I took the end as George becoming a real confident man over the years setting an example for his older son and wanting to care for his family and the money followed
That however is still a very materialistic view. Maybe this is an American thing that goes back to Salem and the Puritans. Wealth is a sign of the Lord's favor, while poverty is the mark of the sinner.
I NEVER took the end as a message that money equals happiness. I took it as George and Lorainne had the courage to follow their dreams, and the money followed.
What he fails to understand is that Glover's opinion makes the assumption that Marty was doing this for money. He accidenly changed his present in the past. The closest we ever see about time traveling for cash in the first movie is the joke doc makes about seeing the next World Series.
No, what you fail to realize... He made the MOVIE! He talked with the producers, directors and other actors daily. So I think he knows what the directors/ producers goals were and you on the other hand actually don't know what YOU'RE talking about!!!
Crispin admits he was naive when he was younger. I understand his point but I think he is over analyzing it. I always took it as a happier person with confidence can achieve and those results and pass it on to teaching their children to follow that path. It wasn't like they were living in a mansion, with 20 Porsches, retired with millions, etc.....
I have no problem with what Crispin was saying. He's entitled to his opinion. I'd just like to point out that the family wasn't super rich at the end. They lived in the same house What changed was that George had confidence. That confidence led to his success as an author and family man. It also led to Marty's siblings reaching their true potential. Middle class parents are capable of giving vehicles as gifts. It's not that far fetched. The 'reward" was indeed more one of bliss than monetary gain. Besides, the dangers of intentionally using the time machine for monetary gain were thoroughly addressed in the Part II. That should give Crispin some comfort.
He gets around to the point that if you do what you love and believe in yourself that you become happy and possibly successful. I don't know why he got caught up on the idea that it was a corporate/capitalist message. It's true about Part 2 as well, very interesting.
@Zach Jersey I'm not arguing against Marty having the truck: I've always seen the improvement in the family and their circumstances as flowing from George's increased self-confidence. I would like to point out that you seem to assume that a reward for Marty is going to be something physical. Couldn't it be that, as with his father, his reward is self-confidence from mastering the challenges of that weary quest?
@@Proximityillusions That is your interpretation of wealth. He became successful writer, Lorraine was happy and still in love with George and that is where the wealth really is.
@Brian Dahlen I was going to say the same thing. They appeared more financially secure, but they lived in the same house as before, not a mansion or anything like that.
but you get that the ending was altered because of Crispin Glover's (and probably many others') point that there shouldn't be a monitary reward. We can only guess but the first idea had probably been really bad.
Crispen Glover's humility and intelligence is great. Despite his career trajectory being impacted by the Back to the Future falling out, it doesn't change that he is a really great actor who I'm sure many would like to see more of. I certainly would like to see him in a high profile villain role in a Marvel or DC film. He'd be perfect as the Riddler in Batman.
There wasn't much of a difference between the family home. They didn't make more money, it appeared. The family home was basically the same. Same neighborhood. Garage, no change. Marty woke in the same room, even the same clothes. Confidence changed. That's it. They did or invested into different things. They just looked different. All the kids still lived at home. Where's the big bucks?
I never thought of it as money equals happiness. I thought that in the new/updated reality, George McFly is willing to take more risks because of self confidence. Risk = Reward
Crisping was ahead of the times with his ideology. His 20 y/o self would fit in perfect with the millennial generation of today. He challenged the writers/directors more than they cared - while the other actors went along for the ride. 80’s movies tended to be racey - bikini girls, sports cars, and teen idols. Not many were written to teach morals.
Crispin, you seem like a cool dude, but you are really reaching here. Its just a fun movie. Its ok that they had money at the end of the movie. Had you written the script, you could have tweeked things the way you would've liked, but you were just one of the actors in the movie. By the way, I don't think anybody could've played a better George Mcfly!
He wasn't just one of the actors. He played one of the most important parts in the film. Also, many actors care about the messages their films carry/project.
I agree, an actor shouldn't really disagree with the story in this type of situation. It's just a fun movie. Just trying to push your opinion over the producers will not be met nicely. Crispin is a great actor and seems like a nice guy but I don't think he has all of the pieces.
You got that right! Being broke restricts one to small things, like sleeping under a tree, being harrassed by both police and criminals and dumpster diving for food.
glad to see another perspective since the movie has been praised to be nothing short of a success story. I do see Crispin Glover's perspective (I share his bday, that's probably why), and think it COULD have been done differently, I don't believe the movie is any more tasteless because of what Glover says, but I do see it in a different light now. I think Zemeckis wanted to capture the success of doing something right the first time, but that doesn't necessarily mean money and fame.
The problem is that so many people seem to lose their heads over it. Once you have enough to remove the stress of meeting basic survival needs, chasing more is a waste of one's life. Being healthy and with the people you love is the only wealth that matters.
He doesn't spell it out right here, but after doing some research...one reason Crispin Glover objected was because an early draft of the "Back To The Future" script showed the McFlys at the ending as super-rich, with an in-house staff comprised exclusively of minorities. He didn't like the statement being made there and said so. Director Robert Zemeckis and Screenwriter Bob Gale didn't appreciate his candor, and the three men were never really on the same page after that (figuratively and literally).
NXTWomenFan yeah that’s the part of the film that he talks about in this video that was changed. And as he says that wasn’t the only one to object and I don’t think that was the big issue. However, I would say when he then asked about the monetary aspect being changed as well it was probably enough to irk Bob Gale and the others having already agreed to changing one part of the ending already.
So the characters had more money at the end! So what? Why was that such a big deal to him? If the characters became corrupt because of it then, yes, I could see his point. But they were happier and nicer people so, actually, the money really helped!
+Rain Drifter Well, I guess we all have different interpretation of the same event. From what he has said, I think that it is his sincere opinion that they could've made the Mcflys more modest, and maybe George could even buy Marty a more modest truck and Marty would still be happy about it. But still... it wouldn't make a killer ending without that killer truck! ;)
But at the end he became just like Biff ordering him around but Biff put two waxes on do jot lie to me. Exact same words in the first movie when Biff adressed him.
