Crispin Glover explains falling out on 'Back To The Future'
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
WOW - Glover still looks the same. I loved him in Ed and Rubin and his portrayal of Warhol in The Doors.
Kerr Avon
Master Member
It's not irony, it's hypocrisy. And never occurred to me before you posted it. :lol
He also did not like the work environment which was part of the issue of compensation.
It's also weird and creepy that they'd want Biff to hang around as a grovelling manservant. THE GUY WHO TRIED TO RAPE YOUR WIFE! It's quite the a strange dickish maneuver and not quite what I'd call a personality improvement.
Nick
Nick
What was referred to was probably what is in the third draft. Where Biff works for George only and does all the work for George. Biff has to write reports for George, Biff has to clean the cars. Then the McFlys also had a maid and were going to be moving into a new house with a tennis court and I think maybe a pool. On top of that a maid came in and served food... All the while Marty still gets the car of his dreams which at that point was Camaro Z-28 (product placement most likely affected that). It was a bit over the top, and I could see the point that it was too much.
The first draft that is officially the first draft has an editing where George ended up being something like a prize winning fighter, and George looks at an old yearbook and look at Marty on stage and says, "nah can't be.." So that might be where the idea of George knowing about Marty might come from.
The first draft that is officially the first draft has an editing where George ended up being something like a prize winning fighter, and George looks at an old yearbook and look at Marty on stage and says, "nah can't be.." So that might be where the idea of George knowing about Marty might come from.
I'd like to see Crispen try and argue a creative decision with my director. Shed tear him apart.
Actors really have no business arguing with their Directors over creative decisions.
Actors come into a job bringing thier own flavor to the mix, but ultimately must do as directed.
if Crispen got canned, it's his own fault.
Actors really have no business arguing with their Directors over creative decisions.
Actors come into a job bringing thier own flavor to the mix, but ultimately must do as directed.
if Crispen got canned, it's his own fault.
spectre_general
Active Member
Interesting. It'll always be a case of he said they said, I guess. I'm sure there was more to it than him innocently asking questions about the morality of the scene if they were flipping out about it.
That said, it's interesting because when I watched this as a kid, I didn't care about the truck at all. It was fine, but never made an impression. But that scene has since become the example of the "Me Decade" mentality in the 80's, and it gets brought up again and again just the way he's describing in that interview.
That said, it's interesting because when I watched this as a kid, I didn't care about the truck at all. It was fine, but never made an impression. But that scene has since become the example of the "Me Decade" mentality in the 80's, and it gets brought up again and again just the way he's describing in that interview.
Unfortunately, this is not how it works with the "star" system. Some names are so bankable that they command huge amounts of control. For instance, Lincoln just rolled through town here (I didn't get a job on it:cry) but some of my friends who did said that Daniel Day-Lewis pretty much ran the show. Actually, this is an example of the sacrifice you make in hiring a method actor. Still, it's part of the star system.
nickytea
Master Member
Yeah, how dare he call a director on his bull****.
I'm not totally buying Crispin's side of the story, but his concern was a legitimate interpretive view. Film is a collaborative medium. I can't imagine that was the main or only reason he got shafted, but if it was, then that reflects poorly on them.
Agreed - I've only done stage work so I don't know what the world is like on a film set, or even being a "star" on a film set, but unless you are a "star" with some pull - I don't think it is prudent for a young actor to push the buttons of a Director.
True, Crispin Glover was pretty much unknown then.
Whatever the story was, it sounds like there was a lot going on. Who was at fault is probably lost forever but something was clearly off.
nickytea
Master Member
I can't say anything about that specific situation on BTTF, and either way I'm sure saying something that criticizes a creative decision by Zemekis isn't exactly career prolonging.
And it's difficult to compare a theatre and film director, as their function isn't the same, nor are their mediums. Adherence to the text is imperative to the theatrical process, as performances vary the play itself is the fixed form.
Whereas, with film, the text is only a blueprint or first step toward its ultimate fixed form: the finished movie itself.
Thanks for clarifying that Tom, it indeed would have been little too much. I am glad they changed it.
Kerr Avon
Master Member
His argument was that the end of the movie would have suggested that happiness can come from being financially well off. That it's more about intangibles of family, fullfillment and happiness with your life.
Then he complained he didn't think he was getting paid enough for the movie, a movie that was bringing joy and entertainment into millions of people's lives. Like somehow the tangible rewards of lots of money was more important than the intangibles of bringing happiness to people. So what's good for the masses isn't good enough for him. A man who makes $150,000 for just a few months of work is being paid fairly well for something many people would do for significantly less. Much more than people who work much harder and much longer achieve.
So no, he's a lunatic hypocritical ****tard. :lol
That right there is half of Hollywood in a nutshell.
Harsh words man. Let's not flame people we don't know.
Similar threads
