By Edward Davis | The Playlist February 28, 2014 at 5:43PM
It’s become practically mythic folklore at this point and arguably old hat. A famous lawsuit went along with it too. Crispin Glover was so “difficult” on the set of “Back To The Future,” or so the story goes anyhow, that director Robert Zemeckis and the producers decided to replace him for the two sequels. As you probably know by now, said film execs made the poor decision of “replacing” Glover with actors who wore prosthetics to look like him and interspliced that with old footage to create the illusion that it was still Crispin Glover (SAG rules now call this a no-no because of the lawsuit, which Glover filed and won).
In the past, one of the producers claimed that the reason Glover didn’t make it into “Back To The Future II” was because he asked for an exorbitant raise (the same amount of money Michael J. Fox was making), but Glover has refuted that several times over the years. Truth be told, the story has been told a dozen times by Glover and other people (this AV Club interview is pretty definitive), but if you’d like to hear it told in a relatively succinct eight minutes, IGN just talked to him about the debacle once again.
To hear it from Glover, his biggest issue was the moral ending of “Back To The Future” and the fact that he had the gall to bring it up. The actor who played George McFly had no problem with the characters falling in love as they should have or even Marty’s family being more functional back in the “new” present, but as a 20-year-old actor he questioned why the family all of a sudden had to be extremely successful and wealthy. He thought this sent the wrong message.
“I thought the moral aspect ends up being that money equals happiness. And I questioned that and it was met with a lot of hostility and upset. I was a 20 year old idealistic actor… I’m certain [my not being invited back to the second film] had to do with my questioning of these things.” The story, as Glover himself says, is more complicated than just that (Glover in fact turned down the role because he was being offered a pittance; something he assumes was the producers way of getting rid of him), but the fact remains the actor did not make it into the sequels. (Is this why they're no good?)
Thoughts? Did the morality of the ending ever rub you wrong at the time? Does it matter at this point? Watch below and or also watch a recent SiriusXM interview about the same subject and judge for yourself in the comments.