I never even realised that Glover was fired, and that another actor was used in his likeness. Probably because he's only seen upside down, or shot from far away.
My headcannon about Jennifer looking different in Part II is that Marty's meddling in 1955 may have inadvertently caused one of Jen's parents to meet a different person so in the new timeline that Marty created her, genetics are slightly different. I guess it's like the old trope where someone accidentally kills a bug when visiting the distant past and when they return to the present they learn that hyperintelligent dolphins have won WWII or some other insane thing.
Theoretically parents didn’t even need a change, makes more sense if a sperm or egg changed. Or, a couple dominant and recessive genes got swapped (I like this idea more because it means Marty is still dating Jen and not technically Jen's sister)
I am literally hearing about this for the first time right now, the studios really fooled me into thinking Crispin Glover was in the sequel, and it is difficult when you watch a dubbed version and that keeps the same VA so the illusion is kept, but man it is dirty, I mean recasting for contract issues, understandable, but trying to take a double make it pass for the original actor now that's low.
Having to pay Glover after the lawsuit, but still not actually having his awesome acting in the last two movies... feels like poetic justice. Of the hilarious kind 😄 Bet someone, or several someones, regretted simply not paying him better to begin with.
Something always seemed off in that movie and now you've explained it to me. It's sad but there it is. I'm glad he took legal action and this ultimately led to protections across the industry.
Yea i thought they earned that ending with the courage and support the parents got from Marty in the past, materialism is the last thing I'm thinking about seeing them later. I'm just happy they're happy
I really found Glover's objections to the first film's ending odd. It would have been really weird for Marty's family to be happier and more successful but no financial gain stemming from that. It's clear that the financial gain stemmed from the happiness and confidence that Marty's parents had.
I think it's pretty clear from the way the production handled the replacement casting, and what has come out after the fact, that Crispin Glover was treated poorly after the making of the first film. I also doubt that he wanted to be paid as much as the star of the film, but just the same as his fellow co-stars.
Agreed. While I doubt his story of the moral of Back to the Future, because it’s not like the McFly family had really moved up in the world to being fabulously wealthy. After all, they still lived in the same home, and his older siblings (who were out of high school) were still living at home. Yes the house was marginally nicer and they drove nicer cars. But the moral shown in the altered timeline was that George had gained confidence to come closer to being the person he had always aspired to be.
Spielberg came up to me during production (I was encased in a body cast to do the fx), and he said snarly, "So Crispin, I see you got your million dollars after all."
From reading everything - I get the impression that Glover had been a really difficult person to work with in the first film. There were quite a few scenes that took a whole bunch of takes because he couldn't follow instructions properly. The difference between glover and Lea Thompson was that the latter seemed to really help bind the cast together. There's quite a lot of stories of Glover being difficult to work with and him having a short temper. Another thing that really makes me not a fan of Crispin Glover is that Jeffrey Weissman actually helped Glover with the lawsuit - and Glover immediately told Universal absolutely wrecking Weissman's career. Whilst I agree Glover was treated unfairly over the likeness incident - it feels to me like it certainly didn't do himself any favours.
I sort of disagree that what was gained at the end of the first movie was wealth. I mean they seem to be doing a bit better financially. However the parents’ relationship DOES seem to be stronger. And the monetary gain is tied more to George’s career. Which to me is way more about George achieving his dreams, rather than having more money. Although it’s definitely a bonus with the car Marty gets. Money seems to be a minor bonus to me, not the main thing that was gained. I’d say it’s a distant third to the parents love and George’s happiness with his career.
I agree. If you examine the first scene with George in 1985, he is basically doing 2 jobs at his workplace, his and Biff's. The only reason that he wasn't advancing in that workplace was because of Biff's bullying. Another thing to notice is that the family didn't change houses, they just went from being a dysfunctional, middle class family to being a functional, slightly upper middle class family. They didn't switch to living in the kind of McMansion that we saw in a lot of other 1980's movies.
You could also say that their monetary gain can be attributed TO their relationship. That in being loving and supportive of each other, they managed to elevate each other's long term confidence and morale, which may very well have helped them in their careers and overall life decisions.
I think the second film is equal to the first, and the third is almost as good as the first two also. It's a shame that Glover wasn't in it, but it's still pretty damn good.
Honestly, no, I don't think Crispin Glover's absence made the sequels worse, nor would his involvement change much about Part 2 and 3. George McFly was integral to the first film but wasn't all that important to the plot of the second and third. He wouldn't have had much to do outside what we've seen in Part 2, and his death makes A LOT of sense and drama for the Alternate 1985.
Ditto, plus after listening to his side of the story where he not only hated the ending of the first movie with the whole “money equals happiness” argument but with Parts 2 & 3 he wanted more money than his 2 co-stars (Lea Thompson & Tom Wilson), that sounds pretty hypocritical don’t you think?
I disagree. What you don't realise is that the filmmakers changed the plot of the second film due to him not coming back. The original idea was to have Marty travel back to the 60s or something along those lines. He was going to be a big part of the plot.
Ever since I learned of this after watching the trilogy, I kept pondering how potentially better the sequels could be if Gripson Glover reprised in Part ll especially. For what they managed to do I’m okay what we got. Just can’t help but sake the feeling they had missed narrative opportunities. It just sounds like they didn’t appreciate him enough to meet his revenue request. He was a significant reason why the first movie was such a classic. Of course it doesn’t guarantee the sequels would be as good, but I’m sure his role would have been just as great. Apparently he was suppose to be the dad ancestor for Part lll too.
Crispin Glover is a misunderstood creative genius. His dad had been around Hollywood, you'd know him from Bond flicks. So Crispin was 'difficult'? He was well aware of how Hollywood can and will f*ck talent over. Hollywood gets really pissy when 'talent' starts agitating for their 'rights'.
@@hankhillsnrrwurethra He isn't wrong and it was really dumb to get upset about that in a movie when the obvious reason why everyone was actually wasn't even about money it was about George standing up to Biff and having self confidence changed his family's future for the better he protected his wife from potential SA
I liked his character in the first movie but most importantly: I TOTALLY agree with his concern about the ending! I've always felt bitter sweet with the alternate reality, because although they all seem happier, money was the most predominant change and it didn't feel quite right
@@rjcurrie61 yes, but how I viewed it, it felt like the focal point more than a side effect, but I agree with the fact that it can be a logical consequence (although confidence doesn't always guarantee you wealth or success in real life)
But when one is broke - money does help with happiness. If I'm not worried about putting food on the table or paying bills than I'm happier. To a point : yes money does buy happiness
My take was always that self confidence often results in success in one or another form. It could be a happy ever after with his girl but also professional success and that typically results in money. So, to me the money part was just a side effect. It never occurred to me that there could or should be the narrative that money equals happiness. I mean, I get the viewpoint but it seems a bit too simplistic to me.
