Jump to content

Crispin Glover in frank new interview about BTTF


Quintus
 Share

Recommended Posts

Whatever you think is truthful, hearsay or whatever about this known episode in the annals of Hollywood gossip, I must say I do agree, in retrospect, with Glover that the monetary message at the end of BTTF is in bad taste and wrong. I'd never actually given it a second thought till now, which for me proves his point and sort of takes the sweet edge off that otherwise brilliant and timeless film.

Courtesy of http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/back-to-the-future/26826/why-crispin-glover-never-did-back-to-the-future-part-ii

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are so many films that unfortunately reinforce the notion that money=happiness. It's probably damaging, but to be honest it doesn't dampen my appreciation of the film that much. The ending of BTTF was always cliche, it's the rest of the movie that makes it brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what the alternate ending was. Maybe Goldie Wilson was waxing the car instead of being mayor and the town was no longer a piece of crap? Didn't Lyon Estates look kinda ghetto in the original timeline before they were wealthy?

Honestly, Back to the Future is loaded with materialism. Even the time machine itself, which was a cool sports car. We love it and there's still a lot of heart in the first movie, but it's also materialistic as all fuck. Marty shouldn't have gone straight to the garage, he should have grabbed his skateboard and went to Jennifer's house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't watched the video yet but isn't it ironic that he didn't return for the sequel because they wouldn't give him enough money?

Yeah, watch the video.

EDIT: Oh, sorry indy! Double post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it not just be that the McFlys had more money because they were happier?

I always thought that George and Lorraine's son from the future was such a positive influence on them, it made their future family happier and consequently more prosperous.

Case in point, Marty influenced George to become a more confident person, therefore he was able to get his science fiction book published.

Crispin Glover just sounds like a cranky and bitter old bugger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I always took it as a way of efficiently illustrating how George's boosted self-confidence had impacted his life. The point wasn't the money, the point was the change that had been made in George's character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't watched the video yet but isn't it ironic that he didn't return for the sequel because they wouldn't give him enough money?

Yeah, watch the video.

EDIT: Oh, sorry indy! Double post.

Actually he confirms that. He says they weren't giving him a fair amount so he didn't do the part. Either way whether it's a lower amount than before or a higher amount, follow his own advice. He tells the hosts that Bob Gale told them about the situation and they just believed him. Well he's doing the same thing, obviously he's not gonna agree with the man. I call bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the original ending included the family having black servants. I think he disliked the original ending much more than the final one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, he didn't do the part because of money. That goes against those big questions he was supposedly asking.

Well not necessarily. Sometimes people just like to feel they're being treated fairly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never considered having more money as a bad thing and it's not like Marty came back and his family was living in a huge mansion, still the same middle class house but with a bit more success and happiness.

If anything, the film sends a bad message about trying to redo your past. You can't and at times have to live with the consequences of decisions you make. You also have to learn how to cope with what thrown at you.

But that's stretching things a bit too far, it's a movie and one that is entertaining as well. That's all I see BTTF as.

Now as far as Glover wanting to get paid, more power to him. But you also face the risk of getting the door shut in your face and told you're no longer needed, that's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He said he wanted to do it, but his check wasn't big enough. Case closed, in my book. His part so minimal anyway it's not like it would have been an arduous shoot.

I'm sure the part was reduced when they had to recast the part. And if he really was offered less than half of what other actors with similarly sized roles got, then I get where he's coming from. It's a matter of principles - especially in the film business where studios would gladly reduce pay checks at every possible chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He said he wanted to do it, but his check wasn't big enough. Case closed, in my book. His part so minimal anyway it's not like it would have been an arduous shoot.

Actually they changed the plot when he declined to be in it, so who knows how big the original part was.

I'd like to think that actors do roles for script reasons, rather than for the money, but I can also see that if Tom Wilson and Leah Thompson were being paid double what he was, then it's understandable for him to want more. And on top of the disagreements over the story.

Sounds like a case where neither side is telling the 100% truth, but it certainly doesn't sound as clear cut as Bob Gale makes it out to be in the DVD interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He said he wanted to do it, but his check wasn't big enough. Case closed, in my book. His part so minimal anyway it's not like it would have been an arduous shoot.

Not quite. Remember that, as originally planned, "BTTF II" was going to be set in the 1960s, and Glover was going to have a much larger part.

The fact that Bob Gale has done zilch since "BTTF III" is immaterial: he doesn't have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I won't argue that but it's obvious Glover is playing himself up a bit. Similarly to what Mark said, sometimes there's just stuff in life you have to deal with. If you're in it for the money, it's either take the check or bail. I guess it worked out in the end for him with that lawsuit; but to me it doesn't seem logical for a producer to cut an actor and rewrite your whole movie rather than giving him a raise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It assumes he thinks he can find work elsewhere that pays better.

But looking at IMDb, he did some TV, a short, and a few smaller movies. Not exactly on fire. His CV could've been a lot different to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.