MovieChat Forums > Back to the Future (1985) Discussion > I'm mad at the cast for not boycotting p...

I'm mad at the cast for not boycotting part II over Crispin Glover being impersonated

posted 4 years ago by [deleted]
26 replies | jump to latest

His part was not recast. His image was used to con the audience. They literally did 4 hours of makeup every day on Jeffrey Weissman to try and pass him off as Crispin Glover.

Given that Crispin Glover didn't play himself in a historical movie, it was both immoral and illegal to do so.

The cast should have walked out on part II in solidarity with Crispin and to make a stand against Hollywood stealing someone's image.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

It wasn’t that big of a deal, George McFly wasn’t that important of a character in Part II and the cast protesting would be absurd, no one flipped out when Marlon Brando didn’t show up to film his scene in Godfather Part II

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

They should have just bitten the bullet and had the new actor play the father with HIS OWN IMAGE and his own take on the part of George McFly. They recast Marty's girlfriend and nobody seems to care (I know I didn't or don't.)

But to go to extreme lengths to pretend that Crispin Glover was playing the part was too much.

Crispin says that to this day, people think he was in all 3 movies. I know I only found out in recent years.

He was very mad because besides from them using his appearance and not paying him, he wasn't happy with the impersonator's performance, so people may have watched what they thought was him in part II and III and thought 'man that Glover isn't a very good actor at all.'

Can you see why that would be a big problem and why fellow actors should have stood up for him?

Apparently when Michael J. Fox found out that Jeffrey Weissman would be wearing a prosthetic face of Crispin he said 'well Crispin isn't going to be happy about this.' Why didn't he walk out?

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Ummm people would have been confused on who that guy was. I don’t see the big deal especially considering George McFly isn’t exactly what most people would consider to be an iconic character or anything

[–] pjl69 (2510) 4 years ago

What's the deal with Glover anyhow? Did he want to be in the sequels but overpriced himself, or what?

[–] AP (5260) 4 years ago

Yeah, he asked for too much money and considered himself a co-star with Michael J Fox.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

There is some dispute on what the dispute was. Both sides allege different things. Bottom line though, Crispin sued for use of his image and won. Just because you play a character, doesn't mean they own your image.

[–] strntz (11162) 4 years ago

No one (OK, almost no one) cares about George McFly. He was a big part of BTTF, but not II.

Given the short amount of time he was actually on screen and the insignificance of the character in II, they should just written the character out.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I think you're forgetting that he has to go back to 1955 and we have him in the car and at the dance again. It would be hard to write him out.

[–] strntz (11162) 4 years ago

Okay, I've only seen II once since it was my least favorite (too convoluted) so I don't remember the scenes that clearly, but couldn't they just have used the same footage from the first film?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

No because it's further away shots and new interactions. Plus I don't think they had any rights to use his image.

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

FYI Glover is reputed to be 200 kinds of nutcase and to be "difficult" to work with.

So while you do have a point about use of an actor's image without consent, it's likely enough that the rest of the cast was relieved not to have Glover around.

[–] movienchill31 (222) 4 years ago

I don't see the big deal. He wasn't a main character in 2 or 3 so boycotting would have been pointless

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

He might have been a bigger character if Glover had been in both parts 2 and 3. The second part had to be rewritten extensively. The original screenplay for part 2 had more of George McFly in it than we actually got after the rewrite.

[–] movienchill31 (222) 4 years ago

Wow. Didn't know that! Maybe you're right!

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

I am. Remember at the end of the first movie Doc said that they have to go to the future and that the kids were in great trouble. The second movie was supposed to be about that and also take place in the future. I don't think that they went back to the 50's in the original screenplay. There was so much time between parts one and two, because of the rewrite.

[–] StrongRex (1300) 4 years ago

I honestly thought them going back to the 50's was the worst part of the movie.

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

I thought the 50's part in the second movie was also the worst part. I wanted them to stay in the future. We already went through all of the 50's stuff in the first movie. Why relive it again in part 2?

[–] Sidha108 (2405) 4 years ago

I recently rewatched the trilogy and it does seem weird how George essentially is a background character in Parts II & III. One of the major plot points of Part II is preventing George’s murder but we hardly ever see him. At the end of Part III, there isn’t even a scene of Marty hugging George saying, “Dad, I’m so glad you are alive!”

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Yeah, it is a big loose end.

[–] hurricane (1936) 4 years ago

I don't really get why they bothered to have him in the 2015 bit. Would it've been that big a deal if Lorraine had stopped by to see Marty without George?

As they'd killed him off for the alternative 1985 timeline and he was present in the archive footage 1955 bit, did they really need to go through the trouble of hiring and disguising a new actor for the sake of a couple of throwaway lines in the 2015 segment and so he could be seen standing in the background in the third movie? It wouldn't have made any difference to the film.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I never liked the trip back to 1955. I liked the alternative 1985 and understand that they needed to go back and change the past but it dragged on a little.

[–] hurricane (1936) 4 years ago

Really? I thought that was the best part of Back To The Future 2.

The future bit was alright, but I couldn't have watched a whole movie of it.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7488) 4 years ago

I agree. Plus it was good sering Biff get covered in manure a 2nd time.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I liked the 1985 alternative timeline. That’s a really interesting concept.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Crispin Glover was asked to retake his role and started making all sorts of crazy demands because he didn't really want to do it. He's not the victim here.

[–] exithereplease (3553) 4 years ago

He isn't.

He's one of the highlights in an almost perfect film.

But time (or his agent was not his friend) and he went crazy bat shit in an infamous Letterman appearance in 1987 and his career went into spiral.