Wow, Glover's desired ending would've been a massive fail. How could George be happy in a marriage with a dead-end job and kids that have dead-end jobs without any prospects or future? That would've ruined the franchise.
This is actually the reason in part 2 they wound up having George Mcfly dead in alt 1985 and went that route. not sure what they would have done otherewesie. also why even what scenes he was in barely, it was very limited. honestly though. Glover was being an idiot tryign to demand how the people paying his paycheck end a movie. he also wanted as much money as Fox but he was nowheree near the tar Fox was at the time. and honestly he is wrong. anyway having more money etc.. meant george and lorraine were both in a healthier relationship becasue he gained confidence, stood up for himself, and confidence also bring more financial success as wlel, it wasn't like they lived in a big mansion. they were literally in the same house. the success was he became a sci fi writer nd had his first novel published at this point. he looked happier, healthier. the kids instead of working at Mcdonalds had a job that likely meant he had to go to college for . same house. just cleaner. a little more updated. having a slightly nicer car. but i do wonder if he would have played shemus mcfly instead of fox if he was in part 3
I doubt that Glover was so turned off by the ending he wouldn’t do the sequels. I’m guessing it was because of the money. No judgment by me. I don’t blame him. I would have probably done the same. The production team could have easily replaced him with a different actor and not used his likeness. As stated that’s what they did with Marty’s girlfriend, replaced the actress.
In Crispin's place, although I would kinda tolerated a lookalike in the 50s scenes, I would have been furious about the director making a circus from my absence, making the lookalike talk like me and putting him upside down to mask the fact it wasn't me.
I applaud Crispin’s commitment to the integrity of the story but disagree with his interpretation of the ending. It’s not like Marty comes back to a mansion with a pool. It’s the same house, same neighborhood just a little nicer. They needed to show a visual difference so the audience understands it’s not the same. Yes, they’re a little richer but that’s not the point. The message is still one of self-respect.
I do too. He was a martyr. What he did destroyed his career, but he helped so many other actors who came after him. We're now dealing with the same issues regarding AI.
@@I_WANT_MY_SLAW I think the main difference with the Crispin Glover situation is if they'd paid him enough they could've had the real McCoy. Best thing about AI is when thats impossible like making Harrison Ford young again or literally bringing Peter Cushing back from the dead.
I didn't realize any of this when I watched the movies as a kid, infact I didn't realize Michael J. Fox played his own daughter in 2, something seemed different about her, but I didn't know what it was at the time. He was very pretty though. I think what amazes me after all that went down is Crispin Glover coming back for the TellTale games Back To The Future game. That was a decent follow up to the movies, and I would argue a proper sequel to the original Trilogy
Correction: The Paradox script always had the Ortholev device in’t, not to obscure who was playing George, (in one version Marty is in’t), but rather it was meant to keep Crispin on his focus marks for camera because he’d over or under shoot them. So the Bobs came up with the idea to control his movement.
Funny enough, Old George being upside down was in the script when Crispin read it. While originally just a joke about him throwing his back out it ended up working even better in the movies favor once they found out he wasn’t coming back
I think Glover was probably fired because of his reservations about the ending of Part 1, and they probably felt he'd be a problem to work with in Part 2.
I didn't realize it was a different person. I did not even know they replaced Jennifer!! So I do not understand why there's such a fuss. Part of me says, he's just throwing a fit because he didn't get paid as much.
I feels ironic that the issue was the ending implying money equaling happiness but it was the financial dispute thay didn't allow him to return to the sequal, following up with a lawsuit
Glover: *takes issue with first movie for making the ending focused on money* Also Glover: *won't take a role in the sequel unless they pay him more money*
And it was not like he had a big role in the sequels 🤦♂️ I like him, but this is one of those times when you shut up & do what you are paid to do. He’s an actor not a writer or director.
Never in all these years did I notice it wasn't Glover, he definitely has good reason to be mad about his likeness being used, but I still side with the studio execs that there is no way he should have gotten the same pay as Michael J Fox for that supporting role. (Great work by the make up artists though!)
I do agree with Glover to a certain degree. But you signed onto the project knowing this before hand. So, its on him. He could have said no originally if he didnt like how it ended. Or...you do the job your hired for and its as simple as that.
I think it's fair for him to demand the same amount of pay as the actress who plays his wife, and the guy who plays Biff; honestly it's insulting that he was offered less than half their salary.
Yeah he was definitely needed for the sequel. Not saying the sequel was bad but the dad was one of those small things that made the original great. That goofy laugh that I still mimic today is missed too lol
They did the "replacement" so well I didn't even noticed. So yeah, dont care for it, the movies are awesome and that's it. Also he said that the story was bad because of money, but at the same time, wanted more money to do It, crazy right?
He was one of the intelligent boomers who didn’t want to propaganda as a country on materialism that just spreads hate. The movie fits the Reaganism heat from the 80s that has destroyed all of humanity for decades.
2:53 I don’t agree that the moral of Back to the Future is about money making people happy. I think what happened with George is that, by standing up for himself, he was able to gain the confidence that he didn’t have prior. Clearly they aren’t a whole lot more rich in the altered future, after all the adult children still have jobs (they even have better more fulfilling jobs) and they all live in the same house together still. What George’s confidence gave the family was the ability to realize more of their potential. Similar to how Marty changes and outgrows his need to not be a “chicken” in the second film, this ability makes it so his bully (or frenemy or whatever Flea’s character is) has no power of Marty and he’ll have one less barrier to realizing his best self. In my opinion Glover probably made up this excuse after the fact to make himself seem less materialistic.
The ending of the first movie resulted in the increased confidence and self esteem that McFly snr had after he laid out Tannen and got his girl. I have seen this movie umpteen times over the past 3 decades and that is the thing that I picked up on, not the money. I would love for someone to make a video to discuss how Marty's parents dont seem to recognise him from 1955.
It makes me wonder what the original storyline was supposed to be in Part 2 and if Part 3 was changed at all. I do however like how they brought back Harold Ramis in Ghostbusters Afterlife. It was a great sendoff to a guy who meant a lot to some of the other actors.