The 4x4 seems like a product placement on behalf of the movie for revenue. Along with all the other big ones like Pepsi, Nike etc. I’m sure it wasn’t important in original script to have them end up with a 4x4. Seems more like a business move to keep movie funded
Seems he was overthinking the end of BTTF in regards to money buys happiness. Maybe because he was seeing it from the actor's perspective and that's cool. I didn't interpret it that way at all. They may have had more money than before but they weren't wealthy; they were living a little more comfortably. This is of course due to the change in George & Lorraine's past. George was no longer the passive, awkward, nerd. After he decked Biff, Lorraine fell in love with the confident George (he was her hero as opposed to the wounded bird she felt sorry for in the alternate past), they had a happier marriage and kids were more confident and successful as well. Success made them happier, not so much the money. George's first novel was only just published in the end.
My god, he still looks like George McFly. It's weird to thinking he was playing Micheal J Foxs dad considering they are about the same age in real life.
I understand his concern as an idealistic young man. I was like him once, quite naive. And I agree with him that some people may take that materialistic message home, that money equals happiness. But I also agree with other comments here that point out how George acquired more confidence, as a result of the change of events in the past, and therefore was able to achieve the kind of success he aspired to, as well as his kids, and by extension, his wife was happier too. So after further analysis in-depth, the monetary reward aspect becomes secondary, while the accomplishments of the characters become more prominent.
Same for me. I was also naive at 20 years old. I never interpreted a materialistic message from the movie. The lesson in the movie of "If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything" does not mention anything about money.
It’s 2019 and I see this the first time. I think he misunderstood the movie ( and I can’t believe it really). Nowhere in the movie is money some kind of a reward and also the movie is a comedic movie and not to be taken so seriously. I really missed him in bttf 2 and 3 and I believe he would have added so much to it. Did he really never play some rich dude that might be happy????
The problem with Crispin Glover and if you watch his very early Letterman interviews on youtube around the time of having done Back To The Future and after. He was very crazy probably high as well in his early days. I can imagine him questioning the script and even pressuring for more money. It's one of the number 1 rules in the industry of being an actor in a film, unless you're putting the money into it, producer, director or asked for input or idea's... You do as you're told, act and go along with the script the way it's written. Yes I do believe that his questioning and wanting more than he was entitled in the time of his career, lead to his replacement in the sequels.
Love Crispin but I would like him to explain the line in the film he has . Put your mind to it and you can accomplish anything. Isnt that the point...doesn't George becoming a successful writer bring happiness over being used a door mat?
I've never thought of the ending as a money = happiness thing. I always grew up believing that Marty was able to go on his date with Jennifer in the end, based on the actions from the past.
I didnt think it was wealth fully that made him happy, his marriage work better, his career success etc. Sure it had some to do with it, but didnt Marty sort of give his dad some confidence? Put a bit of belief in himself, especially when he knocked out a big ass bully, but that was his own doing. I know its not the main point of this video that hes getting at but he touches on it
I don't think Glover questions all this. It's the symbolism. He dared to question the takeaway and just perhaps there was hostility instead of willingness to engage openly with his response. A lot of people said, they were just comfortable, living in the same house, greater quality of life. True, to a point. Yet Marty as a character is the same age as the young Glover. And being gifted a spangling-new truck is way more than the average upwardly mobile perk. He could see that.
another message was that it was fine for Doc and Marty to mess with the timeline but not Biff. Why did ruining Griffs life mean more than Marty Mcfly Jr's?
They didn't ruin Griff's life. If anything, they did him a favor. Since he was jailed for crashing into the courthouse, he didn't get to do the robbery, which would have landed him a 15 year prison sentence. Instead, he just did some property damage. Also there were two Deloreans in the third film, but the second one was already in the cave when Marty arrived in 1885 and they couldn't do anything about it since it had to stay there for Marty to find in 1955.
@@frangofett Every time they time traveled, they ruined something and had to go back and fix it, which lead to Doctor Brown literally saying he regretted building the time machine and wanted it to be destroyed. Based on that I wouldn't really say they made it seem like it was "fine" for Doc and Marty to mess with the timeline.
HELLO? McFLY? Anybody Home? Ironically, Crispin Glover is known as a great actor and received big money for other movie roles his entire career BECAUSE of his performance in this one classic movie. So life did imitate art for the man who played George McFly.
Just another Hollywood actor who has a problem with capitalism, even thought that's what makes Hollywood possible in the first place. I'm sick of hearing this. People should never feel guilty for being successful and being rewarded financially for it. Never let anyone make you feel guilty for making money and using your own money the way you choose.
What other movies has Glover been in, His acting in BTTF was so well done, he had to switch back and forth from one type of character to another, and it was believable.
GamesAndGoodMusic Well, of course they don't. But it is interesting food for thought that this message is there (very obvious one) and almost nobody picks it up because we are so use to see stuff like that. Nobody thinks "money = hapiness" when watching something like that in the movie, but this kind of "propaganda" is literary everywhere.
+richard hertz Right. And George even says "If you put your mind to it, you can achieve anything." This self assured attitude stems from that pivotal moment when he knocked Biff out at the dance. That's where his confidence comes from, like you said. And not from money.
