Crispin Glover talks BTTF

[dmcerik]

Interesting take.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2014/02/27/keepin-it-reel-crispin-glover-talks-back-to-the-future

[Ryan]

Thanks for sharing. It was really interesting to hear his side of the story. As for the monetary gain aspect of the first movie, I believe in the commentary somewhere even Zemeckis admitted that it was a very "eighties movie" in that regard and that's really just a product of the culture of that time.

[thirdmanj]

He's so full of shit. That or whatever he said to Zemeckis and Gale worked, because it was precisely that which was a main plot point in the second film. "Marty, I didn't invent the Time Machine for financial gain, I invented the Time Machine to travel through time." George's wealth/success was a byproduct of exactly what Glover was ranting about in that panel. "Follow your bliss." He did that by not letting go of his writing.

[Ryan]

But there is that little blip about Marty wanting a new truck, and then somehow ends up having it in the alternate 1985. The second and third one followed a more philosophical approach to things. Even if that time-traveling train made Doc a complete hypocrite.

[Rich W]

Somewhat related ...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ywe62/crispin_hellion_glover_actor_and_filmmaker_more/

There are certain things that happened since being in Back to the Future that makes it difficult for me to reflect on the film as having funny things happening. Specifically there was a lawsuit because of something the producers did that was illegal in the sequel to the film. What the producers did that was illegal was as follows. The producers used the molds that were taken from my face from the original film and had prosthetics made to resemble my face to be placed on another actor to make them look like me and then inter-spliced a small amount of footage of me from the original film with the actor in prosthetics to resemble me in order to fool audiences in to believing I was in the film. There was an actress that was replaced with another actress in the film, but they simply cast another actor in that role with no prosthetics. Had they simply cast another actor to play the role of George McFly there would have been no criminal activity on the part of the producers and there would have been no lawsuit. Since they did not own my face nor make an financial agreement with me to use my facial features what they did was stealing something they did not own for personal again and therefor what they did was illegal and why there was a lawsuit and why there are rules in the Screen Actors Guild that make it so producers can never to this kind of thing again.

Probably the most negative aspect about it is that Bob Gale who was a co-producer and co-writer and one of the main architects of the illegal activity has decided that it serves him best to lie about what happened in order to justify partaking in something that led to the producer’s illegal activity. He has falsely stated that I asked the same amount of money that Michael J. Fox was getting. This statement by him is complete fabrication. He is doing this to take the focus off the fact that what he and his fellow producers did was illegal, by definition of the word. He does not want to face that fact. To skirt the issue Bob Gale has lied to millions of people on the Back to the Future DVD commentaries about how the negotiations were handled. I would not normally discuss this sort of thing, but people believe what he has stated as true. What people have to realize is that Bob Gale was involved with something that he and his fellow producers turned in to illegal activity. People who wonder about if what Bob Gale has said is true or not, should understand even if they liked “Back to the Future” it still means that a creator like Bob Gale who was a contributor to the illegal activity has motivation to create lies to detract the attention from his wrong doing. I wonder if Bob Gale were asked if he would help produce a film with the same specific illegal activity if he would say he would do it again. For one thing the new laws in SAG that my lawsuit helped to create would not allow an actor to be hired to fool audiences in to believing they are another performer with the use of prosthetics or otherwise. Still putting that specific questions to Bob Gale I wonder what he would answer. If he would answer that he would help to do something illegal again I hope people would understand the lack of integrity that would indicate on his part. I would hope he would answer that what he/they did was wrong, and illegal and if they had to make the film without me playing the role they would simply cast another actor in the role like they did with re-casting Claudia Wells with Elizabeth Shue as Jennifer character in the same film. In the very same film they re-cast an actress with a different actress, but they did not put prosthetics on Elizabeth Shue to make her look like Claudia Wells. For whatever what feels to me like being mean spirited, they decided it was good idea to put another actor in prosthetics and inter-splice a very small portion of me from the original film to fool audiences in to believing I was in it. There has not been another situation like this preceding it, and because of my lawsuit there has not been another time that another actor has been subjected to this particular sort of illegal activity. Again I am proud of the lawsuit and standing up against illegal activity that caused proper precedents and bylaws in to be set in the Screen Actors Guild. It is unfortunate that the producers of the Back to the Future films decided it was a good idea to perform an illegal action, which led to a lawsuit. In 2005-2007 I had a very positive experience working with Robert Zemeckis again playing Grendel in his “Beowulf.” When working together the subject of the lawsuit was never brought up. I am enjoying my life, making my films, touring with them, publishing my books and acting in other people’s films. If I were put in the exact same situation today I would react in the exact same way. Thank you for asking about it in that detailed way. I am glad to help clarify. People can find out about my films and shows and where I will be with them on CrispinGlover.com

