrewi.crocker8675the law you fool! 😂 and a thing called morals - you won’t know what that word means I understand but at least you have your answer 👍🤝
@@andrewi.crocker8675 Name, Image, Likeness....NIL. The concept wasn't around when this movie was made, but they literally used his EXACT face. Try using someone's picture to advertise a product or service.....you will hauled into court so fast it would make your head spin.
@@Dev-In-Denver123 No, as an actor you have a right to be paid whenever your likeness is used via negotiations between you the actor and the studio. Rhey dont own your likeness. Its not slavery.
The sad thing is, they could've just aged a different actor, and it wouldn't have hurt the movie. Hollywood subs out actors all the time. It was Michael J Fox's movie, after all, not Crispin's. So using the mold was really unnecessary.
I may be pointing out the elephant in the room but there is no way Glover was offered less than half the amount that Thomson and Wilson was. I think Glover, although maybe not outright lying, was at least exaggerating. Because At one point when they couldn't agree on something, less than half was what they were willing to give him for a cameo. And yes, the two Bobs wanted him in it at least as a cameo. But that didn't even satisfy Glover. Everyone said he was a pain to work with. So I'm leaning more towards Gale in this one. However I do agree with Glover taking legal action for them using the mold of his face.
@@GTXDash lowballing an actor is a classic shitty tactic to get them to quit before they sign on for a role, or used as a petty power play by those in control like Bob gale. Producers tried to do the same thing for Micheal Biehn in Alien 3, Sucessfully screwed over Terrence Howard in Iron man 2 who at that time was a bigger star then RDJ and should have got more money.
If dude was smart he would have taken the role, if he was smart he wouldn't have acted as if Back to the Future was only good because of him, as if he was the main character. If he was smart and did the film he would be a legend, instead he is remembered as difficult to work with, and a self entitled dbag.
@@anthonygregory6797 At the same time, his lawsuit made the producers more accountable for using people's images without permission. Let's say for instance, you were offered a role, but you turned it down. But if someone used your likeness for a character that opted not to play, would you stand for that? Because the producers are making money off your image without your permission. No royalties, nothing.
@@MisterBourgolini I agree the producers did him dirty, and by no means do I support using someone's image without permission. Now with that said if they own the rights to something then it's legal. But I will say the actor wasn't even making any effort to work with the product, he also had this terrible ego that just made him downright unpleasant on set. Respect for what he did for the original film, but lost any and all respect for the man when I found out how he was on set, as well as how he is a egotistical man because he felt he was some legendary actor when in fact he was just getting his foot in the door. Those who become legendary actors put their ego at the door when it comes to making films. Even Johnny Depp, Morgan Freeman, or even Keanu Reaves have shown this to be possible time and time again. Obviously this is just my opinion, but both parties went at this the wrong way no matter how you look at it.
It was his own fault. Probably wanted more money & they gave him a reality check instead. The whole thing sounds like sour grapes. Reminds me of why we never got a proper GhostBusters 3 was because of Bill Murry.
I personally hate the clown, yes great actor but as egotistical as they come, he was a nightmare on filming in every film he did a total clown thinking he's the best.... Film was still great without his input
Yes! The other thing that they don't really get into in this video, is that an actors face is an essential part of why studios hire them, and what they get paid for. It's as much an asset to their livelihood as a contractor's tools, or a chef's recipes.
I don't mean to disparage Crispin Glover, but IMO that was a completely overdone reading of the ending of BTTF and typical of what you'd expect from an 'educated actor' who is much impressed with their own worldview compared to the *sigh* non actors who just DON'T understand....(insert tormented artist vibe here) I've watched the movies, myself, since they came out in the 80's and never once did I or any of the friends and family I watched it with equate the McFly's future success and wealth with love. The point was that their success came from George finally realizing that he COULD succeed if he tried and had the courage to do so. Their deeper love came from the fact that they had a connection deeper than "Grandpa hit him with the car." There was no bond there, before. There was, later. Crispin may have sounded profound, but like Eric Stoltz trying to lament about how "Oh, Marty would be in so much torment coming back to a future he didn't know" (which you could argue about, anyway, from a movie time travel PoV), he was being far too dramatic and reading too much into it. Thankfully, neither of them were listened to, and the movie became the classic that it is today.
The butterfly effect had to happen somehow. You can't have Marty going to the past interacting with his parents and nothing has changed in the future. Marty showing up in the radiation suit had a profound and semi traumatic effect on George so of course it rippled into the future.
Love WAS the reward but so was self-confidence. That lesson allowed George to publish his stories and achieve success (inferring here I admit), wealth was tangential.
Agree with him or disagree with him about the ending of the film, it's not HIS movie to say how it should end. He's an actor in the movie he's a character in the movie but it's not HIS movie. He's paid to play a role that's written for him. That's it. Do your job and don't try to to tell the movie Creator how to make their movie... 🙄
Crispin is a pioneer. I believe the changes by SAG to protect actors will be extremely useful to prevent studios from using AI to simulate actors in the future.
With the garbage coming out of Hollywood lately I’d rather pay to watch an AI generated fever dream drenched in uncanny valley weirdness than the untalented tripe being shoveled like shit into cinemas and on tv.
LMAO 😂 Crispin took the money and RAN! Those SAG changes are beyond worthless now. They don't use prosthetics, it would be done with AI deep fakes or with simple 3d models. Absolutely NOTHING in that lawsuit would help actors today.
It occurs to me that the movie studio made the likeness of George McFly adult by making the prosthetic in the first place. Using it in the second film seems like they used their own likeness, not his. The character in BF2 didn't look like him, anyway. I guess they should have just used a different actor that looked even more like him. It's a huge stretch and it was ultimately the insurance company that decided on the payout, not the movie makers.
Glover was correct for suing. It would be no different if someone produced knockoff Back to the future movie and called Return from the future with a somewhat similar storyline.
I've worked in on site production for several studio's duing this era and I'm fully with Crispin here having worked with him and Bob both on several occasions. Bob was always very difficult to work with and never would even hear out any valid critiques regarding script or delivery of performances. Crispin was eccentric but very kind. I do think from kning both of them most likely Crispin was just standing up for himself against somebody who was a bit of a know it all and knew he could take advantage of him.
I liked the ending and don’t agree with him. You can be happy and rich, having money definitely helps. Being poor is miserable and puts a strain on relationships. His not the script writer, why don’t he just stick to the acting.
@@LevelUP84 Every writer should be open to criticism. I like the end of the movie too, but never quite came to terms with the fact that Marty now lives in world he knows nothing about, he effectively has total amnesia and shares none, zero, memories with not only his family but all of his friends. People might say, "hey Marty, you remember that time we blah blah blah.." And he wont, he'll have friends he doesn't even know, have grades he never earned, injuries he knows nothing about, come to think of it, the ending is total bullshit really isn't it...
@@LevelUP84 He played the role. Do you believe that actors should have no opinions and no agency, even on roles they are performing? Should they never write or direct or be anything but puppets, either? Do you think that the second guy was better, since he seems have performed as you prefer?
I don't think it was directly cited in the negations during the recent SAG actors strike, but this case was the prelude to that strike given that the actors were mainly negotiating on the process and residual income on their likeness being used in future productions without the actor physically being there. My understanding was that non-main actors (like extras or smaller roles) in a production would get scanned and using CGI and AI, they could recreate that actor in the background to be used for a variety of other productions thereby making them wear, move, and even say things that weren't captured during the initial performance. This directly relates to how Universal still retained the molds/casts of Crispin to use in Part II thereby creating the same conundrum above. It's legally very interesting to see how Universal claimed likeness of Crispin's character while Crispin claimed he owned the likeness of his own self. This was a very early argument in the 80's and I'm disappointed there was no verdict to come from the case since, of course, it was settled out of court. Because the case did not create any legal precedent, the debate indirectly resurfaced again in the digital age during the last SAG actors strike.
I always chalked up the monetary gain from the first one to evidence that George stopped letting Biff benefit from his work and reaped the rewards himself. He was the boss at the company instead of working for Biff , and Biff took his skills into the trades.
@@tobybigham4196 That's not true. He was a professional actor and part of a Union. He knows how much money he can charge for a role. That was just a really silly rumour started by the Producer he was suing at the time.
Hearing Crispin’s explanation of why the ending was … defective … all the more respect for Crispin. He both appreciated the fact that stories have morals and he did have a better moral in mind than the materialistic one
Except he is wrong. Lack of money is the number one issue for families and causes a lot of social issues. People who claim money cant buy happiness almost always never have to worry about it. The McFlys at the end were hardly rich either. Well off middle class for sure but he is exaggerating his point a lot.
that's bob's version of the story. he keeps saying that's what caused bob to hate him and started the whole avalanche. he also says he wanted to be in the movie but not for half of what thomas wilson and lea, which means he was ok with the ending the way it was and just had a different perspective and voiced it.
@@wellington66440 i dont know and maybe he is trying to twist the story but the fact that he said we reach to all the other actors but with crispin he reached out to his people sometimes these actors get a big head and try to make themselves feel bigger than they really are but yeah i dont condone using his likeness but also feel like is not your script you are just an actor and you signed up for it knowing what the script called for. I guess we will never know for sure.
@@andrewrichards2462 he deserved it tho it was an insult considering how central he was to the story..they just didnt want to deal with his constant participatory approach they wanted a paid to do a job actor like everyone else on set..i thought he was in the 2nd movie and i thought it was a shit preformance and choice and that script sucked///visuals were great for the time tho loved that
I honestly believe that the ending of the movie explained that his confidence made him able to achieve a better job and the confidence to ask for better pay which in turn made his life better. I don't think the sole focus was money equals happiness. There are many layers to the ending.
Also Crispin learned about the molds in the second movie when his replacement tipped him off about it. They actually worked together in a previous movie and were friends at one point
@@elroymartinezjrHe has to say that, whether it's true or not, as the crucial point of his case was that poor acting could be attributed to him by people that thought it was him, and that this could be damaging to his career as a result. So whether he believes that or not, he has to maintain that argument.
@@robmetaldeth1889: So what? That character (Marty's daughter) didn't appear in the first movie and so Fox didn't "replace" any actress from the first movie. What's your point?