Word on the street is Eric Stoltz was also questioning the screenplay and was more vocal about it than Crispin so Eric got the boot. There was an interview few years back where Lea Thompson said Eric hated the idea that Marty and his family got completely erased from history and was "replaced" with an alternate version of themselves even though they became some what more carefree.
that's not really why eric got booted though. michael j fox was the original choice but wasnt available because of family ties, so they went with eric stoltz. but he was really really intense and from what I've read, had a few issues with other people on set. and then michael became available so they brought him in instead
@@yourlocalmouthbreather9117 In an interview for Netflix’s The Movies That Made Us, the Back to the Future creators gave an interview about Stoltz's time as Marty McFly, where they discussed how his depressing reading of Back to the Future’s ending was part of what lost him the role. Stoltz’s interpretation was that Back to the Future was a tragedy since Marty returns to the future with an entirely new life, making him an outsider in his family. The reading may have gotten Stoltz fired, but he has a point - Marty is essentially a stranger to his own life when he returns home; he knows that his family isn’t who they were before, and while he can put the pieces together, he doesn’t know what his new life has been like for the past 17 years. In a way, Marty returning to his life in 1985 as the same teenager he was before is a plot hole. The rest of his family changed in significant ways that affected their demeanors, life goals, personalities, and dynamics, all of which would have impacted Marty’s personality as well. Stoltz’s reading of Back to the Future as a tragedy is essentially correct; Marty would be cursed with not knowing who he really is, which would be the equivalent of having retrograde amnesia, having no memory of his life before returning from the past.
I never did take the message at the end as Money=Happiness. I took the message as George and Lorraine followed their dreams and as a result, They were now out of debt and more financially secure and less wimpy. He did however admit that he was more naive back then and I think that shows growth on Crispins part. The ending of back to the future did inspire me to be a writer.
As for money making you happy i'll say this. Most of the people I know with money are constantly miserable...the poor people I know take life as it comes.
I went to one of his movie screenings and book readings and heard him speak for about 30 minutes. I am really not a fan of his films (The ones he personally produces), but have quite a bit of respect for his conceptualization of acting as a craft to sponsor his personal art.
So says the guy with the money... and Oprah for that matter. I question the validity of that argument and the one made in The Secret. It's a chicken and the egg situation. A bit of weak anthropic principal to the root my problem with that logic.
Crispin is in too deep here. It was a Toyota. In 1985, a Toyota was not a status symbol. It was probably a product placement as I am sure Toyota at the time wanted young people to buy their products, but it was no more of a "wealth" thing than the Pepsi product placements. Had they featured a 911 or a Corvette, maybe I would go with it. But a Toyota truck in 1985? Nope. Cheapest thing with the smallest engine you could buy that wouldn't fall apart in a few months. If anything the message was "fuel efficiency is cool" or maybe "Toyotas are cool". The scene where Marty bails on the race against a NA truck (think it might have been a Ford) reinforces this.
He was great in the first Back to the Future. Definitely did him wrong with what they did in the second. Still had a great career, excellent character actor. Thin Man gave the Angel movies a weird fun bad guy, and he is great as Mr World in American Gods.
Always thought the whole reward at the end of Back to the Future being wealth was pretty shitty. That and the fact that George basically becomes the bully to Biff. Other then that I love the movie.
Sounds like all Crispin Glover wanted to do is challenge Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale on everything and Create unnecessary drama, Instead of just doing doing what He was hired to do. It's no wonder things went the way they did. Either do the job you were offered or take the train.
He has a point about the wealth thing. Marty's family seemed really distant and surreal when he went back to the future. His siblings where in suits and didn't feel like his loving siblings. Just some suits in a kitchen. I think they wanted to show how George was a success in the new timeline but having everything just back to normal would have worked better. He had his family and love so was a success all along. It would also prevent some paradox plotholes based on things changing. The time logic here contradicts the fork in the road logic we see in part 2. With part 2 logic there would be a timeline where marty disapeared and never returned to 85 as he went down this wealth fork when things changed in 55. Really interesting interview. Points of view BTTF fans don't get in the biased DVD extras.
I always found it odd that seeing how successful his siblings were with his brother declaring I always wear a suit, why were they still living at home and not out on their own
I think part of the "distant and surreal" feeling might be the reality that, at the end, his family has completely different memories of Marty's childhood than what Marty has, as Marty grew up in the other timeline.
I don't agree with everything Crispin's saying; however the Back to the Future sequels missed him. His performance was GOLD in the original movie. Shame they could not bring him back. Bigger shame that with the reduction of 'George' came the reduction of 'Loraine'. Collateral damage was less Lea Thompson in the sequels.
The ending reward wasn't wealth, it was confidence. They weren't rich. Glover misses the entire point. His character had the confidence to write a novel. That might lead to wealth, but George did follow what he loved; he wrote the book. Glover is trying to sound smart by disparaging wealth.
I don't think he's disparaging wealth. He doesn't equate success only with wealth. Therefore he questioned the takeaway from the shiny 4x4 symbolism gifted to a kid. His character's kid. Gifted by his character.
I don't believe it was implied that the maid was black. Also, There was a line that implied that the McFly's were having a mansion built which was also removed.
Based on what I am hearing from you, I beg to differ, my friend. George married Lorraine, and they were happy. George did what he love-which was writing, and the money followed.
But that's what credits are for....if ur name was in credits. Then u would have a solid case....otherwise..the writers wrote and casters cast....actors act.
I think Crispin honestly missed the point. The ending wasn't even about wealth at all. Not sure where he got that. The McFlys lived in the exact same house in the same neighborhood. It was just better kept and cleaner, and they were more successful and happy in life. It was George's CONFIDENCE IN HIMSELF that caused them to have a better life, not his money, despite that it may have been a side effect considering he was able to publish a book and have Biff work for him. They may not have had MORE money, but were definitely wiser in how they used it.
I can't say for sure whether he is lying about this or not as it's his word against someone else's but I do completely agree with what he is trying to say. The money was never really a factor in the movie, if the plot of the story was to go back in time to earn some money I could understand that being the outcome but it happening by coincidence does send the wrong kind of message. Mind you, having said that I never really noticed it before either.
It's such a funny coincidence they just put up this video talking to Crispin about the film, just this morning as with many thoughts that seem to come back to us at random moments, out of the blue, I was picturing the ohh so cool moment when his character George decks Biff :) .
I like Crispin Glover a lot, but what he needs to realize is that Zemeckis and company were being true to the times, and the unfortunate truth about the Reagan-era 1980's is that greed was the big fixation. With that being the case, I think it's safe to assume that it wasn't their intention to promote the wealthy lifestyle; although, Glover does make some interesting points when discussing the film's conclusion. I just have a good understanding of what the filmmakers were doing in those regards.
so u would say that in presenting the movie ending that zemeckis & company chose to go with, they were merely reflecting the values of that time, and were not responsible in any way for affirming or further normalizing / idealizing those values?