I have noticed however that Bob Gale who was the co-writer and one of the producers on the films and one of the chief architects of the concepts that led to the law suit has been stating false things about me to attempt to lessen his wrongdoing. I do not like his false statements would like to remind that what he did caused laws in the screen actors guild to be changed to protect actors from his kind of wrong doing. I ended up having an excellent working relationship with Robert Zemeckis on Beowulf which was released in 2007. Despite the negative aspects of Bob Gale I am glad that I played the character in the original film.

[thirdmanj]

But there is that little blip about Marty wanting a new truck, and then somehow ends up having it in the alternate 1985. The second and third one followed a more philosophical approach to things. Even if that time-traveling train made Doc a complete hypocrite.
Again, just a happy byproduct. I think any perceived message there is just that.

[Ryan]

Again, just a happy byproduct. I think any perceived message there is just that.

Fair enough. I will still forever be pissed by the train though, even if it is unrelated to this topic.

[thirdmanj]

Fair enough. I will still forever be pissed by the train though, even if it is unrelated to this topic.

You're right about the train. Cool as it was.

[Gary Weaver II]

Great to hear Crispin's side of it.


Somewhat related ...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ywe62/crispin_hellion_glover_actor_and_filmmaker_more/

There are certain things that happened since being in Back to the Future that makes it difficult for me to reflect on the film as having funny things happening. Specifically there was a lawsuit because of something the producers did that was illegal in the sequel to the film. What the producers did that was illegal was as follows. The producers used the molds that were taken from my face from the original film and had prosthetics made to resemble my face to be placed on another actor to make them look like me and then inter-spliced a small amount of footage of me from the original film with the actor in prosthetics to resemble me in order to fool audiences in to believing I was in the film. There was an actress that was replaced with another actress in the film, but they simply cast another actor in that role with no prosthetics. Had they simply cast another actor to play the role of George McFly there would have been no criminal activity on the part of the producers and there would have been no lawsuit. Since they did not own my face nor make an financial agreement with me to use my facial features what they did was stealing something they did not own for personal again and therefor what they did was illegal and why there was a lawsuit and why there are rules in the Screen Actors Guild that make it so producers can never to this kind of thing again.

Probably the most negative aspect about it is that Bob Gale who was a co-producer and co-writer and one of the main architects of the illegal activity has decided that it serves him best to lie about what happened in order to justify partaking in something that led to the producer’s illegal activity. He has falsely stated that I asked the same amount of money that Michael J. Fox was getting. This statement by him is complete fabrication. He is doing this to take the focus off the fact that what he and his fellow producers did was illegal, by definition of the word. He does not want to face that fact. To skirt the issue Bob Gale has lied to millions of people on the Back to the Future DVD commentaries about how the negotiations were handled. I would not normally discuss this sort of thing, but people believe what he has stated as true. What people have to realize is that Bob Gale was involved with something that he and his fellow producers turned in to illegal activity. People who wonder about if what Bob Gale has said is true or not, should understand even if they liked “Back to the Future” it still means that a creator like Bob Gale who was a contributor to the illegal activity has motivation to create lies to detract the attention from his wrong doing. I wonder if Bob Gale were asked if he would help produce a film with the same specific illegal activity if he would say he would do it again. For one thing the new laws in SAG that my lawsuit helped to create would not allow an actor to be hired to fool audiences in to believing they are another performer with the use of prosthetics or otherwise. Still putting that specific questions to Bob Gale I wonder what he would answer. If he would answer that he would help to do something illegal again I hope people would understand the lack of integrity that would indicate on his part. I would hope he would answer that what he/they did was wrong, and illegal and if they had to make the film without me playing the role they would simply cast another actor in the role like they did with re-casting Claudia Wells with Elizabeth Shue as Jennifer character in the same film. In the very same film they re-cast an actress with a different actress, but they did not put prosthetics on Elizabeth Shue to make her look like Claudia Wells. For whatever what feels to me like being mean spirited, they decided it was good idea to put another actor in prosthetics and inter-splice a very small portion of me from the original film to fool audiences in to believing I was in it. There has not been another situation like this preceding it, and because of my lawsuit there has not been another time that another actor has been subjected to this particular sort of illegal activity. Again I am proud of the lawsuit and standing up against illegal activity that caused proper precedents and bylaws in to be set in the Screen Actors Guild. It is unfortunate that the producers of the Back to the Future films decided it was a good idea to perform an illegal action, which led to a lawsuit. In 2005-2007 I had a very positive experience working with Robert Zemeckis again playing Grendel in his “Beowulf.” When working together the subject of the lawsuit was never brought up. I am enjoying my life, making my films, touring with them, publishing my books and acting in other people’s films. If I were put in the exact same situation today I would react in the exact same way. Thank you for asking about it in that detailed way. I am glad to help clarify. People can find out about my films and shows and where I will be with them on CrispinGlover.com