@@OMA2k Dude, what are you talking about? Read the post and my reply again. Replied to someone who simply didnt know Glover wasn't in part 2. Who said anything about a replacement? Who even mentioned the first movie? Your reply to @Anhviet19 didnt make sense either. Dude, it was a recast. @Ahviet19 knew it was a recast. Who said anything about Prosthetics? You seem as lost as Glover, and HE'S been lost for 40 years.
"What I don't like in disputes like this is the typical 'he said/he said' situation. Bob Gale said Crispin asked for the same amount as Michael, while Crispin says he only asked for the same amount as Lea. At the end of the day, we, the audience, will never be sure which one of them is lying. Unfortunately, one of them definitely is. This really breaks my heart because both of them are great artists."
You have my apologies in that I said much the same thing, today, and did not remember that being a part of the video when I watched it. I was not by any means trying to copy what was said by you, or by the content creator.
Crazy that I never knew this until a few years ago and I've been obsessed with them for about 35. Cool that UA-cam reveals so much I never knew and pry never would have!
I disagree with Crispen on the end of the movie. The reason George is successful is because he's confident, he's no longer being bullied by Biff. His confidence has changed his life in a positive way, success being one of them.
Exactly. In most cases, work related success which was the case for both Marty’s mum and dad, usually improves your financial situation. Then that can improve the relationship and the material thing’s that come with being successful are normal. Seems Crispin doesn’t want to see it like that. I bet he is a pain the ass to work with, but the court case where they used the likeness via the old cast of him, was justified. Cheers
That is what I got from the ending. He liked to write and because he gained confidence he got his writing published and became a successful author. Not sure where he gets the idea that the takeaway was money equals happiness
Crispin did the right thing, how many times have I heard the legal department of my employer say a violation of a contract is legal only to get shut down later by an arbitrator.
Yup. It's always the wealthy and powerful pushing back against the individuals who are dying on a small, insignificant hill. Glover did his best, but the media, corporate moguls, and "Hollywon't machine" NEEDED to spin this into the whole "Glover is a PITA" thing. 🙄 What else could they have possibly done? The rich *never* relinquish power. Never.
Never listen to an employer tell you their contract is iron clad and never just trust "I'm sure their lawyers know". They try shit on people all the time.
_Back to the Future_ is one of my favorite movies ever. I’ve seen the trilogy at least a couple dozen times over the past few decades and never realized Crispín Glover wasn’t in part 2.
His performance in the 1st film was so unique and memorable I can see why they felt they couldn't just replace him with another actor. But pretty shady to use his actual face without permission + payment. Some fun bits in the sequels but that first film has all the magic.
I think the second and third film also have just as much magic. 1 and 2 are just more structurally sound as films than 3 which takes a hit from being a completely different genre. But I still think they hit perfectly
He changed history for all actors, he is a hero. He is the heart of the first movie, it would not have worked without him, they just didn't want to share the success with him
I think Glover doesnt understand the ending of the first movie. it wasnt the money that made George happy and his marriage happier, it was his experiences made him more open and that allowed him to follow his dream of being a writer. He was more assertive of what he wanted, and in turn this more assertive George made Lorraine happier due to his ability communicate better. The yuppy money was an after effect of all of that. The money didnt make George happier, but a happier George more easily earned with his newfound strength and encouragement.
I think a critical thinking person would get that, an adult mind would probably get that, but a child or less astute person only knows what they see and they see a family presenting as more affluent and think "martys actions made them rich" because that's easier to fathom than something intangible like love. I see what Crispin is saying, that the riches shouldn't be the reward, and perhaps they did play up the lovey dovey stuff more because of him. I don't think that's the message of the ending either, but I can see how he could worry some would interpret it that way. Bold of him to bring it up at any rate.
The main thing going on at the end is Marty gawking at the material wealth -- the new car, the fancy yuppie clothes, the success with the book... It's what front and center -- it's hardly portrayed as just an "after effect". That's why Crispin argues it's the main message.
@@xergiok2322 So an actor making way more money than most people for pretending to be someone else gets mad because the message shouldn't be about the money? His opinion is that the rest of us shouldn't watch it and come away thinking that positive changes in your life lead to good things happening. It's not like George became the bully himself and made his money by exploiting people or by criminal activity. This guy is just another self important actor who thinks his "art" has to be important beyond just entertainment. Ever notice it's always people like this who say money can't buy happiness as they live like royalty?
@@jeffparent3988 It seems the film's context proves more the emphasis on the material difference. Because of the buildup to the end, and the contrast to the "alternate" 1985 from the beginning, its clear the material goods were the pinnacle of Marty McFly getting his just reward and revenge on Biff. The point was clear that a genuine love and respect between the parents was not enough, but to reinforce the audiences' perception at the time of the "Greed is good" 1980s; i.e. the ideal of realizing every consumeristic impulse and acquiring status symbols PROVING you made it. And the corollary to that is depicting alternate Biff, who didn't "make it" and becomes the butt of jokes and a humiliation of a human being, ultimately proven by his miniscule net worth and psychological inability to do much about it. It reflected a bigger shift in the public imagination that a society's value and individual happiness can and should be measured more in terms of material consumption than say productivity.
Im a child of the 90's, watched and rewatched all the films as a kid. I quite literally NEVER knew until now that Part II McFly was not Crispin Glover. Ive never in my life, even while watching the movies, even debated or had a second guess, even when watching the movies back to back. His concerns were absolutely valid, and absolutely screw that producer for continuing to try and trash talk about Mr. Glover decades later and trying to harm is professional and personal reputation. Hollywood is a cesspit, no doubt about it, but this is just disgustingly disturbing.
Well technically he is in the movie. All the scenes shot around the school dance was him. So yeah he was in it. As for the upside-down actor. I knew from the start it was not.
@@camronglenn3502he can only complain about the scenes from the original being used without his consent. He has no right to complain about character that looks like him because of some face mask. He doesnt own the George character.
@nemonucliosis While Crispin doesn't own the George McFly character, Crispin does own the rights to his own face, which Bob and Bob blatantly copied by using a facial prosthetic of Crispin. Did you miss that part? That's the ONLY reason why Crispin filed the lawsuit AND why SAG has now made it illegal to use the likeness of its actors without their explicit consent.
@nemonucliosis nope he can't the studio paid him for those in the first movie amd have every legal right to use them in future releases he even admits that it was legal to use them. He sued because they used a mold of his face in the first movie and used it against to make so.eone else loom like him.
The movie industry did him so dirty... He could have played so many great characters. Like Jim Carry and Johnny Depp level. It's unfair what they did to him
He didn’t sell his soul which is amazing also $750,000 in 1990 is the equivalent buying power of $1.8 billion. That’s huge! Properly invested he was set
He's fine. He's since done much more in the movie industry than Bob Gale has. Crispin has 73 acting credits. That's not a lot for an actor, but Bob Gale only has 31 credits, and about 2/3rds of that is Back The The Future related. Most of which he didn't actually work on. Like concept credit for a Back To The Future amusement park ride.
Crispin and Billy Zane so damded under appreciated. Loved him. As the "creepy thin man" in Charlie's Angels and the one with the rats... The man is a superb thespian 🎉🎉🎉
What point? The actual message of the movie is that if you are brave, stand up for yourself and others, and use that confidence to build your life, you will become successful both in love and wealth.
I remember the point originally being, they used his likeness and wasn't paid for it. Which really is ridiculous, use his face and voice even though he didn't want to be in the movie when asked. He said no. They never should've done what they did.
Who would know this except someone reading variety or watching whatever Hollywood news? This also had to be the 1990s where the internet wasn't like it is today. I used AOL for dial up internet in the 90s so I can tell you for sure. They totally pulled a fast one on most people.
@@brianm.595 I'm not surprised no one knew about this in 1990. I'm GENUINELY surprised by the number of people who don't know about this today. Information travels faster than light now, and so, yes, if you're not aware of this by now -- you're living under a rock where no light (or information) can reach you.
No matter where I'm at or what I'm doing if Back to the Future comes on, I will find myself glued to the screen. This is probably one of my favorite movies of all time and I think Crispin Glover's portrayal of George McFly was brilliant. I'm kind of taken back by some of this silliness but many times some of the greatest actors and entertainers are a little eccentric or odd. Either way I wish him well and hope that he continues his acting career.
From what I've seen of him in interviews and such I have no doubt that he had outlandish demands to be in the sequel, but his case about them using his face without his permission is valid.
I always liked his acting, hes very animated, and you get the impression that hes very much into what he does as a craft. Whenever one gets into something with passion, approaching it as a craftsmen/artist/engineer, usually end up with something special.
I disagree with crispins take on the end of the movie. It's not about money buys happiness, but more about how being confident in yourself changes your life for the better. The mcflys can't have been much better off financially or they'd be living in a different house. Instead, marty returns to find the family in the same house but presented in a better way with parents who are much more confident and actually care about their lives. I do however agree with crispins law suit about using his likeness without his permission.
Even if they are still living in the same house, in the same neighborhood…. The quality of both can be simply dependent on the effort of those living in them to keep them nice…. George McFly version 2.0 is likely a community leader, active in the PTA, the Neighborhood Watch, helps put on summertime block parties, etc etc etc, rather than being an introvert recluse who thinks the man who still stares at his wife’s chest is his best friend
From what i read about him he was pretty odd and took his job a bit too serious going as far as demanding script approval on almost all his roles as if he was on the same level as say Stallone, or Murphy at the time. And at this point BTF was his biggest role. Dude had an ego and he may have been a good actor is just having a ego when your career didnt match the ego just yet. Val Kilmer is another one like this.
You're rationalizing. The McFlys are in the same house for continuity reasons, not because it's part of the message. It would be a pointless distraction if the ending included Marty figuring out where his parents actually live.
@@joelglanton6531 The truck is just another result of the positive changes George made in his life after standing up to Biff. Why is it considered a bad thing? He obviously worked hard and now he can afford nice things for his family.