The country was prosperous in the 80s. And yes, overconsumption, borrowing from banks, etc became huge. But to assign "greed" to Reagan isnt entirely fair. Those are the choices of individuals. I can just as easily say the LBJ era sparked greed and envy.
on the subject matter.. i feel what he is feeling, he basically feels that he wouldnt mind if there was monetary reward if only it wasnt so typical and repetitive in movies and TV (which makes it harmful propaganda).
They still lived in the same house at the end of the movie. The monetary gain was not massive. It was a physical way to SHOW the changes without a deep explanation. It’s a movie. I love Crispin but I don’t agree with that aspect of his commentary.
I think in his accounts, he's airing the inside experience: that he asked open questions and was met with hostility. In the clear context of a highly materialistic decade, assumptions about value. He's not dismissing the storyline imv. Perhaps there could've been more nuance. What followed was the strange replacement in II and he's entitled to make his own sense of this. And yet reflecting on the plotline of the sequel, how money corrupts hideously, just maybe his ideological questions had more influence than is generally acknowledged. He saw it from a 20 year old's point of view. I guess this was naïve and even unwelcome to the writers.
I do get what he is saying, but I think a better solution would have been to dive more into the consequences of time travel more than the films already did. Marty Mcfly came home to a new 1985 and didn't recognize his family anymore. His brother, sister, mom, and dad were all different people. Who cares about them being rich all of a sudden. Marty Mcfly doesn't even know them anymore.
nah, he just gets hit with the surprise of seeing his family changed for the better, they are all healthier and happy, and they ask Marty something in the lines of "where have you been?...why you are surprised?" just like the pictures faded when they erased the past the memories would eventually come into his mind...if time travel were true
Eddy Limongi The memories wouldn't come back to the Marty who came home to a rich family. The Marty with the rich family is back in 1955. The new Marty(our Marty) takes his place.
I took the end as George becoming a real confident man over the years setting an example for his older son and wanting to care for his family and the money followed
That's exactly how I think about the ending however, Crispin Clover is(was) an idealist and at that point and maybe over thought the ending.
@@Douglas_Hamilton It was the Reagan days, I'm sure the vibe of the ending was different back then.
That however is still a very materialistic view. Maybe this is an American thing that goes back to Salem and the Puritans. Wealth is a sign of the Lord's favor, while poverty is the mark of the sinner.
So Crispin basically created the likeness copyright law. Nice!
I NEVER took the end as a message that money equals happiness. I took it as George and Lorainne had the courage to follow their dreams, and the money followed.
Same here. What he fails to realize is, that his interpretation is actually just his opinion.
What he fails to understand is that Glover's opinion makes the assumption that Marty was doing this for money. He accidenly changed his present in the past. The closest we ever see about time traveling for cash in the first movie is the joke doc makes about seeing the next World Series.
Same here.
No, what you fail to realize... He made the MOVIE! He talked with the producers, directors and other actors daily. So I think he knows what the directors/ producers goals were and you on the other hand actually don't know what YOU'RE talking about!!!
Well, I think Zemeckis mentioned in a documantary when making the second and third BTF that the first BTF’s ending is too materialist
Crispin admits he was naive when he was younger. I understand his point but I think he is over analyzing it. I always took it as a happier person with confidence can achieve and those results and pass it on to teaching their children to follow that path. It wasn't like they were living in a mansion, with 20 Porsches, retired with millions, etc.....
I agree totally.
having an opinion doesn't mean you should be penalized for it. It seems the director and producer are too thin-skinned
I have no problem with what Crispin was saying. He's entitled to his opinion.
I'd just like to point out that the family wasn't super rich at the end. They lived in the same house What changed was that George had confidence. That confidence led to his success as an author and family man. It also led to Marty's siblings reaching their true potential. Middle class parents are capable of giving vehicles as gifts. It's not that far fetched. The 'reward" was indeed more one of bliss than monetary gain.
Besides, the dangers of intentionally using the time machine for monetary gain were thoroughly addressed in the Part II. That should give Crispin some comfort.
That's because things were changed... we don't know the original ending.
Well they did listened some of his questions and changed it a bit, the true ending was quite different.
He gets around to the point that if you do what you love and believe in yourself that you become happy and possibly successful. I don't know why he got caught up on the idea that it was a corporate/capitalist message. It's true about Part 2 as well, very interesting.
@Zach Jersey I'm not arguing against Marty having the truck: I've always seen the improvement in the family and their circumstances as flowing from George's increased self-confidence. I would like to point out that you seem to assume that a reward for Marty is going to be something physical. Couldn't it be that, as with his father, his reward is self-confidence from mastering the challenges of that weary quest?
A middle class family buying a brand spanking new 4x4 truck for their newly licensed teen son is a common thing? Hmmm...
The family didn't become "wealthy" in the end, they were out of debt and financially secure thanks to George becoming a confidant and responsible man.
They had a BMW and they bought their 17-year-old son a brand new 4x4 truck. The McFlys were wealthy!
@@Proximityillusions That is your interpretation of wealth. He became successful writer, Lorraine was happy and still in love with George and that is where the wealth really is.
@Brian Dahlen I was going to say the same thing. They appeared more financially secure, but they lived in the same house as before, not a mansion or anything like that.
@Mekehl Lane And we don't have time machines either dumbass.
but you get that the ending was altered because of Crispin Glover's (and probably many others') point that there shouldn't be a monitary reward. We can only guess but the first idea had probably been really bad.
"Hey you get your damn hands off her. Do I really have to swear?"
"Yes goddamn it George swear."
That was a GREAT line!
HEY MCFLY!
Your shoes are not tied .
You wouldn't want that, would you?......WOULD YOU?
THINK Mcfly! Think!