This is, I think, the first time I've heard of a situation where AI (in this case, other people) have used a person's likeness without their knowledge or consent
1 thing that’s always bothered me about them replacing him, is that in the 3rd movie they meet the Old West McFlys, but they look like Marty & Lorain. When they should be looking like George if anything
Back To The Future is one of the greatest trilogies in cinema history, and some of the greatest movies ever on their own merits. It would've been interesting if Crispin Glover had come back because with the original George, the films would have probably been written differently, to incorporate more of him into the story, and probably would have changed the flow and the specifics of the plot of the movie in a big way. But as it is, they're still impeccable and absolutely worthy sequels even with diminishing George McFly's presence.
It would had been better if Weissman just replaced Glover OR don't include scenes with George McFly but that would change the entire plot of part 2. I had no idea that Weissman was fighting Biff until recently and behind the door when Marty gets knocked out by himself.
So... he thought the original ending was too materialistic because the family was better off financially but he was demanding more money for the sequels?
5:30 Stuff like this makes it so painfully obvs to me how bad my facial blindness rly is xD Id legit not know those were two diff ppl if not for havin it ptd out. The slightly darker hair is like the only visible diff id even notice, and honestly that i cud see comin down to lightin and natural change with age; esp bcuz i can see that Claudia Wells isnt bathed in nearly as much bright light as Elisabeth Shue But yeah, even knowin there are key diffs when i rly start to look deep, those are just a blur of small diffs as far as my memory is concerned; and bein aphantastic as i am, i dont actually have visual memory... So i know that makes the facial blindness worse too Lookin closely i see diffs in nose shape, head size, eyes entirely, teeth, and eyebrows; but i gotta rly study to see all that and i know that in an hr i wont be able to say for sure which one had which features, unles my brain obsessed over it and even then i dont think id remember each one correctly Whereas most other ppl wud be able to say stuff like who has the bigger nostrils, just from their memory if theyve watched stuff with both actresses in it. Even without them ever rly considerin that they actually know that fact; its just there, in the memory banks waitin to be retrieved when prompted It scares me sometimes how well such folks, like a friend of mine, can see a person on screen or even hear a voice and go "Oh, i know exactly who that is" even when they, to me, dont at all look like the person they then show me on their phone xD
I disagree with him on the ending of the first movie. Yes, they were in a more desirable financial situation but they weren’t exactly rich. Money wasn’t the “reward” it was a product of the ripple effect. Because George stood up to Biff in the past, Biff no longer got credit for George’s work in 1985 and therefore George probably was in a different position with higher pay. He also finally had the courage to publish a novel which most likely included some type of book advance. That might of even been what was used to pay for the new Toyota. To George, finishing the book was his biggest accomplishment and the lesson he wanted to pass down to his kids “If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything.” There are still many similarities between their class status at the beginning and end of the movie including - they still live in the same house and even though Dave now works at an office, he and Linda still live at home.
It sounds like he just wanted to be paid fairly. If you were being paid less than your co-workers doing the same job, would you just say "oh well, it's only money"?
I do wonder why this is so frequently an issue when Jenifer's actress hasn't spoken out either. Growing up I never caught it , but when people see her in back to back viewings on DVD they see it right away. I also wonder why are AI and George McFly style moves so bad? Dumbledore on Harry Potter had more then one actor Every American President has been plaid by a look a like multiple times Stan and Ollie and other Biographical films don't use the original actors What is the difference between John C. Reilly and the digital Tarkin model? Would you be less mad if Roug one used a live action actor in heavy make up to play Tarkin? what about Val Kilmer's replacing of Michael Keaton? Steve Whitmire replacing Jim Henson? Glenn Strange replacing Boris Karloff? Johnny Depp's Ed Wood? jim carrey as andy kaufman? Tom Hanks as basically every one? CGI is a tool. One that is had it not been used would have been replaced by make up. These characters would have STILL been in there respective movies. CGI is still a mask . a mask worn by Andy Serkis or some one of the like. You can't hold it but it is a form of make up. Ideally done with respect. Not always expected do be respectful Martin Short , or Darrell Hammond has proven impersonation doesn't have to be respectful. But I feel CGI is fair game, so is make up. Certain people need to be in certain movie. If some one quits or gets fired or dies they ARE replicable. Some times you are the David Prowse, the Jeremy Bulloch, the Anthony Daniels, the Kenny Baker. Some times you are Brandon Routh or George Clooney. Some times you are Dan Castellaneta or Dave Coulier some times you are Mike Weinberg. You NEVER want to be Mike Weinberg. This kind of thing happens Its not wrong and some times you should just deal with it rather then start drama Space Jam 2 and Forest Gump also used digital actors with no objections and so does all the animal movies and half the little kid movies.
Questioning “money = happiness” in the 1980s when thay was the American religion (and now it still is and much more so) is a bold move. Respect for crispin glover he is completely correct. It IS a crassly materialistic, classist, ugly ending that also evades and papers over real human concerns
I agree that the way they tried to use his likeness was wrong and I’m glad he won the case. That being said I strongly disagree with his take on the ending to Back to the Future. Both Marty & George had severe self doubt about what they were passionate about at the start of their arcs, but Doc taught Marty that “If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything”. That’s ultimately the real message of Back to the Future. Marty struggled with that meaning, but then he had to impart that lesson to his father. As a result, George became much more confident in himself, his writing, and his love for Lorraine. Now yes, George is also more financially successful in the new timeline. Is there a bit of a “money equals happiness” message in there, yes and there’s NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT! I personally have a problem with people who say “money can’t buy happiness”. It may not solve every problem, but at the very least it gives us stability & peace of mind. Plus not having money is a waking nightmare. I can’t believe Glover is still of this belief to this day, especially with so many actors & writers fighting for better compensation.
As someone who has constantly been snubbed by furloughs, downsizing, AI automation etc... i hardly shed a tear for rich people dying or celebrities getting their likenesses used for intellectual property they already signed contracts for
Isn't the other part of the story surrounding the recasting of C. Glover that the director, producers, and to some extent his co-stars disliked having to work with him? Supposedly, he was being very difficult, always disagreeing with or questioning the direction or the script, and sometimes randomly incorporating weird acting choices for his character because that's what he felt like doing at the time. The crew just grew tired of that and, quite understandably, IMHO, wanted to avoid having to deal with that for the sequels, back to back no less.
I never saw ending as money making happiness, more as self confidence makes both, happiness and wealth. About lawsuit, it's little bit slippery - on one side, Glover is right, but on other, most of the scenes are no different from scenes made with stunt doubles... I think, if their contract allowed reusing footage in sequel, most of the scenes could pass under common practice used for stunt doubles (same haircut, minor makeup, distant shooting), but some step way over the line, like the floating one or any where he speaks any line.