I'd say talk to the people who represented him during this ordeal; it sounds like a lot of "he said she said" however, it was all going through his management. The outlandish requests for pay might've been his management thinking they could sell him for more or made the request outlandish as to get him off the film so he'd take another project. It's a bit weird when one side says, "he wants the pay of our star plus script approval" and the other side is saying, "they wanted to pay me half of the pay for the supporting characters".
I find it very hard to believe they offered him half of Tom Wilson and Lea Thompson's pay. Of course, we don't know what the script was like at that point.
@@lonesomelooch5661even if his screen time was half as a worker he can't just not want that and not accept, he is a free man, but that's no reason to commit a crime against him
You know I’ve heard stories about this guy. But these interviews are excellent. He speaks so well. This guy shoulda been a superstar all through the nineties.
It would be fun to see AI remakes of BTTF with all the original ideas that the Bob's had for all 3+ films! I hope all the actors allow them to use their Avatar doubles in them. It's not the same without all of them in it. It would be great to see Crispin in those remakes! All of his and BTTF's millions of fans would love it!!!
Say what you will about glover, but george mcfly was an Iconic memorable character. and his flamboyant-esque performance was captivating and makes you really pay attention to his movements and facial expressions. You dont get anywhere by being a doormat.
@drwang4884 I wonder if he's on the spectrum. Sure he seems weird, but he stood up for himself and is completely correct in fighting for his likeness when it was stolen.
@nodak81 bro, he mentioned it once in the 40+ years I've read about him. I literally don't have type 2 diabetes anymore because of people like him. Who cares what you think anyway, you'll never meet him. Why even comment? Is your life that pathetic? Hope it gets better dude, really.
As an actor of several decades (among many other disciplines & skills), the major things here are that Glover was correct to sue for usage of his likeness in a film he wasn't in nor being credited nor paid for. However, the CHARACTER of "George McFly" wasn't his, it belonged to the writers and studio(s). Glover's thoughts on the script(s) are perfectly fine, but that's the same as Carrie, Mark, and Harrison wondering about the scripts for SW IV-VI. Actors only have so much say in the matter, and they're only taken seriously if their ideas hit a chord with execs, producers, writers, etc. As a matter of note, the original Marty McFly actor thought the ending was "tragic" as well because his memories would have all been lies. That's how *HE* saw it. 😁 Doesn't mean it works, matters, feels right, etc. Besides, it's just a movie, so who gives a sheet. 😂🤣😂
Him suing is just a projection of his anger because he knows his overestimation of his self importance f*cked up an opportunity of a lifetime and he needs to blame someone else.
Thankfully Crispins management helped his meteoric rise to star in movies like “Hot Tub Time Machine” and “Fast Sofa” after rejecting the Back to the Future Sequels.
He was not suing over the script. That is your major point, but is not the legal issue. I find it funny, actors seem to think in reality when they are reciting a script, but not very well off the stage. If a lawyer brought your argument into court, I could tear it up my self. And I am just an engineer. (the study of reality). Your entire study, is out of reality. I think you should sue. :) Doug in Michigan.
I absolutely thought it was crispin for far longer than i should have. Also ive never liked the 2nd movie because of the biff storyline. Somewhere theres a timeline where crispin and the producers had a understanding and we got the real george mcfly
i only saw it when i was younger but i remember thinking something was off and now it makes total sense. I think the movie would have been much better with him in it and i agree i would like to know the original story because i feel it would have been much better.
A similar thing happened with Michael Biehn in Alien 3. They killed off Hicks and created a corpse using molds of Biehn's face taken from Aliens. They ended up settling to use a picture of him in the film and the corpse itself wasnt used.
Because there aren’t enough people that pay attention to things like this. Too many people are watching and making 30 second videos, most of them don’t have the attention span to sit though something like this.
Glover said about the ending of BTTF doesn't make sense. They were in already in love in the scrappy chain smoking Lorraine version but his journey was also the new confidence George found which will lead to his future success.
2:25 He had reservations about them focusing on money at the end as a stipulation of a HEA. In the original 1985 they were broke and had little prospects and one child was in jail, they were lower class. In the new ‘85 they were all doing well financially (which begs the question of Why were their adult children still living at home?) and now solid upper middle class. I understand his point but obviously the success from George’s writing career affected their lives, gave them security, provided experiences and allowed freedoms denied to them before. Who the f wouldn’t be happier???
The end of the film wasn’t about money. It was about the first events of successfully winning creating a winning environment leading them to a life of success.
Yes, it was about self-confidence. They didn’t appear to have boatloads of money either way. They lived in the same house, but with closeness and a little extra money as a bonus.
Exactly. As well as how different a relationship turns out based on the foundation of the relationship. In the original timeline, George is presented to Elaine as a lost puppy. She pities him, and though she does also love him, her recanting of that time is laced with resigned remorse. In the improved timeline, George is confident and comes to her rescue; he is able to step into the role of a protector, and it redefines the dynamics of their relationship. There is a ripple effect of that confidence, which leads to a different/improved career, and a much healthier relationship that is manifested by a brighter, cleaner house. While I agree with Crispin that adding money to the mix had the potential to take the focus from the real message (and Marty ending up with his dream truck could have been laying it on a bit thick), I think he's missing what it does visually for the film. I don't remember thinking, "Oh, they're rich now, so that's the payoff". I saw success, a more vibrant and welcoming home, and a more honest and loving relationship--all things that help to drive the core message home. To say internal changes that drastic won't have a notable external impact is a little strange. It's a visual medium and there wasn't time to show a more nuanced life and home, so the filmmakers gave the audience visual cues to make the change more pronounced. Crispin's perspective, while having some validity, is an example of a dogmatic adherence to the purity of a message compromising the communication of the spirit of the message.
@@schwaaard You're right, but I always thought it was weird how they were rich. Like, Marty caused what had appeared to be the "natural order" of his timeline to completely flip upside down. Especially what happened to Biff didn't seem realistic. But I guess that's why they left a huge gaping opening for the sequel. But then mean ol' Crispy had to ruin it for them. Poor Bobbies! 😭 */s*
🍿 Looking for a FREE TRIAL OF Amazon Prime Video? Click here and sign up: amzn.to/3VguhNH
Are you looking for*
To Crispin's point, as someone who has watched these movies casually I never realized he wasn't the actor in Part 2.
No one is denying his point. He wanted to put the production in a strangle hold, and he forced the issue. When all he had to do was compromise for a reasonable salary, for a win/win. He might have been the high brow actor he thinks he is. (I'm still trying to get the image of him trying to face kick David Letterman out of my head). 😅
Same I didn't realize until years later. It wasn't until the umpteenth time of watching it.
@@Bat_Boy I agree. This lawsuit and pettiness really changes my opinion of Crispin. He either got ahold of some petty advice, or he is himself petty.
Same here, I thought that was him.
Are you still voting Biden???? July of 24?
This is very relevant now. Companies wanted to create digital copies of actors to use them on other projects without any royalties or anything
Deepfakes
Do you have any examples? They seem to resort to bad cgi instead
Disney is doing that, but they get clearance from the actor themselves. I have no idea what type of contract deal. surely they're all similar but different. family receives this or that idk.
They would have to buy the rights to the persons image, you can't just deepfake people and make money off of it.
It's interesting how they de-age actors.
As a kid I found Crispin’s character hilarious in the first movie but always felt something was off in his portrayal in the sequel. But I assumed it was the same actor. So he is absolutely correct - the bad acting stuck to his name. Glad he is finally telling his story.
His lawsuit makes sense. I really didnt realize it wasnt him
That's because the new actor did a good job, unlike what he claims here that people would have attributed a bad performance to him.
@@IIARROWSbut it was pretty bad IMO
Won his lawsuit, but call it what it was: $760,000 in exchange for being blacklisted by Hollywood
I wouldn't say he really "won" the lawsuit itself.
Since there is no verdict of the suit, due to settlement.
He did gain some from it.
And the actors guild changed their rules based on this situation.
But it didn't officially clarify wrongdoing from the studio.
Saw a show episode that he starred in recently, wonderful performance, hope he does more stuff. Willard was the shit too
You don't need to blacklist someone who gets a reputation for being a pain in the neck. There is an exception. IF a star can get a film or TV series greenlit then they can be all sorts of a pain UNTIL they can't get that greenlight, at which pint their career nosedives. Glover was never in the position to get a project greenlit on his name alone anyway so why would any producer want to take a risk on a character actor who has a reputation for suing producers? They will hire another equally adept character actor who isn't a pain instead.
He was a pain to them for another reason and got blacklisted for outing Hollywood!
He was a nut and believe it or not your attitude and charisma are at least half of what get you work.
Dude i had no idea that wasn't him!!! They definitely succeeded in making people think he was in the movie
Right???
Who knew?
I thought it was as well...
And THAT is one of the reasons Glover chose to pursue his rights. Sure, Hollywon't used their wealth, power, connections, and influences to push back, but that doesn't make it right.
Jesus I had no idea either. Just wow.
I had no idea he wasn’t in the second movie. I feel like I’m having some sort of Mandela effect. 😆
"Hey you, get your damned hands off my likeness!" - George McFly
Bravo!
@@4k-os I actually read it with Jeorge's voice i n my mind
You think that you should swear?
@@Christrulesall2 god dammit 25 minutes late
😄😄😄
Unpopular opinion. After re-watching back to the future for the 200th time Chris Glover performance has George McFly is so greatly underappreciated for the entire fabric of the whole movie. He’s absolutely brilliant in this movie, he is the heart and soul his sympathetic, mild mannered ways, captivated me this time in a way I have never felt. I would go as far as to say he was just as good as Michael J. Fox and just as important to the movie.
This gives me more respect for Crispin here. He stood up for himself and what he believed in despite what he was up against and its effect on his career. It's a bold move most wouldn't make.
It's really too bad they wouldn't just pay the man what he was worth. He was amazing in the first film.
His performance should've garnered an Oscar nomination. He deserved that pay raise like the others.
His performance was great and then using his face on a different character that's illegal and that's why he sued I would have sued as well if they used my face from the movie before and put it on different actor. The actor that wore the mask could sue because they didn't even want to use his face
Seems like the director didn't like him personally.
He's the one who argued that money shouldn't be the reward. Seems like they called his bluff and he got bitter.