Hey McFly! Hey im talking to you ,you Irish bug
@Long Beach Anonymous You got the place fixed up real nice though Mcfly
Crispen Glover's humility and intelligence is great. Despite his career trajectory being impacted by the Back to the Future falling out, it doesn't change that he is a really great actor who I'm sure many would like to see more of. I certainly would like to see him in a high profile villain role in a Marvel or DC film. He'd be perfect as the Riddler in Batman.
As the riddler perhaps not, but as a totally new villain never seen before absolutely ! :)
stop reading other peoples comments and pretending they are your own. you've been found out.
Now I wish he had a longer , more vocal role in Charlie's Angels movies. He does have the intensity and intriguing quality to play a strong villain.
SURE THING ! WE'LL LOVE TO SEE HIM AS A VILLAIN AND THE RIDDLER IS A GREAT IDEA.
There wasn't much of a difference between the family home. They didn't make more money, it appeared. The family home was basically the same. Same neighborhood. Garage, no change. Marty woke in the same room, even the same clothes. Confidence changed. That's it. They did or invested into different things. They just looked different. All the kids still lived at home. Where's the big bucks?
He hasn't aged at all.
yes he has.
shame on you for lying
TwilightVomit Propaganda!!
@@deathofasalestactic 😂😂😂😂😂
@@Kev-wa10-163 me 5 years ago would never have thought that he would be entertaining John j in the future!
@@deathofasalestactic yeah it sure made me laugh😀
Back to the future isn’t back to the future without Crispin Glover
I never thought of it as money equals happiness. I thought that in the new/updated reality, George McFly is willing to take more risks because of self confidence.
Risk = Reward
yeah because they changed the ending. Crispin Glover is still not happy but it seems better than their old/first idea
Crisping was ahead of the times with his ideology. His 20 y/o self would fit in perfect with the millennial generation of today. He challenged the writers/directors more than they cared - while the other actors went along for the ride. 80’s movies tended to be racey - bikini girls, sports cars, and teen idols. Not many were written to teach morals.
Millenials huh? They're your idols?
@@nenabunena Like it or not, they're your governments future at some point.
Crispin, you seem like a cool dude, but you are really reaching here. Its just a fun movie. Its ok that they had money at the end of the movie. Had you written the script, you could have tweeked things the way you would've liked, but you were just one of the actors in the movie. By the way, I don't think anybody could've played a better George Mcfly!
He wasn't just one of the actors. He played one of the most important parts in the film. Also, many actors care about the messages their films carry/project.
I agree, an actor shouldn't really disagree with the story in this type of situation. It's just a fun movie. Just trying to push your opinion over the producers will not be met nicely. Crispin is a great actor and seems like a nice guy but I don't think he has all of the pieces.
This is the most honest I've ever heard an actor speak. They're mostly all trained to say they love everybody and everything. Life isn't a movie.
How do you know he didn't ask for a lot of money?his character is in the movie.if they didn't want him then don't write him in the screenplay
👍🏻
True, you will rarely see that today or even in the last 20 years. Dont want to get black-balled.
@Auseum Highlights No, he didn't ask for double than what Micheal J Fox was making. That's a misinterpretation
That's his opinion. But life has taught me money *may* not bring happiness, but being broke is damned miserable!
You got that right! Being broke restricts one to small things, like sleeping under a tree, being harrassed by both police and criminals and dumpster diving for food.
@J Wil Yep, doesn't bring happiness but sure takes the sting out of being poor.
xiaochicash I was broke my hole life. I was getting thick of it and learned how to make, and deal with, money. Now my life is so much richer.
George McFly was just so innocent, and I could not imagine him being so happy over money. What made him happy was being with his family.
glad to see another perspective since the movie has been praised to be nothing short of a success story. I do see Crispin Glover's perspective (I share his bday, that's probably why), and think it COULD have been done differently, I don't believe the movie is any more tasteless because of what Glover says, but I do see it in a different light now. I think Zemeckis wanted to capture the success of doing something right the first time, but that doesn't necessarily mean money and fame.
Money may not make you happy, but it sure makes your misery much more comfortable.
The problem is that so many people seem to lose their heads over it. Once you have enough to remove the stress of meeting basic survival needs, chasing more is a waste of one's life. Being healthy and with the people you love is the only wealth that matters.
@Emmanuele Spataro Lots of people with a ton of money are also depressed. It's definitely not a guarantee.
He doesn't spell it out right here, but after doing some research...one reason Crispin Glover objected was because an early draft of the "Back To The Future" script showed the McFlys at the ending as super-rich, with an in-house staff comprised exclusively of minorities. He didn't like the statement being made there and said so. Director Robert Zemeckis and Screenwriter Bob Gale didn't appreciate his candor, and the three men were never really on the same page after that (figuratively and literally).
NXTWomenFan yeah that’s the part of the film that he talks about in this video that was changed. And as he says that wasn’t the only one to object and I don’t think that was the big issue. However, I would say when he then asked about the monetary aspect being changed as well it was probably enough to irk Bob Gale and the others having already agreed to changing one part of the ending already.
When he decked Biff, it made my year.
The guy had the chance of a lifetime working on a Steven Spielberg production, and blows it.
He's a moron. Who is he to question Spielberg when it comes to writing?
So the characters had more money at the end! So what? Why was that such a big deal to him? If the characters became corrupt because of it then, yes, I could see his point. But they were happier and nicer people so, actually, the money really helped!
+Rain Drifter Well, I guess we all have different interpretation of the same event. From what he has said, I think that it is his sincere opinion that they could've made the Mcflys more modest, and maybe George could even buy Marty a more modest truck and Marty would still be happy about it.
But still... it wouldn't make a killer ending without that killer truck! ;)
But at the end he became just like Biff ordering him around but Biff put two waxes on do jot lie to me. Exact same words in the first movie when Biff adressed him.
He’s too serious for a fun movie made in the 80s
Lea Thompson calls him a genius.......I agree....
Back to the future is the shit! No reboot!
Why not? If they can deliver a good reboot, I'd like to see it.
