Back To The Future Appreciation Thread, 35 year Anniversary

He wasn't in the sequels because his salary demands were outrageously high.

He sued them because they used footage of him in II, and back then it wasn't written into contracts that filmmakers could do that. I think that is when contracts were changed to where when you sign on to a film, footage of you from the original can be used in sequels (or something to that effect).

Honestly though, George McFly wasn't missed in the sequels. His story was told well in I and there was no need to do anything else with it.

 

'Time to change that oil'!

 

Yes and yes. He wasn't in the sequels.

Replacement of Crispin Glover[edit]
Crispin Glover was asked to reprise the role of George McFly. He expressed interest, but could not come to an agreement with the producers regarding his salary. He stated in a 1992 interview on The Howard Stern Show that the producers' highest offer was $125,000, less than half of what the other returning cast members were offered. Gale has since asserted that Glover's demands were excessive for an actor of his professional stature at that time.[20] In an interview on the Opie and Anthony show in 2013, Glover stated that his primary reason for not doing Part II was a philosophical disagreement on the film's message; Glover felt the story rewarded the characters with financial gain, such as Marty's truck, rather than love.[21]

Rather than write George McFly out of the film, Zemeckis used previously filmed footage of Glover from the first film as well as new footage of actor Jeffrey Weissman, who wore prosthetics including a false chin, nose, and cheekbones to resemble Glover. Various techniques were used to obfuscate the Weissman footage, such as placing him in the background rather than the foreground, having him wear sunglasses, and hanging him upside down. Glover filed a lawsuit against the producers of the film on the grounds that they neither owned his likeness nor had permission to use it. As a result of this suit, there are now clauses in the Screen Actors Guild collective bargaining agreements which state that producers and actors are not allowed to use such methods to reproduce the likeness of other actors.[22] Glover's legal action, while resolved outside of the courts, has been considered as a key case in personality rights for actors with increasing use of improved special effects and digital media, in which an actor may have agreed to appear in one part of a production but have their likeness be used in another without their agreement.[23][24]

I know Lea and many cast members were upset that the actor was changed but that isn't Weissman's fault. He thought he was just going in to be a stand in for the movie.


I read at some point Weissman overheard one of the Bobs say "looks like we found our Crispin at a cheaper price and without all the trouble".

The upsidedown George was written in specifically for Crispin as a rib because he would have to hang upside down for hours. Then they never took it out of the script for Jeffrey.

 

Really? I always assumed the upside-down thing was done to make it less noticeable that it wasn't Crispin Glover.

 

From Weissman:

Bob and Robert had purposely written George hanging upside-down because they wanted to torture Crispin during the shoot, as payback for the headaches he caused on the filming of the first installment. I daily went through three to four hours of make-up as George at ages 17, 47 and 77, and then was hung upside-down for all of the McFly household 2015 scenes. It was hard on my face and back. Lea, Tom, Michael and Elizabeth, we all had to be put into old-age prosthetics during the shoot. I was just the lucky one that got the bonus torture of being hung upside-down for often 20-plus hour days.

 

Ok, yes, that is what I was remembering - I think that's the same article I had read a long time ago.

 

For what it's worth when I first saw BTTF2 I had no idea someone had replaced Crispin when going into the theater. However when he first appeared on screen I knew it wasn't him. Something was a little off and it didn't really sound like George McFly.

 

I caught a slight error in continuity when catching some of these on cable again recently.

In I, when Marty returns to 1985 at the end, Biff is a totally different character. Instead of a surly bully, he is a passive, almost silly, meek man, the obvious implication being that he had been defanged after getting his lights punched out by George McFly.

However, in II, after the knockout, in the new footage we see, Biff gets up from the knockout as angry and surly as ever, and is still his old self when he confronts Marty outside the door and then kicks him in the ribs and takes back the almanac. There was no change in personality whatsoever after getting knocked out by "that bug George McFly."

Just something I had never really thought of, but noticed.

 

I rewatched 1 last night. Rewatching it more closely makes me appreciate Loraine’s comments at the beginning of the film about not chasing after a guy, and all the ways she pursued 1955 Marty over and over again. Also, on a side note, though a Really funny scene, why on earth would they remove Marty’s pants when Loraine’s dad hit him with the car? They put him in bed after a concussion and took off his pants? Who takes off a stranger’s pants, lol?

 

The constant smell of manure on the set sent the continuity guy for several unplanned times to the restroom.

 

I see your point but don't agree with it.

I think it'd have been unrealistic for Biff to immediately go from bully to wimp. Yes, George's knockout started him on that path, but it wouldn't make sense for that one incident to cause Biff to do a 180.

I would assume that this incident led George and others to be more willing to stand up to Biff, and that's what changed his personality. They knew Biff could be beaten - and he probably was beaten by George a few more times, since George now knew he could take Biff in a fight.

So the knockout was just step 1 in the process, not the whole magilla!

 

Fair points, but to push back a little, I doubt George could have taken Biff again in a fight. While he had more confidence, he only really got the best of Biff because he caught him by surprise with the left, and I doubt Biff would let his guard down like that again. Then again, you never know. It's also possible that Biff's rep as the classroom bully took a hit and no one in the school feared him anymore. Notice when he went to confront George in the "you're my density" scene in I, he pushed some guy at the counter, likely another kid at school who was used to Biff picking on everyone, and the kid just took it. The fear factor likely went away, which could have damaged Biff's tough guy persona over time.