Hi story has changed a bit over the years though. I don't think either side is being 100% honest.
Crispin as George McFly was one of the most interesting part of the movie characters. I always enjoy watching his performance in that movie.
He was the very best of all the actors.
He is very intense.
When you watch his interviews you understand that he is very motivated by his craft.
I love his role in "Charlie's angels" and at first he was supposed to be a regular bad guy that would drop exposition during the fight.
He refused and thought his character should be mute with some sort of mental uniqueness, or autism.
In the end it became the best decision for the character.
He is pretty out there, intense and I can imagine that he might ruffle feathers in the bad way but I love how he acts
Exactly .. it’s not the same movie without his character
Crispen, who do you think you're fooling writing these. You were clearly the worst actor and thankfully we never had to suffer thru that again in your non career. Still nuts, huh?
and yet when someone talks about them movies its never his part. 😂
Can we just take a moment and appreciate that Crispin’s suit game is on point.
Yeah, but he's a weird narcissist, and horribly pretentious and difficult to work with.
Yes. But there was also the point that he tried to take the sequel ransom to get more money and influence.
Nowadays, when an actor (who plays an important role in a TV series) tries to negotiate a raise, they just cancel the whole series.
"Can we just take a moment and appreciate.."
Ugh...
@@youtubedj9298never mind. Their comment only got 268 more likes than yours.
@@ascgazz lol, you say that like that's a good thing?
Appealing to idiots and the lowest common denominator by copying and spamming the most cringe, cliche, and I.Q. destroying comments for idiots and children.
But hey, you got some virtual thumbs up online!
I understand his point. I never knew that it wasn't him in the second movie. That's crazy they used a real mold of his face to make prosthetics, that's like an early version of the AI stuff we're seeing now
Using the likeness of an actor without their permission is nowadays a discussion more relevant than ever. Generative AI used to emulate actors' voices and visual resemblance it's being used to cut budgets, but it's also an excuse for companies to get a bigger chunk of profit without compensating the artists. In the case of big names they are obviously being well compensated for being full scanned to the pore (for now), but emerging actors or extras are getting their faces' data scraped and being underpaid, less work just to feed the algorithms that will replace them.
During Superbowl 28, Pepsi did a commercial with a bunch of actors and actresses from old Hollywood mixed in with present-day actors. I said right then that would be the future one day and it would be problematic.
I think this went over most of our heads because everyone to busy hating on Crispin...
It really did come full circle. That was one of the major disputes of the strike. The studios wanted to own the likeness of the actors in perpetuity and use it without paying any compensation.
@@One.Zero.One101 There was a great movie about this called The Congress with Robin Wright.
Nostrachadus, is that you???
Man of all the cast members he aged the best 😮
Yo, Lea Thompson is and always was gorgeadorbz. 💪😎✌️
Nah, Doc aged best, guy looks the same at 40 years ago
He had nowhere to go but up.
@@LimeGuy101 That is very true.
@@LimeGuy101Looked 80 at 47 in the movie and now looks 81 at 85 years old
I’m with Glover on this one. As a child of the 80’s I always wondered why George McFly was dialed way back and every scene he was in seemed phoned in, it wasn’t until later in my life that I found out Glover wasn’t the one in the makeup.
Yup. It's one of the reasons he pursued his rights. Hollywon't is wealthy, powerful, and influential though. The media also bends to its will and controls the narrative to everything.
Consider "Snow White" and that Zegler clown. The media wanted her to look empowered, strong, intellectual, charming, etc. It didn't work on intelligent people, but the media did its best to paint it as if she (and the film) were going to be the best revisiting of SW ever. Fortunately, film commentators with actual ethics and intelligence exposed those manipulative tactics.
It’s fine. He was right but, he should just let it go now. Not talk about it anymore. Send everyone a nice note and gift and say I really appreciate you all and I’m glad we’ve come through this lawsuit amicably.
@@monicapowers3208 Your acting as if he's buying full page ads in newspapers and doing the rounds on late night talk shows to talk about it. These are clips spanning years from smaller interviews where he's been asked about it specifically.
I agree but we don’t know how integral George was in the original script. It’s phoned in cause they couldn’t show him too close or people would know. Which was the goal of the film maker
@@xXCdOg24Xx
Gale said in this video that George originally played a significant role in the film and then they had to dial it back and add the Biff and Lorraine married storyline. I also completely understand why the filmmakers went that route.
When I said I am with Glover i mean I agree with him when he said they tricked people into thinking he was in the film and a bad actor. I was legitimately 35 years old when I learned he wasn’t even in the film and BTTF 1&2 are in my top 10 films of all time. Even as a child I noticed how poorly George was portrayed in part 2.
Great video! But I wish you had mentioned that Glover reunited with Zemeckis on Beowulf some 22 years later! I would have loved to hear Bob and/or Crispin talk about how they buried the hatchet and got back together. Another interesting element to the story.
Much respect to Crispin for refusing to back down & for standing up for individual rights.
I consider it more as extortion. He knew that his character was far too pivotal to the plot to be recast. A recast would have been a disaster. It's easier to just write him out. Therefore all he had to do was make heavy salary demands and bam, they either have to accept or do something rash to course correct. Him making less than Lea Thompson is a no brainer; not all actors are paid equally.
@@kevintyrrell7409not extortion, its knowing your value and getting a piece of the BIG pie that is BFFT profits
Was it worth it? He stood on his principles, which I would do, but was it worth it? Lawyer took 1/3 and taxes took probably 50% so he got a nice $280k paycheck but his career is toast. Seriously he wanted script approval?
He should have realized but there’s probably on a half dozen actors who’d be considered non replaceable and he’s not one of those. Also it’s someone else’s movie not his. He’s just an actor and not a particularly remarkable one.
His ego let him miss out on being in a classic beloved movie. Doesn't sound worth it to me especially since he was talking about how the love was more important than money in the interview he was doing.
His dispute is totally valid. I had no idea!
He doesn't own the George character. His only right was his scenes from the original not being used in the second. Using a character that resembled him in the second is a grey area at best.
@@nemonucliosis did you watch the full video? They used a mold of his own face and likeness without his consent to make another actor look like him. He most certainly owns his own likeness and therein lies the main issue he’s been fighting. Had they not used the cast from his face to change the new actor’s appearance there would have been no issue. He articulates these arguments very well in the video.
@@nemonucliosis5:21 - you didn’t even make half way through 😂
@@bugsy742 it's all I need. This b-grade actor has been crying for 30+ years.
Totally agree
I've noticed whenever a director or studio and an actor have an issue. The director/studio always makes the claim that the actor asked for ridiculous things.
I feel the truth is probably somewhere in the middle... Why did everyone else take the roles but he didnt?
@@VitaKetaccording to him, they got offered fair compensation and he didn't because Bob Gale and possibly Zemeckis had a grudge against him for questioning things while filming the first movie. It's hard to know who's telling the truth but listening to him and listening to Bob Gale I tend to lead towards Crispin Glover, especially because there is no disputing that they used his prosthetic likeness and Bob Gale refuses to acknowledge they did anything wrong even though they settled. Listening to him, Bob Gale sounds like a real dick.
@@davidnappyhoose204 "Bob Gale refuses to acknowledge they did anything wrong even though they settled" - I don't know what planet you live on, but here on Earth, not having to admit any wrong doing is part of any settlement...
IMHO, I think it's because his agent screwed up the negotiations. It's common tactics for the demand to be high and the offer to be low and then work towards the middle. I think his agent started too high and the producers thought it was ridiculous. Then they made a counteroffer that was low so that they could negotiate, but Crispin took it as an insult and gave up. Lea and Tom were totally on board, so negotiations were much quicker.
Yep. However, I don't think a period goes there. That was wild stuff.
40 years latter I found out he wasn’t in the movie!!! Wow great video
When I first heard about the AI debate about using actors voices or likenesses, this was the first thing I thought of. Truly a prescient case study.
Same, and immediately searched for this comment when the video popped up 😊 👍.
When I heard that they reused his face molds, I realized Crispin has had a solid case for decades.
Yeah. Even if he had an ego problem, they were wrong to use his face and likeness without paying him.
It boils down to Glover wasn't a big enough actor to scare them into using him for 2. Gale even says as much.
From there, the situation shook out pretty naturally. Crispin didn't miscalculated Gale's level of a-holiness.
0:33 "Bob Gale, he lies about things." One of Bob Gale's biggest whoppers was Reagan's so-called reaction to seeing the Back To The Future scene where Doc Brown is surprised at hearing Reagan is President. According to Gale, Reagan laughed so hard he asked the White House theater's projectionist to play it a second time. Only that never happened. The reaction to that scene was much colder in reality, as the mention of Jane Wyman's name in the very next scene made Reagan and everyone in the room uncomfortable. The fact that Gale got the location wrong -- it was Camp David and not the White House theater where it was shown -- is another clue that he made the whole story up.
Reagan definitely loved the movie; he quoted it in his 1986 stare of the Union address. Jane Wyman was Reagan's first wife so Nancy hated any mention of her. It's entirely possible for them to rewind the line before Nancy heard the Wyman bit... even if the private screening was at Camp David, according to you, instead of the White House.
He’s very good at making up stories!
@@BrianRatkus I can imagine that what actually happened is that Reagan wanted the scene rewound to check what was said again, not out of enjoyment but to scrutinize it. There are reasons someone might rewind a scene other than the one Bob Gale claimed. What's most likely is that Bob Gale greatly exaggerated or inaccurately portrayed (intentionally or otherwise) a claim he heard about Ronald Reagan's reaction to that scene.
Reaganomics reagan? Psh. Who cares.
@@playedout148what are you a hundred years old and commenting on UA-cam?
I loved Crispin's performance and always thought the weird alternate 1985 was outside the mood and character of the movie series.
I'm 46 and probably haven't seen BTTF2 since I was a child and I had no idea that Crispen wasn't in it until I saw this video. He had every right to sue.
Yeah, I'm a casual fan of the franchise since the 80s, and its my friend's favorite movie, and neither of us had a clue until I mentioned it a couple months back.
You haven't watched it since then? Dang. That sucks.
