BTTF II + III

This message has been deleted by an administrator

Watch Back to the Future Part 2 again. The 101st time is the charm. He's in old man makeup. He's UPSIDE DOWN FOR GOD'S SAKE. You can't miss him!

its not him. that is a different actor. they used archive footage and photos. he sued speilberg for using that archive footage!

Yes andypathy is correct in that Crispin Glover is not the actor that was hung upside down playing the elder George McFly in BTTF II. Nor is Crispin Glover the actor that danced as the young George McFly in BTTF II. Both of those sequences are portrayed by Jeffry Weissman:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0919297/

Crispin Glover's lawsuit was different from what andypathy stated.

The producers used molds of Crispin Glover's head from the original film to make prosthetic pieces to apply to Jeffrey Weissman's face. The producers inter-spliced a very small amount of footage of Crispin from the original film with the made-up-to-look-like-Crispin-Glover-Jeffrey-Weissman in order to fool audiences in to believing that Jeffrey Weissman was indeed Crispin Glover and that Crispin Glover had indeed appeared in the second BTTF film.

The original post is an example of this illegal activity on the part of the producers taking effect by an audience member believing that Crispin Glover had acted in the second film. If the producers had only used footage of Crispin from the original film there would not have been a lawsuit. If the producers had only hired another actor to play the character of George McFly and not used Crispin Glover's facial features there would not have been a lawsuit.

What the lawsuit was about was that the producers did not own Crispin Glover's features. Crispin Glover's lawsuit changed laws in the Screen Actor's Guild so that producers never do this again. It set a legal precedent. What the producers of Back to the Future did was illegal.

IMO Crispin Glover was the STAR of BTTF. Unfortunately at the time the two Bobs did feel he was not worth a similar pay packet to Michael J. They did not even try to meet him halfway. Pure arrogance on their part. In hindsight one can imagine they still kick themselves for their error. One can only imagine what kind of pay rise they gave themselves after the success of the first movie!

Watch his performance closely in the original. He out acts EVERYONE, and BTTF II & III suffered directly because of his absense.

If I were Crispin I would have been pissed off if the producers tried to fool the watching public into believing George McFly was being played by CG in BTTF II.

I believe he sued them, or at least tried to, and rightly so.

Although I agree with you on what they did to Crispin on BTTF 2 and the ways the producers tried to fool the public. I extremely disagree with you on him being the STAR of BTTF. In both the "Hollywood" sense and performance sense of the films he was not the star:

In the the hollywood sense he was billed behind both MJF and Christopher Lloyd. The story focused on the character of Marty McFly (and admittedly to BOTH George and Lorraine McFly). Marty was the central figure. He was the protagonist. The characters and actors who portrayed George and Lorraine are very important to the plot, but they were not the main focus, ergo they were not the STARS.

I agree with you that Crispin's performance was spectacular. He was fantastic and I could not see anyone else as George McFly, but by the way your post comes across, it sounds as if you could've put anyone else in the roles of Marty, Doc and Lorraine and it would be just as good. You totally discount the performances of the ensemble. Following your logic, I could replace Marty with Jaden Smith, Doc with Rob Schnieder, and Lorraine with Miley Cyrus and as long as I kept Crispin as George McFly the movie would still be as good as the original.

He was integral to the movie and fantastic in it, but was not the STAR of the movie.

BTW, I can kind of see your point on BTTF 2 suffering from Crispin's absence, but BTTF 3 had nothing to do with the George McFly character and the loss of Crispin in that film was non existent.

I think more of what the above poster above you meant was it's how they feel about it.

Admittedly so, in my person opinion, I found the third one bland. It's only because it didn't capture my interest. I myself probably would have enjoyed it more if Crispin had made an appearance in the film, simply because he is on my top actors list.

But I digress. Though they didn't exactly say it this way, what I took from their post was that they thought he was fantastic and ended up being extremely under appreciated. Many people forget to add that this is strictly just their opinion. But in mine, I agree.

WOW.... You really like the sound of your own voice "Captain Obvious"....
He was just noting that Crispin's performance was amazing and his annoyance that he was not in the other two films.

We all know that he was not in the other two movies. We also know that his character was almost nonexistent in the second and not at all in the third.

I think his thought, which mine is also, was that "IF" there were no problems...
and "IF" they went into II & III knowing Glover was going to be involved... they might have been more or tons more of him in both, which would have made them both much better movies than they were.