Why did either of them have to be such sticklers about how much he was going to get paid for the sequels and how the first film ended? I'm all for advocating for oneself but I don't know, someone should've given in at the beginning so the extenuating circumstances didn't have to happen.
Wow very interesting essay I didn’t have idea about all this, but you know the actor is so damn right it was unfair for him and for the actor that replaced him.
The whole "money equals happiness" ending that Crispin Glover dislikes requires a more nuanced conversation. In the real world, the idea that money equals happiness can end up being true when you take into consideration someone's material conditions. In Glover's case, when you consider that he wanted to be paid the same as some of his co-stars for the sequels, one can say that money might have meant happiness for him in that moment. I think it's a little bit of both - wealth, required to live with dignity and meet the economic standards acceptable in the eyes of society as it champions an idealized "shining city on a hill" image of itself, and family - that truly makes people happy. While I don't deny the possibility of coming around to accepting one's "new" family, and the movie does make it seem that Marty did, I just think that most people would not abandon the memories of their old family in favor of a new, wealthier one. In a country like America, family and capitalism lie at the core of the ideals which it was founded on, and one cannot exist without the other. Both are the necessities to happiness.
I think the ending of BTTF made sense. After George knocked out Biff, he finally had the confidence to write a successful book. His original, cowardly self never would have taken that chance. So, having extra money (notice they still lived in the same middle-class house), makes sense. 😊
I always thought he looked different, I thought maybe he had just aged and so had to use make up to make it work...I never knew the details of how the films where filmed etc...Im with Glover though, he needs to protect his brand and likeness 💯👏🏼
Man I realize this is off topic, but it's startling that SAG had a strike about this and also turned around and threw Voice Actors under the bus with the whole AI thing
I agree with Crispin re: the reward should be love, as it’s a more powerful meaning, and adding money weakens this. Just from a story telling perspective, values aside.
I understand Glover's issues with the ending, and it does go a bit too hard on the materialism. Marty getting the truck is just over the top. But at the same time, I do think the film also emphasized that George & Lorraine are in a genuinely loving - and still thirsty! - relationship, and that their happiness has resulted in a more loving and cohesive family. OTOH, what's never sat right with me in the ending is that there's is NO WAY a guy who writes pulp scifi novels makes it into the upper class. They could have very plausibly still been living in what's recognizably the same basic home as in the opening, just redressed to be *nicer* without being totally bougie. (OTOOH, we're never told what Lorraine does. Maybe she's the real breadwinner!)
Don't get me wrong, i grew up watching Back to the Future, it is a beloved movie for me, but i think Crispin has a point here, i kinda agree with him. However this movie was made in the 80s, and in 80s movies, financial success was always depicted as the best kind of character resolution possible, there are exceptions but 80s movies were like that.
Were the McFly's really that much richer at the end of BttF 1? While their house is much better looking inside, it is still the same house! They didn't get a better house, and I'm sure if you even had twice the salary as original George, you'd go to another neighborhood to a better house. So I don't think the ending is bad. They aren't that much richer, just better at taking opportunities that suit their skillset.
I never even realised that Glover was fired, and that another actor was used in his likeness. Probably because he's only seen upside down, or shot from far away.
That was their intention. That's why Crispin took them to court. And your comment proves that he had a valid case.
@@I_WANT_MY_SLAW because he argued with director that the ending of bttf1 is not to his liking
Exactly
Literally had no clue
well he was not fired, technically... Not rehired for the sequels, would be closer to what I understood in the video
My headcannon about Jennifer looking different in Part II is that Marty's meddling in 1955 may have inadvertently caused one of Jen's parents to meet a different person so in the new timeline that Marty created her, genetics are slightly different.
I guess it's like the old trope where someone accidentally kills a bug when visiting the distant past and when they return to the present they learn that hyperintelligent dolphins have won WWII or some other insane thing.
Theoretically parents didn’t even need a change, makes more sense if a sperm or egg changed. Or, a couple dominant and recessive genes got swapped (I like this idea more because it means Marty is still dating Jen and not technically Jen's sister)
In other words, the Nth Doctor trope.
Butterfly effect...
Weird you didn't just use other in-universe examples that already exist and came up with that absurd hypothetical...
@@bigwaffle3018
I like this explanation
Canon, not cannon
I am literally hearing about this for the first time right now, the studios really fooled me into thinking Crispin Glover was in the sequel, and it is difficult when you watch a dubbed version and that keeps the same VA so the illusion is kept, but man it is dirty, I mean recasting for contract issues, understandable, but trying to take a double make it pass for the original actor now that's low.
Also, it's not as if the studio didn't have the money to pay man.
Having to pay Glover after the lawsuit, but still not actually having his awesome acting in the last two movies... feels like poetic justice. Of the hilarious kind 😄 Bet someone, or several someones, regretted simply not paying him better to begin with.
Something always seemed off in that movie and now you've explained it to me. It's sad but there it is. I'm glad he took legal action and this ultimately led to protections across the industry.
Yes! Can you imagine the movie industry taking your likeness and never giving anything to you? It’s crazy that they thought it would be okay.
Isn't it ironic how Crispin glover had issues with pay, but also had issues with the screenplay about monetary reward?!
came here to say the same thing.
Yea i thought they earned that ending with the courage and support the parents got from Marty in the past, materialism is the last thing I'm thinking about seeing them later. I'm just happy they're happy
It's ironic but still fair point to Crispin for wanting the same cut as Biff and Lorain, if that's true
he wanted a million, he got 3/4 a million in the settlement (but it's not about money)
Weirdly enough it's always the rich that say that money doesn't matter. He is such a hypocrite
I really found Glover's objections to the first film's ending odd.
It would have been really weird for Marty's family to be happier and more successful but no financial gain stemming from that. It's clear that the financial gain stemmed from the happiness and confidence that Marty's parents had.
I think it's pretty clear from the way the production handled the replacement casting, and what has come out after the fact, that Crispin Glover was treated poorly after the making of the first film. I also doubt that he wanted to be paid as much as the star of the film, but just the same as his fellow co-stars.
Agreed. While I doubt his story of the moral of Back to the Future, because it’s not like the McFly family had really moved up in the world to being fabulously wealthy. After all, they still lived in the same home, and his older siblings (who were out of high school) were still living at home. Yes the house was marginally nicer and they drove nicer cars. But the moral shown in the altered timeline was that George had gained confidence to come closer to being the person he had always aspired to be.