Same 👍🤝
I didn’t know till now.
You need to see the trilogy again. It’s amazing in nostalgia! 🎉
Crispin Glover is one of the most unique actors ever. I love seeing him in movies and wish he would act more.
I’ve always appreciated Glover’s idiosyncratic approach, though I get how it might not be everyone’s cup of tea. But his lawsuit was great for actors to be able to retain their likeness rights, which is more important now than ever with the advent of AI in the industry.
Crispin had a stand out performance in Back to the Future. Part 2 pulled 388m at the box office. He was absolutely worth 2m.
Actor's should all thank Crispin, He saved a good majority of them from being screwed over by the Executives and Producers.
@@Ghoulstille How? He literally took a payout and ran. Those SAG guidelines on prosthetics are beyond worthless in today's CGI era.
Because they can be extended to apply to CGI. It has to do with a person's "likeness" only. This includes voice and face.
@@MrAnarchyMarine Bingo.
@@NoMoreBsPlease Pretty sure he set precedent which is why those guidelines were introduced, and in the most recent labor deals, were further applied to modern technology.
@@gdn86 the only precedent he set was that if you whine you can yet a payout.
There is no legal precedent being set unless you see a trial to completion.
Crispin is an actor/actresses savior. He literally saved likeness issues. I 100% support his dialogue and feelings. Sacrificed his career essentially to give the future of others more stability. And, he easily should have been paid close to Fox. There is no BTtF without HIS portrayal of the character. That second movie was rancid, and nothing that actor did came close to how Crisp played it. Too clunky and forced.
Crispin was very very good, as George mcFly - - - - - he put th ESSENCE into that character, definitely..
Come to think about it, Marty, th professor and McFly WERE th most memorable characters of th film, to my mind
Second movie was great lol. The whole trilogy was. They wrote George out of the films because they knew no one else could play him. The replacement was only in one or two scenes out of btf 2 and and btf 3. I think they did genuinely want him back, they obviously knew how good he was.
@donniem7979 I do remember he declined to do the sequel, yet they used his likeness and voice without paying him. He deserves a whole lot more, they really did a number on him.
This sounds like a film guild advocate
Not sure he saved anything long term, but not sure what came about after the last strike. I know there was some controversy around Snowpiercer season 4 because the actors all had full body scans done where it sounded like they were tricked into signing away the use of their likeness going forward.
Even if that didn’t ultimately happen, the fact they are still trying to find ways around that even in the past few years shows they never learned from this.
They did Glover dirty on this one, and then acted like he was crazy to complain
A clear example of gaslighting.
Who cares if they did him dirty? He shouldn't have been such a whiner. He should have just done the movie. He shouldn't have been difficult to work with. He's obviously a nut bag. The movie is amazing. Loved the movies who cares if he's upset. Get out of acting if you don't like it, but no, you're gonna spend your entire life complaining about it.
@Razorokc do you have a developmental delay? Fetal alcohol syndrome perhaps?
@Sloth55Chunk That's an idiotic thing to say. Has nothing to do with my comment Whatsoever, you're just purposefully being a dick for no reason. Pointless comment. Do you have a 2 inch penis?You'd have to respond like that.
@@Razorokc so can we have a mold of your face and make movies and money off it and give you nothing?
As a close, personal acquaintance of Crispin Glover, who's met him at least 3 times between 2005 and 2010, he's the entire reason people own the rights to their own likeness. He was right about Spielberg, too.
What about Spielberg?
Meeting someone three times in five years makes you a close, personal acquaintance?
With as busy as adult people's schedules can get, yeah.
3 times? That’s not close or personal 😂
You don't know Crispin, wise up
He seems far more sensible than I ever would have imagined.
Crispin's part in the first Back to the Future is soooo underrated. It wouldn't be the same without him and they should have given him more to be in the sequels. He was worth it
I['ve heard the story multiple times and it's repeated here again, he wanted Michael J Fox money which was the lead role money.
@@ilaser4064 He says in the video that he only asked for pay equal to Tom Wilson and Lea Thompson.
@@BlackHatCinephilesounds fair if that's the case. Although his part would have to remain as important throughout. Tom Wilson earned every penny they paid him and more.
@@crankfastle8138 They had to rewrite the movie and infringe on Crispin's likeness, just to not pay him fairly. All things considered, paying Crispin fairly probably would have been cheaper, and the movie would've been better with Crispin in it. Movie bosses get too bossy just for the sake of being bossy, sometimes.
@@ilaser4064 Marty was the protagonist of BTTF, but the character's that experienced the most growth and character development were his parents, specifically George. Marty at the beginning shares similar traits to George (fear or rejection), which they both overcome for different reasons, but Marty is still basically Marty when he arrives back in 85, while George overcomes his issues and then continues to grow for thirty years before they are reunited in the timeline again. The plot of the first film is initially about getting Marty back to 85, but inadvertently becomes about 'fixing' George. Marty had no future to return to if he'd have left matters alone in 55.
Glover shouldered an enormous portion of that film, whether the producers want to acknowledge that or not. If he'd failed to hold his own, sharing the screen with Fox or Lea, they'd have replaced him, like they did Stolz or the film just wouldn't have had the same magic it did, and not had the sequels. Of which the second one his character was a chief plot focus despite not being in the film.
Basically Gale inadvertently wrote a story where the protagonist ceases being the main character in the second act, and no one noticed; but when he realized he'd written two main characters, only wanted to pay one of them 'main character' money, while still demanding perfection from the other.
I didn’t know he wasn’t in the sequel until I learned about the lawsuit. That’s messed up.
Did you know Michael J. Fox played his own sister?
Considering how nuanced a performance Crispin Glover gave to part 1, I'm surprised that Michael J. Fox didn't have any input onto making sure that he came back for part two. The fact that Fox went ahead with someone who used the prosthetics that were created for Glover doesn't seem too kosher. Either we stand together or we stand alone.
I really appreciate the availability of this video and its more accurate representation of Clover's conflicts with the "Back to the Future" legal situation. In fact, this video showcases Clover in a rare form. Usually, we see the quirky essecentric, over-the-top fringe performer. Instead, we saw him as an articulate and sincere person with a definitive position to defend.
Who's Clover?
@dinosaurwoman Damn it! Thank you. Good catch. Bifocals. It looked ok then.
(dinosaur woman?) (interesting)
Again, thank you.
Met Mr. Glover at a party 25 years ago. Super nice guy.
I met him too, it was a great party🎉
You guys were at the party too? I had such a blast 🎉
Holy crap! You guys were there, too? Why didn't you say hi?! It was so much fun! 🎉
I don't remember inviting you guys. But glad you showed up and had a good time.
So it was you young people who kept me up all night? I've got you now!
Say what you want about Crispin, the use of his face molds was wrong and his lawsuit was 100% legitimate.
According to what?
@@andrewi.crocker8675the law you fool! 😂
and a thing called morals - you won’t know what that word means I understand but at least you have your answer 👍🤝
@@andrewi.crocker8675 Name, Image, Likeness....NIL. The concept wasn't around when this movie was made, but they literally used his EXACT face. Try using someone's picture to advertise a product or service.....you will hauled into court so fast it would make your head spin.
S’why he got paid
@@Dev-In-Denver123 No, as an actor you have a right to be paid whenever your likeness is used via negotiations between you the actor and the studio. Rhey dont own your likeness. Its not slavery.
The sad thing is, they could've just aged a different actor, and it wouldn't have hurt the movie. Hollywood subs out actors all the time. It was Michael J Fox's movie, after all, not Crispin's. So using the mold was really unnecessary.
A producer acting smarmy, lying and then blaming an actor? I’m shocked.
An actor expecting more then they are worth? Shocked.
@tylermcnally8232 A clown on the internet, taking a break from your talentless labor job my guy?
If it wasnt for these, we wouldnt have the worlds most loved movies.. so.. theres that..
I may be pointing out the elephant in the room but there is no way Glover was offered less than half the amount that Thomson and Wilson was. I think Glover, although maybe not outright lying, was at least exaggerating. Because At one point when they couldn't agree on something, less than half was what they were willing to give him for a cameo. And yes, the two Bobs wanted him in it at least as a cameo. But that didn't even satisfy Glover. Everyone said he was a pain to work with. So I'm leaning more towards Gale in this one. However I do agree with Glover taking legal action for them using the mold of his face.
@@GTXDash lowballing an actor is a classic shitty tactic to get them to quit before they sign on for a role, or used as a petty power play by those in control like Bob gale. Producers tried to do the same thing for Micheal Biehn in Alien 3, Sucessfully screwed over Terrence Howard in Iron man 2 who at that time was a bigger star then RDJ and should have got more money.
Crispin Glover's lawsuit against Universal and Bob Gale is the greatest justified lawsuit of all time. Back to the Future Part II was a good movie.
It was good but far from being great to the first installment of Back to the Future where Crispin played a huge part of.
If dude was smart he would have taken the role, if he was smart he wouldn't have acted as if Back to the Future was only good because of him, as if he was the main character. If he was smart and did the film he would be a legend, instead he is remembered as difficult to work with, and a self entitled dbag.
@@anthonygregory6797
At the same time, his lawsuit made the producers more accountable for using people's images without permission. Let's say for instance, you were offered a role, but you turned it down. But if someone used your likeness for a character that opted not to play, would you stand for that? Because the producers are making money off your image without your permission. No royalties, nothing.
@@MisterBourgolini I agree the producers did him dirty, and by no means do I support using someone's image without permission. Now with that said if they own the rights to something then it's legal. But I will say the actor wasn't even making any effort to work with the product, he also had this terrible ego that just made him downright unpleasant on set. Respect for what he did for the original film, but lost any and all respect for the man when I found out how he was on set, as well as how he is a egotistical man because he felt he was some legendary actor when in fact he was just getting his foot in the door. Those who become legendary actors put their ego at the door when it comes to making films. Even Johnny Depp, Morgan Freeman, or even Keanu Reaves have shown this to be possible time and time again. Obviously this is just my opinion, but both parties went at this the wrong way no matter how you look at it.
What a shame to have such a great actor and not being part of the sequel. Crispin did a tremendous job in portraying McFly.
