Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Back to the Future

37 replies to this topic
Ronnyboy
  • Ronnyboy

    Blind leading the deaf, leading the socially inept.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2007

#31

Posted 14 April 2012 - 06:12 PM

QUOTE (Slamman @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 21:26)
That's the point in time travel, is it not!?? haha

Depends really. Doc wanted to use time travel to discover the great mysteries of the universe, to discover all there is to science. Marty did accidently, and then proceeded to travel to save his best friend Doc. So by definition, not really the point huh?

Interesting tid bit, the sound the door makes when opened was supposed to replicate the sound of a pressured system being released. The belief is that Doc may have actually feared that he'd travel too far back in time to survive the atmosphere. There's also a belief that it was kept for Part 2 because it could now fly (space travel?) and that would require pressurization.

markusizr
  • markusizr

    :D

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2011

#32

Posted 14 April 2012 - 07:48 PM

sorry i dont have free time to write beacuse i have a lot of friends
what program makes to teleport when delorean reach 88 MPH ansewer asap

Ronnyboy
  • Ronnyboy

    Blind leading the deaf, leading the socially inept.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2007

#33

Posted 15 April 2012 - 05:14 AM

QUOTE (markusizr @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 14:48)
sorry i dont have free time to write beacuse i have a lot of friends
what program makes to teleport when delorean reach 88 MPH ansewer asap

Freeware? I'll look and see, I used to have one for the computer that was a sim. Was really cool actually.

darthYENIK
  • darthYENIK

    Scuse me, while I kiss this guy.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2002
  • United-States

#34

Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:02 AM

I have a Flux Capacitor app on my phone. It's pretty cool. You can choose between different setups from the different movies. And you can set it to go off when you go to certain places in the real world using GPS. I have mine set to go off when I go to the Puente Hills mall (AKA The Twin/Lone Pine(s) mall).

thatstupidbug
  • thatstupidbug

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2011

#35

Posted 28 April 2012 - 09:52 PM

QUOTE (darthYENIK @ Saturday, Mar 31 2012, 06:51)
As for the third not being built around time travel?  It has just as much time traveling in it than the first.  The first and third movies have a lot more in common than meets the eye at first.  It's pretty much a twist on the first movie, set in a different time if you really look at it.

my view: yes, there's as much time travel as the first movie, but the travel itself is bad. the first movie was a real journey in time, you can really feel the idea of being out of place: Marty (and the viewers) are forced to deal to a different world, and one of the best thing in the first movie is to gradually learn all the differences between marty's generation and the life in the '50s.

in the third movie that the idea of exploring the world is almost lost. they are in the west, but they quickly act as they were there for years, or just don't care anymore about the differences. there's no sense of exploration of the world, and you can't really feel the differences between marty, doc and the rest of the people. yeah, there are a couple of funny gags here and there (nike?) but they seems more out of nowere than the past (like the moonwalker) and apart from that they seems perfectly integrated with this new, old world.

Ronnyboy
  • Ronnyboy

    Blind leading the deaf, leading the socially inept.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2007

#36

Posted 28 April 2012 - 10:10 PM

QUOTE (thatstupidbug @ Saturday, Apr 28 2012, 16:52)
QUOTE (darthYENIK @ Saturday, Mar 31 2012, 06:51)
As for the third not being built around time travel?  It has just as much time traveling in it than the first.  The first and third movies have a lot more in common than meets the eye at first.  It's pretty much a twist on the first movie, set in a different time if you really look at it.

my view: yes, there's as much time travel as the first movie, but the travel itself is bad. the first movie was a real journey in time, you can really feel the idea of being out of place: Marty (and the viewers) are forced to deal to a different world, and one of the best thing in the first movie is to gradually learn all the differences between marty's generation and the life in the '50s.

in the third movie that the idea of exploring the world is almost lost. they are in the west, but they quickly act as they were there for years, or just don't care anymore about the differences. there's no sense of exploration of the world, and you can't really feel the differences between marty, doc and the rest of the people. yeah, there are a couple of funny gags here and there (nike?) but they seems more out of nowere than the past (like the moonwalker) and apart from that they seems perfectly integrated with this new, old world.