The 4x4 seems like a product placement on behalf of the movie for revenue. Along with all the other big ones like Pepsi, Nike etc. I’m sure it wasn’t important in original script to have them end up with a 4x4. Seems more like a business move to keep movie funded
Burger King, RCA as well, and many more!
Seems he was overthinking the end of BTTF in regards to money buys happiness. Maybe because he was seeing it from the actor's perspective and that's cool. I didn't interpret it that way at all. They may have had more money than before but they weren't wealthy; they were living a little more comfortably. This is of course due to the change in George & Lorraine's past. George was no longer the passive, awkward, nerd. After he decked Biff, Lorraine fell in love with the confident George (he was her hero as opposed to the wounded bird she felt sorry for in the alternate past), they had a happier marriage and kids were more confident and successful as well. Success made them happier, not so much the money. George's first novel was only just published in the end.
My god, he still looks like George McFly. It's weird to thinking he was playing Micheal J Foxs dad considering they are about the same age in real life.
i think hollywood (and the world for that matter) needs more people with this mindset
I understand his concern as an idealistic young man. I was like him once, quite naive. And I agree with him that some people may take that materialistic message home, that money equals happiness. But I also agree with other comments here that point out how George acquired more confidence, as a result of the change of events in the past, and therefore was able to achieve the kind of success he aspired to, as well as his kids, and by extension, his wife was happier too. So after further analysis in-depth, the monetary reward aspect becomes secondary, while the accomplishments of the characters become more prominent.
Same for me. I was also naive at 20 years old. I never interpreted a materialistic message from the movie. The lesson in the movie of "If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything" does not mention anything about money.
doesn't look a day older
The moral of the story is that self doubt leads to misery and believing in yourself and doing the right thing leads to happiness
Thank you Crispin for being aware and speaking the truth as best as you know it to be.
He is so smart and charismatic , my perfect man .
It’s 2019 and I see this the first time. I think he misunderstood the movie ( and I can’t believe it really). Nowhere in the movie is money some kind of a reward and also the movie is a comedic movie and not to be taken so seriously. I really missed him in bttf 2 and 3 and I believe he would have added so much to it. Did he really never play some rich dude that might be happy????
This was in the 80's. It was all about being wealthy (=happy). American Psycho portrayed that pretty well (in an over the top kinda way).
The problem with Crispin Glover and if you watch his very early Letterman interviews on youtube around the time of having done Back To The Future and after. He was very crazy probably high as well in his early days. I can imagine him questioning the script and even pressuring for more money.
It's one of the number 1 rules in the industry of being an actor in a film, unless you're putting the money into it, producer, director or asked for input or idea's... You do as you're told, act and go along with the script the way it's written.
Yes I do believe that his questioning and wanting more than he was entitled in the time of his career, lead to his replacement in the sequels.
Love Crispin but I would like him to explain the line in the film he has . Put your mind to it and you can accomplish anything. Isnt that the point...doesn't George becoming a successful writer bring happiness over being used a door mat?
wow, respect gained for glover!
I've never thought of the ending as a money = happiness thing. I always grew up believing that Marty was able to go on his date with Jennifer in the end, based on the actions from the past.
I didnt think it was wealth fully that made him happy, his marriage work better, his career success etc. Sure it had some to do with it, but didnt Marty sort of give his dad some confidence? Put a bit of belief in himself, especially when he knocked out a big ass bully, but that was his own doing. I know its not the main point of this video that hes getting at but he touches on it
I don't think Glover questions all this. It's the symbolism. He dared to question the takeaway and just perhaps there was hostility instead of willingness to engage openly with his response.
A lot of people said, they were just comfortable, living in the same house, greater quality of life. True, to a point. Yet Marty as a character is the same age as the young Glover. And being gifted a spangling-new truck is way more than the average upwardly mobile perk. He could see that.
Crispin is probably THE MOST INTERESTING GUY in Hollywood. He fascinates me, and always has great stories.
Great guy.
Great actor
I want him to read me a book.
I want him to sing me a lullaby 😂
yasmin alsaffar I want him
Same
yasmin alsaffar same
B-dan +
I agree with him. The reference to wealth , was just too conspicuous, which then emphasized wealth.
They did try to fix this message in the 2nd movie.
He is so right in what he is saying, BUT the second film sort of has the opposite message: The wealth of one can lead to the sadness of many.
another message was that it was fine for Doc and Marty to mess with the timeline but not Biff. Why did ruining Griffs life mean more than Marty Mcfly Jr's?
@@frangofett and there should have been 2 deloreans in the third film but they keep that quiet
They didn't ruin Griff's life. If anything, they did him a favor. Since he was jailed for crashing into the courthouse, he didn't get to do the robbery, which would have landed him a 15 year prison sentence. Instead, he just did some property damage.
Also there were two Deloreans in the third film, but the second one was already in the cave when Marty arrived in 1885 and they couldn't do anything about it since it had to stay there for Marty to find in 1955.
@@frangofett Every time they time traveled, they ruined something and had to go back and fix it, which lead to Doctor Brown literally saying he regretted building the time machine and wanted it to be destroyed. Based on that I wouldn't really say they made it seem like it was "fine" for Doc and Marty to mess with the timeline.
It's Just Bree The only reason for Doc taking Marty to the future was for him to change the timeline for his kids.
Dont like how the female twice had questions, and the male interviewer just looks at her and continues .....ignoring her completely.
Sort it out.
Equality . She was talking rubbish so he changed the tempo.
Equality. Includes courtesy and listening
Kind of makes sense what he's saying, with the "Power of Love" being a big song in the movie. :)
He makes a great point
HELLO? McFLY? Anybody Home? Ironically, Crispin Glover is known as a great actor and received big money for other movie roles his entire career BECAUSE of his performance in this one classic movie. So life did imitate art for the man who played George McFly.
They need too leave this trilogy alone someone will get the idea to do a remake and mess it up
You mean @$!# it up completely
Even as a kid it bothered me that Marty is rewarded with a truck at the end. Nobody needs such a monstrosity, let alone a teenager.