💯
@CharlesOakley-l1x they didn't use his likeness for no reason ebert.
@@inocentpetkiller They used his likeness for continuity, not because his performance in the first movie was Olivier-like. 🤔
He was known to be a proper awkward git to work with on the first film. I'm not surprised they didn't want him back.
It was his own fault. Probably wanted more money & they gave him a reality check instead. The whole thing sounds like sour grapes. Reminds me of why we never got a proper GhostBusters 3 was because of Bill Murry.
I totally understand his point of view but I think the lawsuit hurt his career a lot more than people thinking he was in BttF2 would have
First time I've ever seen Crispin with a beard. He looks flipping majestic
100%!
Simp
I personally hate the clown, yes great actor but as egotistical as they come, he was a nightmare on filming in every film he did a total clown thinking he's the best.... Film was still great without his input
Looks like Rasputin... it's awesome
I understand Crispin’s point. Acting is an Art. He’s an artist. Imagine this happening to a singer or a painter!
Wrong analogy, it would be like a backup singer wanting to change a song to their vision.
Those are original creators. N artist is hired to play a character or writing
Yes! The other thing that they don't really get into in this video, is that an actors face is an essential part of why studios hire them, and what they get paid for. It's as much an asset to their livelihood as a contractor's tools, or a chef's recipes.
omg don't even bring that up 😭
Yes, but how you react to situations makes all the difference.
“Love should be the reward” I like that.
I don't mean to disparage Crispin Glover, but IMO that was a completely overdone reading of the ending of BTTF and typical of what you'd expect from an 'educated actor' who is much impressed with their own worldview compared to the *sigh* non actors who just DON'T understand....(insert tormented artist vibe here)
I've watched the movies, myself, since they came out in the 80's and never once did I or any of the friends and family I watched it with equate the McFly's future success and wealth with love. The point was that their success came from George finally realizing that he COULD succeed if he tried and had the courage to do so. Their deeper love came from the fact that they had a connection deeper than "Grandpa hit him with the car." There was no bond there, before. There was, later. Crispin may have sounded profound, but like Eric Stoltz trying to lament about how "Oh, Marty would be in so much torment coming back to a future he didn't know" (which you could argue about, anyway, from a movie time travel PoV), he was being far too dramatic and reading too much into it. Thankfully, neither of them were listened to, and the movie became the classic that it is today.
The butterfly effect had to happen somehow. You can't have Marty going to the past interacting with his parents and nothing has changed in the future. Marty showing up in the radiation suit had a profound and semi traumatic effect on George so of course it rippled into the future.
Love WAS the reward but so was self-confidence. That lesson allowed George to publish his stories and achieve success (inferring here I admit), wealth was tangential.
Agree with him or disagree with him about the ending of the film, it's not HIS movie to say how it should end. He's an actor in the movie he's a character in the movie but it's not HIS movie. He's paid to play a role that's written for him. That's it. Do your job and don't try to to tell the movie Creator how to make their movie... 🙄
This is a really well put together mini documentary. Subscribed.
Thanks
Crispin is a pioneer. I believe the changes by SAG to protect actors will be extremely useful to prevent studios from using AI to simulate actors in the future.
With the garbage coming out of Hollywood lately I’d rather pay to watch an AI generated fever dream drenched in uncanny valley weirdness than the untalented tripe being shoveled like shit into cinemas and on tv.
Your bleeding heart is dripping on my floor.
LMAO 😂 Crispin took the money and RAN! Those SAG changes are beyond worthless now. They don't use prosthetics, it would be done with AI deep fakes or with simple 3d models. Absolutely NOTHING in that lawsuit would help actors today.
@@fuzzbuzz6581maybe tag who the fuck your talking too.
It occurs to me that the movie studio made the likeness of George McFly adult by making the prosthetic in the first place. Using it in the second film seems like they used their own likeness, not his. The character in BF2 didn't look like him, anyway. I guess they should have just used a different actor that looked even more like him. It's a huge stretch and it was ultimately the insurance company that decided on the payout, not the movie makers.
Glover was correct for suing. It would be no different if someone produced knockoff Back to the future movie and called Return from the future with a somewhat similar storyline.
CRISPY SUED BECAUSE HE DID NOT GET WHAT HE WANTED & THAT HIS "OUTFIT" WAS USED BY A BETTER FUCKING ACTOR...
@@marathonhero negative Ghost Rider.
I've worked in on site production for several studio's duing this era and I'm fully with Crispin here having worked with him and Bob both on several occasions. Bob was always very difficult to work with and never would even hear out any valid critiques regarding script or delivery of performances. Crispin was eccentric but very kind. I do think from kning both of them most likely Crispin was just standing up for himself against somebody who was a bit of a know it all and knew he could take advantage of him.
I liked the ending and don’t agree with him. You can be happy and rich, having money definitely helps.
Being poor is miserable and puts a strain on relationships.
His not the script writer, why don’t he just stick to the acting.
@@LevelUP84 Every writer should be open to criticism. I like the end of the movie too, but never quite came to terms with the fact that Marty now lives in world he knows nothing about, he effectively has total amnesia and shares none, zero, memories with not only his family but all of his friends. People might say, "hey Marty, you remember that time we blah blah blah.." And he wont, he'll have friends he doesn't even know, have grades he never earned, injuries he knows nothing about, come to think of it, the ending is total bullshit really isn't it...
@@LevelUP84 He played the role. Do you believe that actors should have no opinions and no agency, even on roles they are performing? Should they never write or direct or be anything but puppets, either? Do you think that the second guy was better, since he seems have performed as you prefer?
I don't think it was directly cited in the negations during the recent SAG actors strike, but this case was the prelude to that strike given that the actors were mainly negotiating on the process and residual income on their likeness being used in future productions without the actor physically being there. My understanding was that non-main actors (like extras or smaller roles) in a production would get scanned and using CGI and AI, they could recreate that actor in the background to be used for a variety of other productions thereby making them wear, move, and even say things that weren't captured during the initial performance. This directly relates to how Universal still retained the molds/casts of Crispin to use in Part II thereby creating the same conundrum above. It's legally very interesting to see how Universal claimed likeness of Crispin's character while Crispin claimed he owned the likeness of his own self. This was a very early argument in the 80's and I'm disappointed there was no verdict to come from the case since, of course, it was settled out of court. Because the case did not create any legal precedent, the debate indirectly resurfaced again in the digital age during the last SAG actors strike.
They knew part II was going to be massive at the box office. They could have easily given him what he wanted. Greed, greed and greed!
How ironic though since Hollywood is massively 'red'
I always chalked up the monetary gain from the first one to evidence that George stopped letting Biff benefit from his work and reaped the rewards himself. He was the boss at the company instead of working for Biff , and Biff took his skills into the trades.
I thought he became a professional author instead of the corporate job altogether
@@potsdam28 You both are pretty much correct. But the real reason Crispin left the film was because he demanded the same pay Michael J Fox got.
this is how normal people's brains work. Crispin is a jackass. He was right about likenesses.... but there was more to this than that.
And chose to live at the same house. 🤣
@@tobybigham4196 That's not true.
He was a professional actor and part of a Union.
He knows how much money he can charge for a role.
That was just a really silly rumour started by the Producer he was suing at the time.
Hearing Crispin’s explanation of why the ending was … defective … all the more respect for Crispin. He both appreciated the fact that stories have morals and he did have a better moral in mind than the materialistic one
Except he is wrong. Lack of money is the number one issue for families and causes a lot of social issues. People who claim money cant buy happiness almost always never have to worry about it.
The McFlys at the end were hardly rich either. Well off middle class for sure but he is exaggerating his point a lot.
The actor refused a role because it wasn't paying enough while complaining that the moral of a story was too much money. Ironic.
that's bob's version of the story. he keeps saying that's what caused bob to hate him and started the whole avalanche. he also says he wanted to be in the movie but not for half of what thomas wilson and lea, which means he was ok with the ending the way it was and just had a different perspective and voiced it.
@@wellington66440 i dont know and maybe he is trying to twist the story but the fact that he said we reach to all the other actors but with crispin he reached out to his people sometimes these actors get a big head and try to make themselves feel bigger than they really are but yeah i dont condone using his likeness but also feel like is not your script you are just an actor and you signed up for it knowing what the script called for. I guess we will never know for sure.
@@andrewrichards2462 he deserved it tho it was an insult considering how central he was to the story..they just didnt want to deal with his constant participatory approach they wanted a paid to do a job actor like everyone else on set..i thought he was in the 2nd movie and i thought it was a shit preformance and choice and that script sucked///visuals were great for the time tho loved that
I honestly believe that the ending of the movie explained that his confidence made him able to achieve a better job and the confidence to ask for better pay which in turn made his life better. I don't think the sole focus was money equals happiness. There are many layers to the ending.
Also Crispin learned about the molds in the second movie when his replacement tipped him off about it. They actually worked together in a previous movie and were friends at one point
I wouldn’t think they were friends now after he said he did bad acting in part two.😅
@@elroymartinezjr😅
@@elroymartinezjrHe has to say that, whether it's true or not, as the crucial point of his case was that poor acting could be attributed to him by people that thought it was him, and that this could be damaging to his career as a result. So whether he believes that or not, he has to maintain that argument.
@@fuzzluvver69 I am aware. My commenting what I said was more a joke about him saying the friendship is no longer and that the acting is bad…
I’m embarrassed that I didn’t know they had a different actor in the Sequel.
I’m with Crispin with this one.
Did you know the part of Marty's daughter was played by Fox?
They used a different girl Marty's girlfriend as well.
@@robmetaldeth1889: So what? That character (Marty's daughter) didn't appear in the first movie and so Fox didn't "replace" any actress from the first movie. What's your point?
@@Anhviet19: Yes, but they didn't use prosthetics created from the first actress, so this is irrelevant.
@@OMA2k Dude, what are you talking about? Read the post and my reply again. Replied to someone who simply didnt know Glover wasn't in part 2. Who said anything about a replacement? Who even mentioned the first movie? Your reply to @Anhviet19 didnt make sense either. Dude, it was a recast. @Ahviet19 knew it was a recast. Who said anything about Prosthetics? You seem as lost as Glover, and HE'S been lost for 40 years.