 

We just watched the trilogy again this weekend. Still love it as much as I did when I saw them in the theater as a kid. Even had a pair of BTTF 2 sunglasses from Pizza Hut. (Actually have pictures of me wearing them)

 

The weird thing about that particular scene is.... the first punch that George attempts to throw is the one that should've caught Biff by surprise, and yet Biff somehow manages to magically sense it coming and react in time to block it successfully. And yet, the second punch that George throws - the one that knocks Biff out - is the most telegraphed punch in movie history! Biff should have been able to react that one too... if anything, more easily than the first!

 

Perhaps, but the first attempt happened when Biff's focus was solely on George, while the second attempt, the one that landed, happened as Biff was slightly turned and laughing at Lorraine. He kind of turned back to George right as he was throwing the left.

 

And this news story confirms everything...

Chuck Berry Remembers Call From
Cousin About White Kid Playing 'Johnny B. Goode'
WENTZVILLE, MO—In a shocking revelation that turns a half century of rock-and-roll history on its head, legendary musician Chuck Berry recalled Monday how he got the idea for his iconic song "Johnny B. Goode"—believed for decades to have been written by Berry himself—after listening to a white teenager playing it over the telephone. "I'll never forget that night back in 1955 when I got the call from [cousin] Marvin [Berry] saying, 'Chuck, this is that sound you've been looking for!'" recounted Berry, explaining that his cousin was playing an "Enchantment Under The Sea"–themed high school dance when the mysterious teen, Calvin Klein, took to the stage and single-handedly invented rock and roll as we now know it. "Marvin held up the phone and I heard the song that would make me famous. Then I stole it."

The Onion news story

 

Watching the first one now as it was re-added to Australian Netflix over the weekend.

 

Yeah, that's why I said "George and others". Biff's mystique of invincibility was gone, so others were more willing to push back against him.

To me, that makes more sense than the notion one beating immediately changed Biff's personality. You don't go from arrogant bully to obsequious simp because one guy got in a few good punches!

 

I liked he went from bully to cringing wimp after a good thump
- and being seen by others that he was knocked down

True in real life ?
I earnestly hope so

 

And that is even briefly hinted at in the movie. When Marty shows up to the “Weather experiment” on the night, this exchange takes place...

Marty: Doc, the old man really came through, it worked. He laid off Biff in one punch. I didn’t know he had it in him he’s never served to Biff in his life
Doc: (wide eye’d) Never?
Marty: No, why? What’s the matter?

This implies that when George punches Biff it set’s off a chain reaction for George to standup to Biff in the future and not that the one punch completely changed his personality.

Whether intentionally or not it is also backed up by the fact that in Part II that after he see’s “Calvin Klein” and gets up from being punched by George and then Marty he’s still the same old biff.

 

I think the 2nd part sets up that it took more than 1 beating from George to change Biff but not the 1st.

In the original timeline, George never stood up to Biff. That's why George was still a loser in Original 1985 and Biff was still a bully.

In Calvin timeline, George's actions irrevocably change the future, so we get Successful George in Calvin 1985 and Wimpy Biff.

The Marty/Doc exchange you cite still leaves open the notion that the one beating might've changed the timeline and they didn't need further interactions to do so. The "BTTF2" scene you mention does seem to clarify that it took more...

 

Biff still has a lot of anger in him in the Calvin 1985 timeline if you see his reaction when Doc shows up after marty's return in BTTF 2. I think he is just being a kiss ass to the McFly's cause he needs is pretty broke and needs the money. But deep down he is full of rage.

 

I dunno - Calvin 1985 Biff seems awfully wimpy and goofy in the 1st movie.

The film gives him a brief moment of minor rebellion when Biff lies to claim he was almost done waxing the car, but as soon as George "threatens" him, Biff goes back to Happy Doofus Biff.

I suspect any greater signs of anger in "BTTF2" are more due to plot necessity than what Zemeckis, et al intended in 1985. Let's remember that even with the sequel-bait ending, they didn't plan on a 2nd movie, so a lot of "2" and "3" got retrofit.

Even if they'd planned a trilogy from the start, I suspect there'd be a lot of inconsistencies - they're just unavoidable in a series of movies with so many complications - but the fact that they came up with the stories for "2" and "3" after the original was released made that more of a challenge.

Especially since they were locked into a "BTTF2" in which a) they went to the future and b) there was something wrong with Marty's kids.

This severely limited potential story development - and it forced them to involve Jennifer as a character, since the ending of the 1st movie tells us they get married and procreate.

As great an ending as that was in 1985, I'll bet Zemeckis and crew wish they'd never done it since it made their sequel options more limited!

 

I actually seem to remember hearing Zemeckis say something like that in an interview. (Paraphrasing) ...and at the time we didn't know we'd be doing a sequel, the end was just a little bit of fun. If we knew we were going to do a sequel: we would have never put Jenifer in the car because now we need to deal with the effects of that, we can't just do nothing with her. (Or something like that)