Just another Hollywood actor who has a problem with capitalism, even thought that's what makes Hollywood possible in the first place. I'm sick of hearing this. People should never feel guilty for being successful and being rewarded financially for it. Never let anyone make you feel guilty for making money and using your own money the way you choose.
What other movies has Glover been in, His acting in BTTF was so well done, he had to switch back and forth from one type of character to another, and it was believable.
@Jonathan Kent Thanks, I'll be sure to check that out.
He had a small part in Epic Movie where he was genius. Also check him out in Charlies Angels.
no ones watches BTTF and think "money = happiness" people just think about how fun of a movie they just watched was
GamesAndGoodMusic Well, of course they don't. But it is interesting food for thought that this message is there (very obvious one) and almost nobody picks it up because we are so use to see stuff like that. Nobody thinks "money = hapiness" when watching something like that in the movie, but this kind of "propaganda" is literary everywhere.
+richard hertz Right. And George even says "If you put your mind to it, you can achieve anything." This self assured attitude stems from that pivotal moment when he knocked Biff out at the dance. That's where his confidence comes from, like you said. And not from money.
They watch it to find out how to get back to the future 😎
Word on the street is Eric Stoltz was also questioning the screenplay and was more vocal about it than Crispin so Eric got the boot. There was an interview few years back where Lea Thompson said Eric hated the idea that Marty and his family got completely erased from history and was "replaced" with an alternate version of themselves even though they became some what more carefree.
that's not really why eric got booted though. michael j fox was the original choice but wasnt available because of family ties, so they went with eric stoltz. but he was really really intense and from what I've read, had a few issues with other people on set. and then michael became available so they brought him in instead
@@yourlocalmouthbreather9117 In an interview for Netflix’s The Movies That Made Us, the Back to the Future creators gave an interview about Stoltz's time as Marty McFly, where they discussed how his depressing reading of Back to the Future’s ending was part of what lost him the role. Stoltz’s interpretation was that Back to the Future was a tragedy since Marty returns to the future with an entirely new life, making him an outsider in his family. The reading may have gotten Stoltz fired, but he has a point - Marty is essentially a stranger to his own life when he returns home; he knows that his family isn’t who they were before, and while he can put the pieces together, he doesn’t know what his new life has been like for the past 17 years. In a way, Marty returning to his life in 1985 as the same teenager he was before is a plot hole. The rest of his family changed in significant ways that affected their demeanors, life goals, personalities, and dynamics, all of which would have impacted Marty’s personality as well. Stoltz’s reading of Back to the Future as a tragedy is essentially correct; Marty would be cursed with not knowing who he really is, which would be the equivalent of having retrograde amnesia, having no memory of his life before returning from the past.
I never did take the message at the end as Money=Happiness. I took the message as George and Lorraine followed their dreams and as a result, They were now out of debt and more financially secure and less wimpy. He did however admit that he was more naive back then and I think that shows growth on Crispins part. The ending of back to the future did inspire me to be a writer.
I've been poor. No fun.
I'm in the top 15th percentile now and life's much more comfy. Money is not an issue.
Crispin Glover is a genius
As for money making you happy i'll say this. Most of the people I know with money are constantly miserable...the poor people I know take life as it comes.
Listen to his (Crispin's) audio commentary on the "WILLARD" dvd
Let’s not forget that he was in the Spice Girls movie.
I went to one of his movie screenings and book readings and heard him speak for about 30 minutes. I am really not a fan of his films (The ones he personally produces), but have quite a bit of respect for his conceptualization of acting as a craft to sponsor his personal art.
So because in his view money is bad I assume he worked for minimum wage on the film and gave away his compensation from his lawsuit?
He never said money was bad, in fact he said who doesn't want to make a lot of money?
very interesting, i see his point and i think they could've taken his suggestion and maybe compromise.
Glad to see him finally explaining what happened all those years ago.
So says the guy with the money... and Oprah for that matter. I question the validity of that argument and the one made in The Secret. It's a chicken and the egg situation. A bit of weak anthropic principal to the root my problem with that logic.
Can you be a socialist and not realise it?
For many years I thought this actor hadn't been part of BTTF 2 because of money... It's great to finnaly know his version of the facts.
Crispin is in too deep here. It was a Toyota. In 1985, a Toyota was not a status symbol. It was probably a product placement as I am sure Toyota at the time wanted young people to buy their products, but it was no more of a "wealth" thing than the Pepsi product placements. Had they featured a 911 or a Corvette, maybe I would go with it. But a Toyota truck in 1985? Nope. Cheapest thing with the smallest engine you could buy that wouldn't fall apart in a few months. If anything the message was "fuel efficiency is cool" or maybe "Toyotas are cool". The scene where Marty bails on the race against a NA truck (think it might have been a Ford) reinforces this.
He was great in the first Back to the Future. Definitely did him wrong with what they did in the second. Still had a great career, excellent character actor. Thin Man gave the Angel movies a weird fun bad guy, and he is great as Mr World in American Gods.
This was great! Thanks @IGN!
Important lawsuit tbh. Yet we still have Aubrey hebburn advertising chocolate and Tupac advertising shitFestivals
Always thought the whole reward at the end of Back to the Future being wealth was pretty shitty. That and the fact that George basically becomes the bully to Biff. Other then that I love the movie.
Sounds like all Crispin Glover wanted to do is challenge Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale on everything and Create unnecessary drama, Instead of just doing doing what He was hired to do. It's no wonder things went the way they did. Either do the job you were offered or take the train.
He has a point about the wealth thing. Marty's family seemed really distant and surreal when he went back to the future. His siblings where in suits and didn't feel like his loving siblings. Just some suits in a kitchen. I think they wanted to show how George was a success in the new timeline but having everything just back to normal would have worked better. He had his family and love so was a success all along. It would also prevent some paradox plotholes based on things changing. The time logic here contradicts the fork in the road logic we see in part 2. With part 2 logic there would be a timeline where marty disapeared and never returned to 85 as he went down this wealth fork when things changed in 55. Really interesting interview. Points of view BTTF fans don't get in the biased DVD extras.