"What I don't like in disputes like this is the typical 'he said/he said' situation. Bob Gale said Crispin asked for the same amount as Michael, while Crispin says he only asked for the same amount as Lea. At the end of the day, we, the audience, will never be sure which one of them is lying. Unfortunately, one of them definitely is. This really breaks my heart because both of them are great artists."
You have my apologies in that I said much the same thing, today, and did not remember that being a part of the video when I watched it. I was not by any means trying to copy what was said by you, or by the content creator.
With Gale's history of outlandish lies, I'm inclined to believe Glover.
Who do you believe, the boss or the worker
I’ll be honest, I trust Glover a bit more for some reason.
Crazy that I never knew this until a few years ago and I've been obsessed with them for about 35. Cool that UA-cam reveals so much I never knew and pry never would have!
I disagree with Crispen on the end of the movie. The reason George is successful is because he's confident, he's no longer being bullied by Biff. His confidence has changed his life in a positive way, success being one of them.
Exactly. In most cases, work related success which was the case for both Marty’s mum and dad, usually improves your financial situation. Then that can improve the relationship and the material thing’s that come with being successful are normal. Seems Crispin doesn’t want to see it like that. I bet he is a pain the ass to work with, but the court case where they used the likeness via the old cast of him, was justified. Cheers
What i was thinking aswell, its not asif he had the sports almanac and took adv of it.
Not to mention they still lived in the same crappy subdivision. They just presented themselves with a different image
That is what I got from the ending. He liked to write and because he gained confidence he got his writing published and became a successful author. Not sure where he gets the idea that the takeaway was money equals happiness
Plus for a guy bitching about materialism being how the movie ended it's ironic he's suing someone to get money
Crispin is a great actor and has always been criminally underrated
Crispin did the right thing, how many times have I heard the legal department of my employer say a violation of a contract is legal only to get shut down later by an arbitrator.
Yup. It's always the wealthy and powerful pushing back against the individuals who are dying on a small, insignificant hill. Glover did his best, but the media, corporate moguls, and "Hollywon't machine" NEEDED to spin this into the whole "Glover is a PITA" thing. 🙄 What else could they have possibly done? The rich *never* relinquish power. Never.
it cost him his career in acting. are you sure that was the right decision?
@@america1st721 That doesn't mean he was wrong. You're blaming the victim.
Never listen to an employer tell you their contract is iron clad and never just trust "I'm sure their lawyers know". They try shit on people all the time.
@@lindenstromberg6859 are you thick? this cost crispen millions and his reputation...
_Back to the Future_ is one of my favorite movies ever. I’ve seen the trilogy at least a couple dozen times over the past few decades and never realized Crispín Glover wasn’t in part 2.
His performance in the 1st film was so unique and memorable I can see why they felt they couldn't just replace him with another actor. But pretty shady to use his actual face without permission + payment. Some fun bits in the sequels but that first film has all the magic.
I think the second and third film also have just as much magic. 1 and 2 are just more structurally sound as films than 3 which takes a hit from being a completely different genre. But I still think they hit perfectly
Not me at 42 years old in 2024, having watched this movie at least 30 times growing up, just now realizing that wasn't Crispin Glover in Part 2 😮😮😮
Same age & multiple viewings too. No idea!?!!!!
@@smithhamilton3024 I feel like my entire life has been a lie! lol
40 and I've known this for decades...but I hyperfixate on movie facts. 😂
Hopeless
Wtffffff🎉
Huge fan of the Trilogy and i honest to god, had no clue that wasn't actually him.. I mean that alone proves his point.
He changed history for all actors, he is a hero. He is the heart of the first movie, it would not have worked without him, they just didn't want to share the success with him
I think Glover doesnt understand the ending of the first movie. it wasnt the money that made George happy and his marriage happier, it was his experiences made him more open and that allowed him to follow his dream of being a writer. He was more assertive of what he wanted, and in turn this more assertive George made Lorraine happier due to his ability communicate better. The yuppy money was an after effect of all of that. The money didnt make George happier, but a happier George more easily earned with his newfound strength and encouragement.
I think a critical thinking person would get that, an adult mind would probably get that, but a child or less astute person only knows what they see and they see a family presenting as more affluent and think "martys actions made them rich" because that's easier to fathom than something intangible like love. I see what Crispin is saying, that the riches shouldn't be the reward, and perhaps they did play up the lovey dovey stuff more because of him. I don't think that's the message of the ending either, but I can see how he could worry some would interpret it that way. Bold of him to bring it up at any rate.
The main thing going on at the end is Marty gawking at the material wealth -- the new car, the fancy yuppie clothes, the success with the book... It's what front and center -- it's hardly portrayed as just an "after effect". That's why Crispin argues it's the main message.
@@xergiok2322 So an actor making way more money than most people for pretending to be someone else gets mad because the message shouldn't be about the money? His opinion is that the rest of us shouldn't watch it and come away thinking that positive changes in your life lead to good things happening. It's not like George became the bully himself and made his money by exploiting people or by criminal activity. This guy is just another self important actor who thinks his "art" has to be important beyond just entertainment. Ever notice it's always people like this who say money can't buy happiness as they live like royalty?
@@jeffparent3988 It seems the film's context proves more the emphasis on the material difference. Because of the buildup to the end, and the contrast to the "alternate" 1985 from the beginning, its clear the material goods were the pinnacle of Marty McFly getting his just reward and revenge on Biff. The point was clear that a genuine love and respect between the parents was not enough, but to reinforce the audiences' perception at the time of the "Greed is good" 1980s; i.e. the ideal of realizing every consumeristic impulse and acquiring status symbols PROVING you made it. And the corollary to that is depicting alternate Biff, who didn't "make it" and becomes the butt of jokes and a humiliation of a human being, ultimately proven by his miniscule net worth and psychological inability to do much about it.
It reflected a bigger shift in the public imagination that a society's value and individual happiness can and should be measured more in terms of material consumption than say productivity.
Bingo!
Im a child of the 90's, watched and rewatched all the films as a kid. I quite literally NEVER knew until now that Part II McFly was not Crispin Glover. Ive never in my life, even while watching the movies, even debated or had a second guess, even when watching the movies back to back.
His concerns were absolutely valid, and absolutely screw that producer for continuing to try and trash talk about Mr. Glover decades later and trying to harm is professional and personal reputation. Hollywood is a cesspit, no doubt about it, but this is just disgustingly disturbing.
LiTeRaLLy???? Oh my gosh! 😯
Well technically he is in the movie. All the scenes shot around the school dance was him. So yeah he was in it. As for the upside-down actor. I knew from the start it was not.
@@camronglenn3502he can only complain about the scenes from the original being used without his consent. He has no right to complain about character that looks like him because of some face mask. He doesnt own the George character.
@nemonucliosis While Crispin doesn't own the George McFly character, Crispin does own the rights to his own face, which Bob and Bob blatantly copied by using a facial prosthetic of Crispin. Did you miss that part? That's the ONLY reason why Crispin filed the lawsuit AND why SAG has now made it illegal to use the likeness of its actors without their explicit consent.
@nemonucliosis nope he can't the studio paid him for those in the first movie amd have every legal right to use them in future releases he even admits that it was legal to use them. He sued because they used a mold of his face in the first movie and used it against to make so.eone else loom like him.
There's a reason the first one was way better than the others
Originals are almost universally more beloved/“better” than the sequels.
Yeah, it was never meant to have a sequel.
I dislike the second one so much - saw it in the theatre - that I never even bothered watching the third.
@@r0bw00dnot true. Also, the end says ‘To-be Continued…”
@@ChescoYT The original version did not have "to be continued" at the end. That was added for the VHS release. They removed it on the DVD.
This dude is now more of the star of the movie to me now. Bravo sir, standing for what’s right.
Good work on this! Keep making videos when you can. The algorithm brought me here bc I watched some other Back to the Future videos.
The movie industry did him so dirty... He could have played so many great characters. Like Jim Carry and Johnny Depp level. It's unfair what they did to him
He didn’t sell his soul which is amazing also $750,000 in 1990 is the equivalent buying power of $1.8 billion. That’s huge! Properly invested he was set
He's fine. He's since done much more in the movie industry than Bob Gale has. Crispin has 73 acting credits. That's not a lot for an actor, but Bob Gale only has 31 credits, and about 2/3rds of that is Back The The Future related. Most of which he didn't actually work on. Like concept credit for a Back To The Future amusement park ride.
Andy Warhol sucks a big one
He was awesome in Charlie's Angel's movie!! My favorite character
I'm with Crispin on this one. The face mold is the key.
Crispin and Billy Zane so damded under appreciated. Loved him. As the "creepy thin man" in Charlie's Angels and the one with the rats... The man is a superb thespian 🎉🎉🎉
I think he has a valid point. I had no idea that he was replaced for the second movie.
Me too. I thought it was him.
What point? The actual message of the movie is that if you are brave, stand up for yourself and others, and use that confidence to build your life, you will become successful both in love and wealth.
I remember the point originally being, they used his likeness and wasn't paid for it. Which really is ridiculous, use his face and voice even though he didn't want to be in the movie when asked. He said no. They never should've done what they did.
Reading the comments here, I can't believe how many people weren't aware of this...
Same. I'd heard that Glover wasn't in 2 for "reasons", but didn't know the details until many years later.
@@vincebrogan2878 I mean I didn't know it right away either, but that was 35 years ago! I've since heard...
Who would know this except someone reading variety or watching whatever Hollywood news? This also had to be the 1990s where the internet wasn't like it is today. I used AOL for dial up internet in the 90s so I can tell you for sure. They totally pulled a fast one on most people.
@@brianm.595 I'm not surprised no one knew about this in 1990. I'm GENUINELY surprised by the number of people who don't know about this today. Information travels faster than light now, and so, yes, if you're not aware of this by now -- you're living under a rock where no light (or information) can reach you.
No matter where I'm at or what I'm doing if Back to the Future comes on, I will find myself glued to the screen. This is probably one of my favorite movies of all time and I think Crispin Glover's portrayal of George McFly was brilliant. I'm kind of taken back by some of this silliness but many times some of the greatest actors and entertainers are a little eccentric or odd. Either way I wish him well and hope that he continues his acting career.