The problem is that it would just be a repeat of the first movie then. It was meant to be the thrilling third act, violence, danger, death, paradoxes in time, suspense. It's all there, it just wasn't executed very well. The double production of both movies was hell on everyone in the production team. Most of the 1885 scenes were shot in the spring, right on top of Pt. 2's scenes. So the focus is really lost for the first half of Pt. 3 as a whole. Once you get passed the almost actual death of Michael J. Fox, then it starts to get really good. That last train bit is where the suspense and action come out. I just don't think the directors/writers were very good at getting serious emotion across.

thatstupidbug
  • thatstupidbug

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2011

#37

Posted 29 April 2012 - 07:49 PM

don't know if this interview was already posted and discussed on another section...

it's an interview to crispin glover, and he finally talks about why he didn't return in the sequels

the interview is longer than that, but i'll post only the section about BTTF

QUOTE
AVC: Do you feel personal qualms about being in a Charlie’s Angels or an Alice In Wonderland, where you’re clearly forwarding that kind of good-vs.-evil dichotomy you worry about?

CG: Well, yeah. It started with Back To The Future. That was the film that I still have questions about. Essentially what led to me not being in the sequels—I haven’t talked about it a lot until recently. The reason I’m starting to talk about it, specifically, there’s a person named Bob Gale who was a co-producer and co-writer on it who’s been lying about me, as to why I wasn’t in the second film. He’s been saying that I asked for the same salary that Michael J. Fox was getting. Total fabrication. The reason he’s making that up is because he does not want to talk about what he did that was—he is probably the prime architect as to that illegal thing that happened. [Glover won a landmark lawsuit over use of his likeness when the filmmakers replaced him with previously shot footage and an actor in prosthetics for the sequel. —ed.]

The reason that that happened, essentially—it’s more complex than this, but when we were working on the first Back To The Future, Michael J. Fox wasn’t the original actor. It was Eric Stoltz. He was fired right before Christmas vacation. We had shot about six weeks. I’d shot most of my character with Eric Stoltz playing it. And the last thing that we shot with Eric Stoltz was the alternate return to the future. In the original screenplay, I won’t say what it was, but there was a slightly different element in the ending. And I’m sure I wasn’t the only person that said something about it, because it did get changed. But I said, “Look, if we have this in our characters, if this happens, it will not be liked by people at large.” They did change that element. But I went on beyond it, because it was related to this subject matter. I had a conversation with Robert Zemeckis about it and I said, “I think if the characters have money [in the updated timeline at the end of the film], if our characters are rich, it’s a bad message. That reward should not be in there.” People love the movie, and of course who am I to say—I was 20 years old, though. And again, I was stepping into it from a time period of questioning. But Robert Zemeckis got really angry. Essentially, he did not like that idea. He was pissed.

We’d shot a slightly different interpretation of how I played the character, in the returning alternate future. Eric Stoltz was fired, and the next thing we shot with Michael J. Fox was that alternate future. Robert Zemeckis had been nice to me in between [those shooting segments]. But he made it very clear to me that he was not happy with how the character had been played. I was 20 years old, and of course they had just fired another actor. The lead. So I didn’t want to get fired! I wanted to work! I was scared when we shot that alternate future. Essentially, I would call it acting from the spinal cord. It was different from how I had interpreted it initially, and essentially, I was re-auditioning. I felt that if I didn’t do it exactly as I was being instructed, that I would get fired—which is fair enough. But I was acting from a point of view of fright, basically, which is not exactly my favorite way to work.

I don’t know that anybody would notice it. I’ve only seen the film once since it came out. I was working on At Close Range when it was released, and that summer, it was actually a very fast release. I saw it that one time, and I still think the same way. I know there are all kinds of people that would disagree, and people love the film and all that, and I understand that. It’s not that I dislike the entire film. There are things about the structure that are very solid, and there’s good writing behind it. But I still would argue all the things that people love about the film would still be there, and I think there would be a better message if, instead of the son character pumping his fist in the air or whatever, jumping up in the air because he has a new truck [in the new timeline], if instead the reward was that the mother and father characters are in love with each other. And that there’s the potential that money comes in. I think [equating their new riches with moral success] is a bad message. And this is aligned to those things in film that I’m saying serve the interests of a corporate element.

Now, I don’t know that Bob Gale or Robert Zemeckis necessarily intellectualized that, although that conversation has started to mention, on some level—I do think there’s an intellectualization. There’s an understanding that if that portion, that kind of carrot dangled out in front of the American populace that money is going to make you happy, you should borrow money to do things, this serves corporate interests. Whereas being in love with somebody, on a pure level, doesn’t necessarily serve corporate interest. Somehow that was an understanding, a knowledge, that if that interest didn’t serve the people that were hiring the movie, that maybe it wouldn’t be as well-released by those interests. I still believe that that film, if it was just people in love, if it were released as well as it was, my hunch is that it would still have made as much money as it did. But it’s more about whether the interests were served by the people that were releasing it would be served.