I have noticed however that Bob Gale who was the co-writer and one of the producers on the films and one of the chief architects of the concepts that led to the law suit has been stating false things about me to attempt to lessen his wrongdoing. I do not like his false statements would like to remind that what he did caused laws in the screen actors guild to be changed to protect actors from his kind of wrong doing. I ended up having an excellent working relationship with Robert Zemeckis on Beowulf which was released in 2007. Despite the negative aspects of Bob Gale I am glad that I played the character in the original film.

[DL4567]

Crispin's telling of his side of the story isn't completely new. A couple years ago there was a podcast from an Australian? (IIRC) radio station where he went into detail about it. But it seems this time it's getting out there in more popular channels.

[Ikeaboy1]

Interesting to hear, but would I really dismiss a talented actor from a role just because he didn't like the ending of my movie? How vocal must he have been with the objections to drive himself out of the sequels in favor of a look alike wearing prosthetics? Seems like there must've been something else.

[David T]

Interesting to hear, but would I really dismiss a talented actor from a role just because he didn't like the ending of my movie? How vocal must he have been with the objections to drive himself out of the sequels in favor of a look alike wearing prosthetics? Seems like there must've been something else.

If you hear both sides to it CG wound up taking money to settle his lawsuit. I guess he was not above taking money instead of happiness. He also wanted editorial review of the scripts. He should have become writer, not an actor. He WAS right in arguing he was not compensated for the use of his likeness, that was not right but I suppose he would have been in the sequels if he wasn't so difficult to work with. He did find a way to work with Zemakis on Beowolf but he reserves his animosity for Bob Gale. Funny how this comes up now. My big question is why now? Even he admits he can't remember all of the details. Bottom line, he was hired to act, not write. He also thought he was going to be Marty, not the older character, the father. I suppose he wasn't happy not getting the top billing. According to Bob Gale he also wanted top pay (the same as MJF) although CG denies that. When people argue is is not about the money IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY.

[Kane]

My big question is why now? Even he admits he can't remember all of the details.

He did an AMA (Ask me Anything) on Reddit.com. Someone asked about BTTF and he took the chance to tell his side again.

[DMCVegas]

I've heard that Glover can be difficult to work with because he wants to flesh his characters out so much. Ethan Suplee is the same way and apparently landed the role of Randy on My Name is Earl because of some director cometary on a movie he did where he argued with a director over why his character would do such and such an action against someone whom he had just befriended. I can see how that can cause such conflict between an actor that wants to always have meaning if not coherence in a role they've taken on, and a director whose vision is being threatened by said resistance of adherence to a script. Some directors thrive off of that kind of input, others will be damned if their vision is to be called into question. Which is why when some directors get a good relationship with actors, they continuously work together.

Personally, I think Crispin Glover is a helluva actor, and he's one of my favorite ones. I really like the way he creates characters as well as the unconventional ones that he takes on. Whenver I think of Thomas Edison, Crispin Glover is whom I picture in my head now because of his performance:

[NSFW Language]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gOR91oentQ

[Mark D]

He also thought he was going to be Marty, not the older character, the father. I suppose he wasn't happy not getting the top billing.

I think you are misunderstanding what he said in the video. The comment about not expecting to play the "older character" deals with him not knowing he would be playing old 1985 George in addition to young 1955 George. There was no expectation that he was going to be playing Marty.

[thirdmanj]

[NSFW Language]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gOR91oentQ

Fuck Crispin Glover. Tesla was the electric Jesus.

[David T]

Fuck Crispin Glover. Tesla was the electric Jesus.

I agree CP is a very good actor. Actually using an actor's likeness is not that unusual. Happens ALL the time when you use stunt doubles. It is usually in the same movie the actual actor is in and everyone understands why it is being done. It can also happen when an actor dies. Doing it because you can't get the actor (or at least his explicit permission) is another thing. As far as rules, it wasn't against the SAG rules, at least not at the time it was done! And we won't ever know the legality of it since it never went to court. We may see more problems like this as computers get better and better and they can recreate actors in CG.