We also deem very intelligent people as misfits, eccentric or odd. What does that make us?
1:59 "a sweep of indignation". never knew Crispin was my favorite guy
From what I've seen of him in interviews and such I have no doubt that he had outlandish demands to be in the sequel, but his case about them using his face without his permission is valid.
You know most of those interviews you seen were of him method acting right? Like the Letterman one ?
I always liked his acting, hes very animated, and you get the impression that hes very much into what he does as a craft. Whenever one gets into something with passion, approaching it as a craftsmen/artist/engineer, usually end up with something special.
Yes I think he's probably more intuitive than the Director and they don't like that.
I disagree with crispins take on the end of the movie. It's not about money buys happiness, but more about how being confident in yourself changes your life for the better. The mcflys can't have been much better off financially or they'd be living in a different house. Instead, marty returns to find the family in the same house but presented in a better way with parents who are much more confident and actually care about their lives. I do however agree with crispins law suit about using his likeness without his permission.
Even if they are still living in the same house, in the same neighborhood…. The quality of both can be simply dependent on the effort of those living in them to keep them nice…. George McFly version 2.0 is likely a community leader, active in the PTA, the Neighborhood Watch, helps put on summertime block parties, etc etc etc, rather than being an introvert recluse who thinks the man who still stares at his wife’s chest is his best friend
From what i read about him he was pretty odd and took his job a bit too serious going as far as demanding script approval on almost all his roles as if he was on the same level as say Stallone, or Murphy at the time. And at this point BTF was his biggest role. Dude had an ego and he may have been a good actor is just having a ego when your career didnt match the ego just yet. Val Kilmer is another one like this.
How do you explain the truck? It's presented like a game show prize or something.
You're rationalizing. The McFlys are in the same house for continuity reasons, not because it's part of the message. It would be a pointless distraction if the ending included Marty figuring out where his parents actually live.
@@joelglanton6531 The truck is just another result of the positive changes George made in his life after standing up to Biff. Why is it considered a bad thing? He obviously worked hard and now he can afford nice things for his family.
Must of watched this films dozens of times never knew Crispin wasn’t in the other movie. Guy definitely has a point.
I think the financial aspect at the end was to show that George took initiative that took them on a more successful path
Good point
I agree
That’s what I was thinking too
same here, i thought money followed him taking initiative, but him taking initiative is what made him successful and happy
I'd say talk to the people who represented him during this ordeal; it sounds like a lot of "he said she said" however, it was all going through his management. The outlandish requests for pay might've been his management thinking they could sell him for more or made the request outlandish as to get him off the film so he'd take another project.
It's a bit weird when one side says, "he wants the pay of our star plus script approval" and the other side is saying, "they wanted to pay me half of the pay for the supporting characters".
I was considering 'miscommunication,' but your theory seems more likely.
That’s a great point.
George had almost if not more screentime than Buff. So it's fair he asked for equal or similar pay to the other supporting cast.
I find it very hard to believe they offered him half of Tom Wilson and Lea Thompson's pay. Of course, we don't know what the script was like at that point.
@@lonesomelooch5661even if his screen time was half as a worker he can't just not want that and not accept, he is a free man, but that's no reason to commit a crime against him
You know I’ve heard stories about this guy. But these interviews are excellent. He speaks so well. This guy shoulda been a superstar all through the nineties.
It would be fun to see AI remakes of BTTF with all the original ideas that the Bob's had for all 3+ films! I hope all the actors allow them to use their Avatar doubles in them. It's not the same without all of them in it. It would be great to see Crispin in those remakes! All of his and BTTF's millions of fans would love it!!!
Say what you will about glover, but george mcfly was an Iconic memorable character. and his flamboyant-esque performance was captivating and makes you really pay attention to his movements and facial expressions. You dont get anywhere by being a doormat.
Crispin Glover never eats sugar. As a former type 2 diabetic, I respect that. He seems like the type of actor who maybe didn't sell his soul.
Yeah he seems weird but his hearts in the right place
@drwang4884 I wonder if he's on the spectrum. Sure he seems weird, but he stood up for himself and is completely correct in fighting for his likeness when it was stolen.
@nodak81 bro, he mentioned it once in the 40+ years I've read about him. I literally don't have type 2 diabetes anymore because of people like him. Who cares what you think anyway, you'll never meet him. Why even comment? Is your life that pathetic? Hope it gets better dude, really.
This dude is fire in any film he’s in..he’s very unique ☮️
I had no idea it wasn't him in part 2.. totally on his side with this one. Always been a fan of his, weird isn't bad... I like weird.
As an actor of several decades (among many other disciplines & skills), the major things here are that Glover was correct to sue for usage of his likeness in a film he wasn't in nor being credited nor paid for. However, the CHARACTER of "George McFly" wasn't his, it belonged to the writers and studio(s). Glover's thoughts on the script(s) are perfectly fine, but that's the same as Carrie, Mark, and Harrison wondering about the scripts for SW IV-VI. Actors only have so much say in the matter, and they're only taken seriously if their ideas hit a chord with execs, producers, writers, etc.
As a matter of note, the original Marty McFly actor thought the ending was "tragic" as well because his memories would have all been lies. That's how *HE* saw it. 😁 Doesn't mean it works, matters, feels right, etc. Besides, it's just a movie, so who gives a sheet. 😂🤣😂
Him suing is just a projection of his anger because he knows his overestimation of his self importance f*cked up an opportunity of a lifetime and he needs to blame someone else.
Thankfully Crispins management helped his meteoric rise to star in movies like “Hot Tub Time Machine” and “Fast Sofa” after rejecting the Back to the Future Sequels.
@@Superdisco199 Right.... lets have someone make a mold of your face and use it in a movie you are not in and let's see you use that stupid statement.
Then cast another actor and don't use his face and footage. A lot of movies did that.
He was not suing over the script. That is your major point, but is not the legal issue.
I find it funny, actors seem to think in reality when they are reciting a script, but not very well off the stage.
If a lawyer brought your argument into court, I could tear it up my self. And I am just an engineer. (the study of reality).
Your entire study, is out of reality. I think you should sue. :) Doug in Michigan.
I absolutely thought it was crispin for far longer than i should have. Also ive never liked the 2nd movie because of the biff storyline. Somewhere theres a timeline where crispin and the producers had a understanding and we got the real george mcfly
No, there is not, because Glover is a super fucking weirdo whos' wrong in every timeline.
@brutusb8004 well he was only in 1 so
i only saw it when i was younger but i remember thinking something was off and now it makes total sense. I think the movie would have been much better with him in it and i agree i would like to know the original story because i feel it would have been much better.
The second movie is actually pretty bad. The third is so much better.
goerge?
A similar thing happened with Michael Biehn in Alien 3. They killed off Hicks and created a corpse using molds of Biehn's face taken from Aliens. They ended up settling to use a picture of him in the film and the corpse itself wasnt used.
GLOVER IS INSANE
Wow great video!! Until I realized it only has 600 views or so! What!? So incredibly underated. Keep up the good work. Amazing production quality
Because there aren’t enough people that pay attention to things like this. Too many people are watching and making 30 second videos, most of them don’t have the attention span to sit though something like this.
@@moquilla1 sadly true
It’s close to a million a few days later
@@nnjjee1 wow, just checked that insane
Glover said about the ending of BTTF doesn't make sense. They were in already in love in the scrappy chain smoking Lorraine version but his journey was also the new confidence George found which will lead to his future success.
He was ignoring her for what was on TV, if you call that love then take me off the list. I'm not interested.
2:25 He had reservations about them focusing on money at the end as a stipulation of a HEA. In the original 1985 they were broke and had little prospects and one child was in jail, they were lower class. In the new ‘85 they were all doing well financially (which begs the question of Why were their adult children still living at home?) and now solid upper middle class.
I understand his point but obviously the success from George’s writing career affected their lives, gave them security, provided experiences and allowed freedoms denied to them before.
Who the f wouldn’t be happier???
@@cruzin54321I agree. And, it would make sense that this healthier relationship would promote healthier income for the family.
It's not about the critique was right or not, but about how Bob took revenge for having his script critiqued by an actor, a worker below himself
The end of the film wasn’t about money. It was about the first events of successfully winning creating a winning environment leading them to a life of success.
A life Marty now has zero memory of...
It was about overcoming self doubt and standing up for what you believe in.
He damn nears says that when he talks about his book 🙄
Yes, it was about self-confidence. They didn’t appear to have boatloads of money either way. They lived in the same house, but with closeness and a little extra money as a bonus.
Exactly. As well as how different a relationship turns out based on the foundation of the relationship. In the original timeline, George is presented to Elaine as a lost puppy. She pities him, and though she does also love him, her recanting of that time is laced with resigned remorse. In the improved timeline, George is confident and comes to her rescue; he is able to step into the role of a protector, and it redefines the dynamics of their relationship. There is a ripple effect of that confidence, which leads to a different/improved career, and a much healthier relationship that is manifested by a brighter, cleaner house. While I agree with Crispin that adding money to the mix had the potential to take the focus from the real message (and Marty ending up with his dream truck could have been laying it on a bit thick), I think he's missing what it does visually for the film. I don't remember thinking, "Oh, they're rich now, so that's the payoff". I saw success, a more vibrant and welcoming home, and a more honest and loving relationship--all things that help to drive the core message home. To say internal changes that drastic won't have a notable external impact is a little strange. It's a visual medium and there wasn't time to show a more nuanced life and home, so the filmmakers gave the audience visual cues to make the change more pronounced. Crispin's perspective, while having some validity, is an example of a dogmatic adherence to the purity of a message compromising the communication of the spirit of the message.
@@schwaaard You're right, but I always thought it was weird how they were rich.
Like, Marty caused what had appeared to be the "natural order" of his timeline to completely flip upside down. Especially what happened to Biff didn't seem realistic.
But I guess that's why they left a huge gaping opening for the sequel.
But then mean ol' Crispy had to ruin it for them. Poor Bobbies! 😭 */s*