Spielberg came up to me during production (I was encased in a body cast to do the fx), and he said snarly, "So Crispin, I see you got your million dollars after all."
You need to watch the making of part one. He was a pain in the ass. Glover was just being a nuisance.
@@idiotgleewait thats so fucked up
From reading everything - I get the impression that Glover had been a really difficult person to work with in the first film.
There were quite a few scenes that took a whole bunch of takes because he couldn't follow instructions properly.
The difference between glover and Lea Thompson was that the latter seemed to really help bind the cast together.
There's quite a lot of stories of Glover being difficult to work with and him having a short temper. Another thing that really makes me not a fan of Crispin Glover is that Jeffrey Weissman actually helped Glover with the lawsuit - and Glover immediately told Universal absolutely wrecking Weissman's career.
Whilst I agree Glover was treated unfairly over the likeness incident - it feels to me like it certainly didn't do himself any favours.
On a similar note, Michael Biehn is on record saying he got paid more for his likeness in Alien-3 than he did for his role in Aliens.
I think that's fair, considering they killed off his character, thus any chance for him to do a sequel. That should be worth something.
I sort of disagree that what was gained at the end of the first movie was wealth. I mean they seem to be doing a bit better financially. However the parents’ relationship DOES seem to be stronger. And the monetary gain is tied more to George’s career. Which to me is way more about George achieving his dreams, rather than having more money. Although it’s definitely a bonus with the car Marty gets. Money seems to be a minor bonus to me, not the main thing that was gained. I’d say it’s a distant third to the parents love and George’s happiness with his career.
Very well said.
I agree. If you examine the first scene with George in 1985, he is basically doing 2 jobs at his workplace, his and Biff's. The only reason that he wasn't advancing in that workplace was because of Biff's bullying. Another thing to notice is that the family didn't change houses, they just went from being a dysfunctional, middle class family to being a functional, slightly upper middle class family. They didn't switch to living in the kind of McMansion that we saw in a lot of other 1980's movies.
@@JB-sm5sm yeah I would’ve mentioned the house but I feel like everyone realizes that
I totally agree. I have a feeling that Crispin believes the version we see is better than what was originally planned, due to his recommendations.
You could also say that their monetary gain can be attributed TO their relationship. That in being loving and supportive of each other, they managed to elevate each other's long term confidence and morale, which may very well have helped them in their careers and overall life decisions.
His portrayal was so good, and the lack of his presence hurt the sequels.
Did it though? I love the 3rd movie and it dosnt have any of Glovers character
Lmao No
I think the second film is equal to the first, and the third is almost as good as the first two also. It's a shame that Glover wasn't in it, but it's still pretty damn good.
considering most people think he was in the sequels I would have to say no, it did not.
I forgot about him while watching part 3
Honestly, no, I don't think Crispin Glover's absence made the sequels worse, nor would his involvement change much about Part 2 and 3. George McFly was integral to the first film but wasn't all that important to the plot of the second and third. He wouldn't have had much to do outside what we've seen in Part 2, and his death makes A LOT of sense and drama for the Alternate 1985.
Ditto, plus after listening to his side of the story where he not only hated the ending of the first movie with the whole “money equals happiness” argument but with Parts 2 & 3 he wanted more money than his 2 co-stars (Lea Thompson & Tom Wilson), that sounds pretty hypocritical don’t you think?
I disagree. What you don't realise is that the filmmakers changed the plot of the second film due to him not coming back. The original idea was to have Marty travel back to the 60s or something along those lines. He was going to be a big part of the plot.
Ever since I learned of this after watching the trilogy, I kept pondering how potentially better the sequels could be if Gripson Glover reprised in Part ll especially. For what they managed to do I’m okay what we got. Just can’t help but sake the feeling they had missed narrative opportunities. It just sounds like they didn’t appreciate him enough to meet his revenue request. He was a significant reason why the first movie was such a classic. Of course it doesn’t guarantee the sequels would be as good, but I’m sure his role would have been just as great. Apparently he was suppose to be the dad ancestor for Part lll too.
Lol at "Gripson Glover"
@@tylarjackson7928 Don't have a gripe, son.
@@richardmahn7589 Get a grip, son
Crispin Glover is a misunderstood creative genius. His dad had been around Hollywood, you'd know him from Bond flicks. So Crispin was 'difficult'? He was well aware of how Hollywood can and will f*ck talent over. Hollywood gets really pissy when 'talent' starts agitating for their 'rights'.
That's s great point actually
"Money dosnt buy happiness" was a dumb rock for a rich actor to die on
@@Dan55888 artists think differently. He makes art. You make Cheeto marks on keyboards.
Anyway it was the David Letterman thing that flushed his career, not any of this.
@@hankhillsnrrwurethra He isn't wrong and it was really dumb to get upset about that in a movie when the obvious reason why everyone was actually wasn't even about money it was about George standing up to Biff and having self confidence changed his family's future for the better he protected his wife from potential SA
I liked his character in the first movie but most importantly: I TOTALLY agree with his concern about the ending! I've always felt bitter sweet with the alternate reality, because although they all seem happier, money was the most predominant change and it didn't feel quite right
Or is money just a side effect of a more confident George who is actually following his dream of being an author?
@@rjcurrie61 yes, but how I viewed it, it felt like the focal point more than a side effect, but I agree with the fact that it can be a logical consequence (although confidence doesn't always guarantee you wealth or success in real life)
But when one is broke - money does help with happiness. If I'm not worried about putting food on the table or paying bills than I'm happier.
To a point : yes money does buy happiness
My take was always that self confidence often results in success in one or another form. It could be a happy ever after with his girl but also professional success and that typically results in money. So, to me the money part was just a side effect. It never occurred to me that there could or should be the narrative that money equals happiness.
I mean, I get the viewpoint but it seems a bit too simplistic to me.
All you communists are the same!
Wow, Glover's desired ending would've been a massive fail. How could George be happy in a marriage with a dead-end job and kids that have dead-end jobs without any prospects or future? That would've ruined the franchise.