I always found it odd that seeing how successful his siblings were with his brother declaring I always wear a suit, why were they still living at home and not out on their own
I think part of the "distant and surreal" feeling might be the reality that, at the end, his family has completely different memories of Marty's childhood than what Marty has, as Marty grew up in the other timeline.
Very upset he wasn't in the sequals. He was a big part of Back to the futures success.
I don't agree with everything Crispin's saying; however the Back to the Future sequels missed him. His performance was GOLD in the original movie. Shame they could not bring him back. Bigger shame that with the reduction of 'George' came the reduction of 'Loraine'. Collateral damage was less Lea Thompson in the sequels.
The ending reward wasn't wealth, it was confidence. They weren't rich. Glover misses the entire point. His character had the confidence to write a novel. That might lead to wealth, but George did follow what he loved; he wrote the book. Glover is trying to sound smart by disparaging wealth.
I don't think he's disparaging wealth. He doesn't equate success only with wealth. Therefore he questioned the takeaway from the shiny 4x4 symbolism gifted to a kid. His character's kid. Gifted by his character.
His heart is at the right place. Love this, and he was a great character in BTTF1
Originally the McFlys had a black maid in the alternate timeline and that was removed from the final script. That's what he is talking about.
I don't believe it was implied that the maid was black. Also, There was a line that implied that the McFly's were having a mansion built which was also removed.
Based on what I am hearing from you, I beg to differ, my friend. George married Lorraine, and they were happy. George did what he love-which was writing, and the money followed.
On your 2nd day of flipping burgers at McDonald’s you don’t start questioning how they do things. That’s similar to what he did.
He seems like a problem actor. It was great how the producers simply continued the trilogy without him!
These people from IGN look like they just rolled out of bed.
Exactly. No professionalism in that department.
How about this... do you JOB and act; your opinion was not asked in terms of the film and its message
But that's what credits are for....if ur name was in credits. Then u would have a solid case....otherwise..the writers wrote and casters cast....actors act.
I think Crispin honestly missed the point. The ending wasn't even about wealth at all. Not sure where he got that. The McFlys lived in the exact same house in the same neighborhood. It was just better kept and cleaner, and they were more successful and happy in life. It was George's CONFIDENCE IN HIMSELF that caused them to have a better life, not his money, despite that it may have been a side effect considering he was able to publish a book and have Biff work for him. They may not have had MORE money, but were definitely wiser in how they used it.
I can't say for sure whether he is lying about this or not as it's his word against someone else's but I do completely agree with what he is trying to say. The money was never really a factor in the movie, if the plot of the story was to go back in time to earn some money I could understand that being the outcome but it happening by coincidence does send the wrong kind of message. Mind you, having said that I never really noticed it before either.
totally agree with Crispin, i love BTTF but the ending of the first one with the truck, that part i didn't like
What a boss.
It's such a funny coincidence they just put up this video talking to Crispin about the film, just this morning as with many thoughts that seem to come back to us at random moments, out of the blue, I was picturing the ohh so cool moment when his character George decks Biff :) .
I like Crispin Glover a lot, but what he needs to realize is that Zemeckis and company were being true to the times, and the unfortunate truth about the Reagan-era 1980's is that greed was the big fixation. With that being the case, I think it's safe to assume that it wasn't their intention to promote the wealthy lifestyle; although, Glover does make some interesting points when discussing the film's conclusion. I just have a good understanding of what the filmmakers were doing in those regards.
so u would say that in presenting the movie ending that zemeckis & company chose to go with, they were merely reflecting the values of that time, and were not responsible in any way for affirming or further normalizing / idealizing those values?
The country was prosperous in the 80s. And yes, overconsumption, borrowing from banks, etc became huge. But to assign "greed" to Reagan isnt entirely fair. Those are the choices of individuals. I can just as easily say the LBJ era sparked greed and envy.
2015 is just around the corner I hope there is gonna be a sequel or a reboot?
there better not be.
***** it's great to see Zemeckis has some sense, leave the classics alone
Eddy Limongi or until his he needs money, hopefully they wont touch it
vicgmag True! and let's hope he doesn't go crazy with age and pull a George Lucas
on the subject matter.. i feel what he is feeling, he basically feels that he wouldnt mind if there was monetary reward if only it wasnt so typical and repetitive in movies and TV (which makes it harmful propaganda).
He can say and do whatever he wants..hes not a douche for saying..just artists providing opinion.
Money doesn't matter says the guy who owns his own castle and expensive cars
They still lived in the same house at the end of the movie. The monetary gain was not massive. It was a physical way to SHOW the changes without a deep explanation. It’s a movie. I love Crispin but I don’t agree with that aspect of his commentary.
I think in his accounts, he's airing the inside experience: that he asked open questions and was met with hostility. In the clear context of a highly materialistic decade, assumptions about value. He's not dismissing the storyline imv. Perhaps there could've been more nuance. What followed was the strange replacement in II and he's entitled to make his own sense of this.
And yet reflecting on the plotline of the sequel, how money corrupts hideously, just maybe his ideological questions had more influence than is generally acknowledged.
He saw it from a 20 year old's point of view. I guess this was naïve and even unwelcome to the writers.
I do get what he is saying, but I think a better solution would have been to dive more into the consequences of time travel more than the films already did. Marty Mcfly came home to a new 1985 and didn't recognize his family anymore. His brother, sister, mom, and dad were all different people. Who cares about them being rich all of a sudden. Marty Mcfly doesn't even know them anymore.
nah, he just gets hit with the surprise of seeing his family changed for the better, they are all healthier and happy, and they ask Marty something in the lines of "where have you been?...why you are surprised?" just like the pictures faded when they erased the past the memories would eventually come into his mind...if time travel were true
Eddy Limongi The memories wouldn't come back to the Marty who came home to a rich family. The Marty with the rich family is back in 1955. The new Marty(our Marty) takes his place.