AVC: So did you not come back for the next film because you were uncomfortable with the message, or did they not invite you back because Zemeckis was angry with you?

CG: It gets so complex. It would take a long time to go through all the details of what happened. But suffice it to say, the reality was that they did not want me back in the film. And it stems from that. There was an understanding that I had questions. The fact was, by the time the second film came around—and this is the lie that Bob Gale was telling—he’s saying I was the reason for it, and he wants to take the onus of the responsibility because there was a lawsuit. And because of my lawsuit, there are rules in the Screen Actors Guild that nobody can [recreate an actor with technological means] again. Bob Gale was really, I’m quite certain, the initial architect of it, because he’s the guy, if you—I listen to these things because I’m incredulous as to how much people say negative things now because of me, because he said all this stuff on these Back To The Future trilogy films which are not true, to make people have negative thoughts about me, and that it was right for them to do what they did, this illegal thing. And so this is why I’m talking about it more vocally. I didn’t talk about it at all, but I have to defend myself.

So what they did was, they offered me—I hate talking about this. It sounds so crass, but because they made it into this issue, I’ve got to say what really happened. They offered me $150,000 to be in—it was a long screenplay. Like, a 200-something-page screenplay. I could tell they would split it into two movies. But Lea Thompson was making something like $650,000, and Tom Wilson was making something like $325,000 or $350,000, so it was less than half of what my fellow actors were making, coming back for similar-sized roles. And my agents knew it wasn’t fair. It wasn’t like I was saying I needed to make more money. I just basically, at that point in the negotiation, I just wanted to be fairly compensated. Also, if you look at the character, George McFly, in the sequel, the character’s hung upside down. It’s been said that that’s an obfuscating technique. [In one scene, Glover’s character is dangling upside down, supposedly as an orthopedic treatment; it’s been claimed that the filmmakers thought it would be harder to tell that the impersonator wasn’t Glover if his face was inverted. —ed.] Well, if you think about it, when I read the screenplay, that was in there. And the character’s supposed to have a bad back, and he’s hung upside down. Why would you hang somebody upside down if they have a bad back? What was apparent to me was, if I was going to return to be in the film, they wanted to make me physically uncomfortable, and monetarily, there was a punishment too. Because I had asked questions.

I would have been okay with doing the hanging-upside-down part, if I was fairly compensated for it. I actually switched from my agency—I was at William Morris agency—and I was paranoid. I didn’t understand why there was not a normal negotiation going on. And I found out that my agent was, her roommate was working at Universal Studios, and she was, I guess, in some part of the negotiation. I switched over to a completely different agency, where I remained for 20-something years. Gerry Harrington was my agent. He called up—Bob Gale was the person doing the negotiations—Bob Gale made it exceedingly clear that they felt they had paid Lea Thompson and Tom Wilson too much money, and he even said they were paying Michael J. Fox too much money. And that they were not going to make the same mistake by paying me what they thought was too much money for Tom Wilson and Lea Thompson. The only person that brought up Michael J. Fox’s salary was Bob Gale, and I know this from my conversation with my agent. I wasn’t in on the conversation, but he reported it to me.

They had, before this conversation, split the screenplay into two different films. Two different screenplays. They came back and said, “The offer is now $125,000.” They went down $25,000! It was very clear they didn’t want me in the film. It was clear they already had this concept that they were going to put another actor in prosthetics. They thought that was funny. They knew that they could basically torment me, either financially or by this mean-spirited, what ultimately was an illegal thing to do. I’m sure they laughed and joked about it. In fact, I shouldn’t go into so much detail, but there was testimony that specifically had to do with my name being used as—again, this is not the proper platform. But it’s not a pretty picture. And it’s not something—I’ve been very careful to not talk about it. But at this point in time, especially since this person is continuing to do it—it would be one thing if he’d stopped doing it after the first thing. But he did interviews as recently as last year, and it’s total falsification. And I’ve gotta respond.

(full interview on http://www.avclub.co...n-glover,67635/  )


what do you think about the whole situation?

Ronnyboy
  • Ronnyboy

    Blind leading the deaf, leading the socially inept.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2007

#38

Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:02 AM

Wow, I've always wanted to know Glover's side of the story, and that's just nuts. I always figured Gale was an asshole, but that's just crazy! Poor guy, really wish he would have stayed for 2 as well.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users