This is actually the reason in part 2 they wound up having George Mcfly dead in alt 1985 and went that route. not sure what they would have done otherewesie. also why even what scenes he was in barely, it was very limited.
honestly though. Glover was being an idiot tryign to demand how the people paying his paycheck end a movie. he also wanted as much money as Fox but he was nowheree near the tar Fox was at the time.
and honestly he is wrong. anyway having more money etc.. meant george and lorraine were both in a healthier relationship becasue he gained confidence, stood up for himself, and confidence also bring more financial success as wlel, it wasn't like they lived in a big mansion. they were literally in the same house. the success was he became a sci fi writer nd had his first novel published at this point.
he looked happier, healthier. the kids instead of working at Mcdonalds had a job that likely meant he had to go to college for . same house. just cleaner. a little more updated. having a slightly nicer car. but i do wonder if he would have played shemus mcfly instead of fox if he was in part 3
I doubt that Glover was so turned off by the ending he wouldn’t do the sequels. I’m guessing it was because of the money. No judgment by me. I don’t blame him. I would have probably done the same. The production team could have easily replaced him with a different actor and not used his likeness. As stated that’s what they did with Marty’s girlfriend, replaced the actress.
The first was about the father
The second was about marty
The third was about the doc
Is what i always thought...
There was a lot of drama around the making of this movie franchise, it amazes me that it wasn’t a mess.
In Crispin's place, although I would kinda tolerated a lookalike in the 50s scenes, I would have been furious about the director making a circus from my absence, making the lookalike talk like me and putting him upside down to mask the fact it wasn't me.
Even Biff wouldn't do something this low.
I applaud Crispin’s commitment to the integrity of the story but disagree with his interpretation of the ending. It’s not like Marty comes back to a mansion with a pool. It’s the same house, same neighborhood just a little nicer. They needed to show a visual difference so the audience understands it’s not the same. Yes, they’re a little richer but that’s not the point. The message is still one of self-respect.
I feel bad for what happened to Crispin Glover.
I do too. He was a martyr. What he did destroyed his career, but he helped so many other actors who came after him. We're now dealing with the same issues regarding AI.
I don't, it is easy for a rich actor to say "Money dosnt buy happiness"
Don’t. He’s the one who messed up
@@I_WANT_MY_SLAW I think the main difference with the Crispin Glover situation is if they'd paid him enough they could've had the real McCoy.
Best thing about AI is when thats impossible like making Harrison Ford young again or literally bringing Peter Cushing back from the dead.
Both things are true. They should have paid him more, and yet by fighting back he missed out on being in all of the iconic trilogy.
I didn't realize any of this when I watched the movies as a kid, infact I didn't realize Michael J. Fox played his own daughter in 2, something seemed different about her, but I didn't know what it was at the time. He was very pretty though.
I think what amazes me after all that went down is Crispin Glover coming back for the TellTale games Back To The Future game. That was a decent follow up to the movies, and I would argue a proper sequel to the original Trilogy
Marty's family becoming rich and equating that to happiness is wrong.
Also, pay me more money!
Ironic that Crispin Glover disliked the 'materialistic' ending, yet disputed his pay
Wanting to be paid fairly for the job you do is not being "materialistic".
@@kjh23gk 'fairly' is subjective to which level of pay he wanted
I never got that impression that money made happenss from that movie. It definitely felt more like he was given the confidence to have a better life.
Correction: The Paradox script always had the Ortholev device in’t, not to obscure who was playing George, (in one version Marty is in’t), but rather it was meant to keep Crispin on his focus marks for camera because he’d over or under shoot them. So the Bobs came up with the idea to control his movement.
Funny enough, Old George being upside down was in the script when Crispin read it. While originally just a joke about him throwing his back out it ended up working even better in the movies favor once they found out he wasn’t coming back
I heard it was the writers finding a way to torture Glover because he was being so difficult.
According to Crispin Glover, nothing changed in his 2015 version. he was upside down in the script he read. it's just a weird coincidence
I think Glover was probably fired because of his reservations about the ending of Part 1, and they probably felt he'd be a problem to work with in Part 2.
Ironically, while George found it difficult to stand up for himself, Crispin had no such problem, and was something of a Prima Donna on set.
At least he was a boomer with Principles and morals unlike most of them Who love materialism, hate and Reagan
I love the movies but dont understand why people think Glover was so stand out or even needed for the sequels
I didn't realize it was a different person. I did not even know they replaced Jennifer!!
So I do not understand why there's such a fuss.
Part of me says, he's just throwing a fit because he didn't get paid as much.
I feels ironic that the issue was the ending implying money equaling happiness but it was the financial dispute thay didn't allow him to return to the sequal, following up with a lawsuit
I really enjoyed this!!! Thank you 🙏🏽 ❤
Glover: *takes issue with first movie for making the ending focused on money*
Also Glover: *won't take a role in the sequel unless they pay him more money*
And it was not like he had a big role in the sequels 🤦♂️ I like him, but this is one of those times when you shut up & do what you are paid to do. He’s an actor not a writer or director.
Never in all these years did I notice it wasn't Glover, he definitely has good reason to be mad about his likeness being used, but I still side with the studio execs that there is no way he should have gotten the same pay as Michael J Fox for that supporting role. (Great work by the make up artists though!)
"Monetary value shouldn't equal happiness"
*argues over payment for next movie*
I do agree with Glover to a certain degree. But you signed onto the project knowing this before hand. So, its on him. He could have said no originally if he didnt like how it ended. Or...you do the job your hired for and its as simple as that.
The actors weren't given the full script until a couple weeks before because they were afraid of leaks.
“the real reason” ….weve literally known this for atleast 2 decades. where y’all been
His claims about "money doesn't equal happiness it's the love" and then turning around and demanding more money for his part is...hilarious!
I think it's fair for him to demand the same amount of pay as the actress who plays his wife, and the guy who plays Biff; honestly it's insulting that he was offered less than half their salary.
Yeah he was definitely needed for the sequel. Not saying the sequel was bad but the dad was one of those small things that made the original great. That goofy laugh that I still mimic today is missed too lol
I just dont believe him that he was that concerned by the endong of the movie
They did the "replacement" so well I didn't even noticed. So yeah, dont care for it, the movies are awesome and that's it.
Also he said that the story was bad because of money, but at the same time, wanted more money to do It, crazy right?
He was one of the intelligent boomers who didn’t want to propaganda as a country on materialism that just spreads hate. The movie fits the Reaganism heat from the 80s that has destroyed all of humanity for decades.
Yeah, it's one of my favourite trilogies, but it is too materialistic in some senses.
I don’t like BTTF 2 or 3 , and a big reason for that is , Crispín Glover isn’t in them, I love his character on the original movie
Hes actually right about the monetary reward thing. Shows that the man really does care about the material.
2:53 I don’t agree that the moral of Back to the Future is about money making people happy.