[OverlandMan]

I think Glover's a weird guy. The truth is probably somewhere between what Gale and Glover are arguing.

There's always this from 1987 to back up my statement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCaxKq5KFQM

[DMCVegas]

I agree CP is a very good actor. Actually using an actor's likeness is not that unusual. Happens ALL the time when you use stunt doubles. It is usually in the same movie the actual actor is in and everyone understands why it is being done. It can also happen when an actor dies. Doing it because you can't get the actor (or at least his explicit permission) is another thing. As far as rules, it wasn't against the SAG rules, at least not at the time it was done! And we won't ever know the legality of it since it never went to court. We may see more problems like this as computers get better and better and they can recreate actors in CG.

Well apparently SAG rules were changed as a result of everything. As Glover says himself it's not unusual for an actor to replace another to represent the same character. And that's fine as it's the new actor being passed off to the audience as the character. However with BTTF 2 it was a case where prosthetics were used on said replacement actor as well as old footage was spliced in to make the audience believe that there was no new character, that it was the same actor. Which I would agree is indeed a very different proposition. The intro of the movie he also cites as an example too where Elizabeth Shue replaced Claudia Wells and they reshot her footage instead, and how this is acceptable.

Glover certainly seems like an eccentric dude, no doubt. But that shouldn't count against him. Though I do agree that the truth is somewhere to be found in-between what they're both saying.

[DL4567]

The Letterman interview incident wasn't as bad as it appears. Apparently he was doing that interview "in character," but it was poorly planned or communicated with the crew and Letterman. Or it was sorta planned but the kick thing just pissed Letterman off. Who knows. Doing an interview in character isn't uncommon, Andy Kaufman did it a lot, and everyone thought Joaquin Phoenix was crazy when he did that for a couple years with his beard and just acting strange. Anyway, while Crispin on Letterman is a little painful to watch, that apparently isn't really him being crazy, just being his movie character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dYjdKbMT_c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5eLYzltZPU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[OverlandMan]

The Letterman interview incident wasn't as bad as it appears. Apparently he was doing that interview "in character," but it was poorly planned or communicated with the crew and Letterman. Or it was sorta planned but the kick thing just pissed Letterman off. Who knows. Doing an interview in character isn't uncommon, Andy Kaufman did it a lot, and everyone thought Joaquin Phoenix was crazy when he did that for a couple years with his beard and just acting strange. Anyway, while Crispin on Letterman is a little painful to watch, that apparently isn't really him being crazy, just being his movie character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dYjdKbMT_c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5eLYzltZPU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I never said he was crazy, just weird. And I would also classify Kaufman as weird. Different strokes for different folks.

[David T]

The Letterman interview incident wasn't as bad as it appears. Apparently he was doing that interview "in character," but it was poorly planned or communicated with the crew and Letterman. Or it was sorta planned but the kick thing just pissed Letterman off. Who knows. Doing an interview in character isn't uncommon, Andy Kaufman did it a lot, and everyone thought Joaquin Phoenix was crazy when he did that for a couple years with his beard and just acting strange. Anyway, while Crispin on Letterman is a little painful to watch, that apparently isn't really him being crazy, just being his movie character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dYjdKbMT_c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5eLYzltZPU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I can understand trying to portray yourself as crazy but audiences can have a hard time figuring out if the person is just acting the part or really is nuts. My take could be he really IS crazy and is such a good actor that he is able to ACT like a normal person. If I didn't know better and saw that interview with that actor for the first time I would think he was on something. Obviously Letterman did not expect CP to take a kick at him and did not know how to take it and worried the guest was going to hit him.

[DL4567]

I never said he was crazy, just weird. And I would also classify Kaufman as weird. Different strokes for different folks.

Agreed. It's definitely not my sense of humor.


I can understand trying to portray yourself as crazy but audiences can have a hard time figuring out if the person is just acting the part or really is nuts. My take could be he really IS crazy and is such a good actor that he is able to ACT like a normal person. If I didn't know better and saw that interview with that actor for the first time I would think he was on something. Obviously Letterman did not expect CP to take a kick at him and did not know how to take it and worried the guest was going to hit him.

Yup, I'm totally with you on it being hard to understand. For years I always thought he was nuts after seeing it, but my friend recently shed light on the "character" bit. So that makes me look at it differently, but I still think it's awfully risky for someone to do that. Some people can pull it off and everyone knows what they're doing, like Will Ferrell for example, but for someone like Crispin I think it ended up hurting his career and/or audience perception.