I think what happened with George is that, by standing up for himself, he was able to gain the confidence that he didn’t have prior. Clearly they aren’t a whole lot more rich in the altered future, after all the adult children still have jobs (they even have better more fulfilling jobs) and they all live in the same house together still. What George’s confidence gave the family was the ability to realize more of their potential. Similar to how Marty changes and outgrows his need to not be a “chicken” in the second film, this ability makes it so his bully (or frenemy or whatever Flea’s character is) has no power of Marty and he’ll have one less barrier to realizing his best self.
In my opinion Glover probably made up this excuse after the fact to make himself seem less materialistic.
The ending of the first movie resulted in the increased confidence and self esteem that McFly snr had after he laid out Tannen and got his girl. I have seen this movie umpteen times over the past 3 decades and that is the thing that I picked up on, not the money. I would love for someone to make a video to discuss how Marty's parents dont seem to recognise him from 1955.
I took all these movies for granted during this era, I didn't realize what movies would become today
good video. I learned things
It makes me wonder what the original storyline was supposed to be in Part 2 and if Part 3 was changed at all. I do however like how they brought back Harold Ramis in Ghostbusters Afterlife. It was a great sendoff to a guy who meant a lot to some of the other actors.
That was aweful....hr didnt even talk
Funny how more money was his issue with the script, but wanted more money to act in it.
Irony
It was ingenious working through the challenge putting him upside down so it wasn’t noticed lol
This is, I think, the first time I've heard of a situation where AI (in this case, other people) have used a person's likeness without their knowledge or consent
You are sleeping under a rock. It's been happening. It's just CGI is sometimes so good it's hard to notice.
1 thing that’s always bothered me about them replacing him, is that in the 3rd movie they meet the Old West McFlys, but they look like Marty & Lorain.
When they should be looking like George if anything
Back To The Future is one of the greatest trilogies in cinema history, and some of the greatest movies ever on their own merits. It would've been interesting if Crispin Glover had come back because with the original George, the films would have probably been written differently, to incorporate more of him into the story, and probably would have changed the flow and the specifics of the plot of the movie in a big way. But as it is, they're still impeccable and absolutely worthy sequels even with diminishing George McFly's presence.
To the question at the end. Yes & yes.
It would had been better if Weissman just replaced Glover OR don't include scenes with George McFly but that would change the entire plot of part 2. I had no idea that Weissman was fighting Biff until recently and behind the door when Marty gets knocked out by himself.
well this was new for me, thanks for sharing this story.
So... he thought the original ending was too materialistic because the family was better off financially but he was demanding more money for the sequels?
5:30 Stuff like this makes it so painfully obvs to me how bad my facial blindness rly is xD Id legit not know those were two diff ppl if not for havin it ptd out.
The slightly darker hair is like the only visible diff id even notice, and honestly that i cud see comin down to lightin and natural change with age; esp bcuz i can see that Claudia Wells isnt bathed in nearly as much bright light as Elisabeth Shue
But yeah, even knowin there are key diffs when i rly start to look deep, those are just a blur of small diffs as far as my memory is concerned; and bein aphantastic as i am, i dont actually have visual memory... So i know that makes the facial blindness worse too
Lookin closely i see diffs in nose shape, head size, eyes entirely, teeth, and eyebrows; but i gotta rly study to see all that and i know that in an hr i wont be able to say for sure which one had which features, unles my brain obsessed over it and even then i dont think id remember each one correctly
Whereas most other ppl wud be able to say stuff like who has the bigger nostrils, just from their memory if theyve watched stuff with both actresses in it. Even without them ever rly considerin that they actually know that fact; its just there, in the memory banks waitin to be retrieved when prompted
It scares me sometimes how well such folks, like a friend of mine, can see a person on screen or even hear a voice and go "Oh, i know exactly who that is" even when they, to me, dont at all look like the person they then show me on their phone xD
My interpretation of the first film's ending was that self-confidence makes for a better life. Not just wealth.
I disagree with him on the ending of the first movie. Yes, they were in a more desirable financial situation but they weren’t exactly rich. Money wasn’t the “reward” it was a product of the ripple effect. Because George stood up to Biff in the past, Biff no longer got credit for George’s work in 1985 and therefore George probably was in a different position with higher pay. He also finally had the courage to publish a novel which most likely included some type of book advance. That might of even been what was used to pay for the new Toyota. To George, finishing the book was his biggest accomplishment and the lesson he wanted to pass down to his kids “If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything.” There are still many similarities between their class status at the beginning and end of the movie including - they still live in the same house and even though Dave now works at an office, he and Linda still live at home.
"Happiness doesn't equal money"
Also:
"I want more money."
It sounds like he just wanted to be paid fairly. If you were being paid less than your co-workers doing the same job, would you just say "oh well, it's only money"?
@@gregsierra414 $150 K? For a few weeks of work?
I'd smile my whole way to the bank.
@@gregsierra414 For $150K? For a couple of weeks of work? I'd smile my entire way to the bank!
i swear i randomly was watching back to the future 2 yesterday and i was wondering why gergoe wasnt in it that much and now your making a video on it😂
I do wonder why this is so frequently an issue when Jenifer's actress hasn't spoken out either. Growing up I never caught it , but when people see her in back to back viewings on DVD they see it right away.
I also wonder why are AI and George McFly style moves so bad?
Dumbledore on Harry Potter had more then one actor
Every American President has been plaid by a look a like multiple times
Stan and Ollie and other Biographical films don't use the original actors
What is the difference between John C. Reilly and the digital Tarkin model? Would you be less mad if Roug one used a live action actor in heavy make up to play Tarkin?
what about Val Kilmer's replacing of Michael Keaton? Steve Whitmire replacing Jim Henson? Glenn Strange replacing Boris Karloff? Johnny Depp's Ed Wood? jim carrey as andy kaufman? Tom Hanks as basically every one?
CGI is a tool. One that is had it not been used would have been replaced by make up. These characters would have STILL been in there respective movies.
CGI is still a mask . a mask worn by Andy Serkis or some one of the like. You can't hold it but it is a form of make up. Ideally done with respect. Not always expected do be respectful Martin Short , or Darrell Hammond has proven impersonation doesn't have to be respectful.
But I feel CGI is fair game, so is make up. Certain people need to be in certain movie. If some one quits or gets fired or dies they ARE replicable. Some times you are the David Prowse, the Jeremy Bulloch, the Anthony Daniels, the Kenny Baker. Some times you are Brandon Routh or George Clooney. Some times you are Dan Castellaneta or Dave Coulier some times you are Mike Weinberg.
You NEVER want to be Mike Weinberg.
This kind of thing happens Its not wrong and some times you should just deal with it rather then start drama
Space Jam 2 and Forest Gump also used digital actors with no objections and so does all the animal movies and half the little kid movies.
Questioning “money = happiness” in the 1980s when thay was the American religion (and now it still is and much more so) is a bold move. Respect for crispin glover he is completely correct. It IS a crassly materialistic, classist, ugly ending that also evades and papers over real human concerns
I agree that the way they tried to use his likeness was wrong and I’m glad he won the case.
That being said I strongly disagree with his take on the ending to Back to the Future. Both Marty & George had severe self doubt about what they were passionate about at the start of their arcs, but Doc taught Marty that “If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything”. That’s ultimately the real message of Back to the Future. Marty struggled with that meaning, but then he had to impart that lesson to his father. As a result, George became much more confident in himself, his writing, and his love for Lorraine.
Now yes, George is also more financially successful in the new timeline. Is there a bit of a “money equals happiness” message in there, yes and there’s NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!
I personally have a problem with people who say “money can’t buy happiness”. It may not solve every problem, but at the very least it gives us stability & peace of mind. Plus not having money is a waking nightmare. I can’t believe Glover is still of this belief to this day, especially with so many actors & writers fighting for better compensation.
7:33: "The digital doubles of today are near perfect" *_Shows the most uncanny valley-ass looking example of 2023_*
Avengers Endgame and Back To The Future are very similar.
the difference is that bttf has better and simpler time travel logic
It's a crazy case to look back on Especially nowadays With all the AI Nowadays
Glover was totally right about the ending of the first film
As someone who has constantly been snubbed by furloughs, downsizing, AI automation etc... i hardly shed a tear for rich people dying or celebrities getting their likenesses used for intellectual property they already signed contracts for
Isn't the other part of the story surrounding the recasting of C. Glover that the director, producers, and to some extent his co-stars disliked having to work with him? Supposedly, he was being very difficult, always disagreeing with or questioning the direction or the script, and sometimes randomly incorporating weird acting choices for his character because that's what he felt like doing at the time. The crew just grew tired of that and, quite understandably, IMHO, wanted to avoid having to deal with that for the sequels, back to back no less.
New subscriber here…really enjoy your videos!
I never saw ending as money making happiness, more as self confidence makes both, happiness and wealth.
About lawsuit, it's little bit slippery - on one side, Glover is right, but on other, most of the scenes are no different from scenes made with stunt doubles... I think, if their contract allowed reusing footage in sequel, most of the scenes could pass under common practice used for stunt doubles (same haircut, minor makeup, distant shooting), but some step way over the line, like the floating one or any where he speaks any line.
Why did either of them have to be such sticklers about how much he was going to get paid for the sequels and how the first film ended? I'm all for advocating for oneself but I don't know, someone should've given in at the beginning so the extenuating circumstances didn't have to happen.
I remember upside down mcfly being mj fox. Mandella strikes again, the back accident was a drag race injury...
I was today years old when I learned that it was a different actor playing George McFly in the sequels
just seeing if any video of why watchmen worked is in the future? If not that what makes Jackie Earle Haley such a memorable actor?
Wow very interesting essay I didn’t have idea about all this, but you know the actor is so damn right it was unfair for him and for the actor that replaced him.
The whole "money equals happiness" ending that Crispin Glover dislikes requires a more nuanced conversation. In the real world, the idea that money equals happiness can end up being true when you take into consideration someone's material conditions. In Glover's case, when you consider that he wanted to be paid the same as some of his co-stars for the sequels, one can say that money might have meant happiness for him in that moment. I think it's a little bit of both - wealth, required to live with dignity and meet the economic standards acceptable in the eyes of society as it champions an idealized "shining city on a hill" image of itself, and family - that truly makes people happy. While I don't deny the possibility of coming around to accepting one's "new" family, and the movie does make it seem that Marty did, I just think that most people would not abandon the memories of their old family in favor of a new, wealthier one. In a country like America, family and capitalism lie at the core of the ideals which it was founded on, and one cannot exist without the other. Both are the necessities to happiness.
Wow, I had no idea about either change.
I think the ending of BTTF made sense. After George knocked out Biff, he finally had the confidence to write a successful book. His original, cowardly self never would have taken that chance. So, having extra money (notice they still lived in the same middle-class house), makes sense. 😊
I always thought he looked different, I thought maybe he had just aged and so had to use make up to make it work...I never knew the details of how the films where filmed etc...Im with Glover though, he needs to protect his brand and likeness 💯👏🏼
Man I realize this is off topic, but it's startling that SAG had a strike about this and also turned around and threw Voice Actors under the bus with the whole AI thing
I love the “BTTF” Trilogy but I don’t think using a double to replace Glover impacts the movies at all.
I agree with Crispin re: the reward should be love, as it’s a more powerful meaning, and adding money weakens this. Just from a story telling perspective, values aside.
I understand Glover's issues with the ending, and it does go a bit too hard on the materialism. Marty getting the truck is just over the top. But at the same time, I do think the film also emphasized that George & Lorraine are in a genuinely loving - and still thirsty! - relationship, and that their happiness has resulted in a more loving and cohesive family.
OTOH, what's never sat right with me in the ending is that there's is NO WAY a guy who writes pulp scifi novels makes it into the upper class. They could have very plausibly still been living in what's recognizably the same basic home as in the opening, just redressed to be *nicer* without being totally bougie.
(OTOOH, we're never told what Lorraine does. Maybe she's the real breadwinner!)
Don't get me wrong, i grew up watching Back to the Future, it is a beloved movie for me, but i think Crispin has a point here, i kinda agree with him. However this movie was made in the 80s, and in 80s movies, financial success was always depicted as the best kind of character resolution possible, there are exceptions but 80s movies were like that.
You see the Bullets and Blockbusters video from 2days ago??
Crispin as George McFly was outstanding.
Honestly...2 doesn't hold up as well... as a kid it was awe inspiring, but over time it's far camper where 1 still is flawless
This is a very interesting story how it changed the film industry.
Were the McFly's really that much richer at the end of BttF 1? While their house is much better looking inside, it is still the same house! They didn't get a better house, and I'm sure if you even had twice the salary as original George, you'd go to another neighborhood to a better house.
So I don't think the ending is bad. They aren't that much richer, just better at taking opportunities that suit their skillset.
Can you do a video on who was regular show actually for?