FilmWise Forums
It is currently 18 Dec 2018, 15:33

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 31 May 2011, 12:49 
Offline
FilmWise Zombie
FilmWise Zombie
User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2002, 20:49
Posts: 21745
Location: Texas
dawson99 wrote:
You smell like phys ed!


You smell like Kenny's house.

_________________
ImageImageImage

We have such sights to show you!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 31 May 2011, 23:24 
Offline
Sheila1313 Memorial Award Recipient
Sheila1313 Memorial Award Recipient
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2003, 14:22
Posts: 38524
Location: San Francisco
Image

_________________
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2011, 09:39 
Offline
FilmWise Dreamboat
FilmWise Dreamboat
User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2004, 10:36
Posts: 33129
alan smithee wrote:
Image

Parkinson's does wonders for folks.

_________________
www.steelfrogblog.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 03 Jun 2011, 09:59 
Offline
Academy Award Winner
Academy Award Winner
User avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2004, 07:41
Posts: 1952
Location: Winchester, VA/US
Steel Frog wrote:
alan smithee wrote:
Image

Parkinson's does wonders for folks.


Attachment:
BackToTheFutureII.gif


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Say hello to the Scream Extractor.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2011, 12:17 
Offline
Sheila1313 Memorial Award Recipient
Sheila1313 Memorial Award Recipient
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2003, 14:22
Posts: 38524
Location: San Francisco
Back to the Future trilogy Blu-ray: $25 (MSRP $80)

_________________
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2011, 12:13 
Offline
FilmWise's Best Friend
FilmWise's Best Friend
User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2006, 17:57
Posts: 34275
Location: Sheila's Dungeon...oh no! Shhh, she's coming.
A shot of the fading photo, but with Eric Stoltz as Marty.

Image

_________________
I'm not insane, my mother had me tested!
Image Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2011, 13:25 
Offline
FilmWise Dreamboat
FilmWise Dreamboat
User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2004, 10:36
Posts: 33129
Just now I was driving in the fast lane behind a DeLorean. He was going under speed limit and I almost hit the horn in an effort to get him to speed up, but then realized he probably wanted to be sure he was well under 88 MPH to be safe.

_________________
www.steelfrogblog.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2011, 14:58 
Offline
Sheila1313 Memorial Award Recipient
Sheila1313 Memorial Award Recipient
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2003, 14:22
Posts: 38524
Location: San Francisco
sldawgs wrote:
A shot of the fading photo, but with Eric Stoltz as Marty.

Image

pretty mediocre photographic fakery



(also: neat)

_________________
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2011, 19:08 
Offline
Hello. My name is FilmWise. You killed my father.
Hello. My name is FilmWise. You killed my father.
User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 09:12
Posts: 12079
Location: You know, right here
Nike Finally Takes Us “Back To The Future”

_________________
8 more months of school.....
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 09 Sep 2011, 05:23 
Offline
Academy Award Winner
Academy Award Winner
User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2004, 10:44
Posts: 2702
Location: At work playing poker
Sela wrote:


See they have them on ebay

http://nikemag.ebay.com/shoes

_________________
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 09 Sep 2011, 05:50 
Offline
FilmWise Sugar Daddy
FilmWise Sugar Daddy
User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2002, 16:00
Posts: 49279
Location: Rocket City

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 09 Sep 2011, 06:44 
Offline
Sheila1313 Memorial Award Recipient
Sheila1313 Memorial Award Recipient
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2003, 14:22
Posts: 38524
Location: San Francisco
Fat Head wrote:

What a deal!

_________________
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 09 Sep 2011, 10:18 
Offline
TV's Kryptonite
TV's Kryptonite
User avatar

Joined: 03 Dec 2007, 23:39
Posts: 14673
Location: Mudville, Tuleberg, Brick City, Fat City, Gas City, Port City, Central City
alan smithee wrote:
Fat Head wrote:

What a deal!

I'll take two.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 17 Oct 2011, 08:37 
Offline
Sheila1313 Memorial Award Recipient
Sheila1313 Memorial Award Recipient
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2003, 14:22
Posts: 38524
Location: San Francisco
Image

_________________
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 18 Oct 2011, 20:28 
Offline
FilmWise Dreamboat
FilmWise Dreamboat
User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2004, 10:36
Posts: 33129
alan smithee wrote:
Image

And why is this question being pondered by a dinosaur?
Did I miss an episode of "Velisophaptor" ?

_________________
www.steelfrogblog.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2011, 02:02 
Offline
TV's Kryptonite
TV's Kryptonite
User avatar

Joined: 03 Dec 2007, 23:39
Posts: 14673
Location: Mudville, Tuleberg, Brick City, Fat City, Gas City, Port City, Central City
Steel Frog wrote:
alan smithee wrote:
Image

And why is this question being pondered by a dinosaur?
Did I miss an episode of "Velisophaptor" ?

apparently Harold Camping has declared that the world is going to end Friday. 21 Oct 2011. Get it together folks! I was so hoping for another invisibles puzzle too... :|


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2011, 14:21 
Offline
Sheila1313 Memorial Award Recipient
Sheila1313 Memorial Award Recipient
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2003, 14:22
Posts: 38524
Location: San Francisco
Steel Frog wrote:
alan smithee wrote:
Image

And why is this question being pondered by a dinosaur?
Did I miss an episode of "Velisophaptor" ?

Image

_________________
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2011, 19:36 
Offline
FilmWise Dreamboat
FilmWise Dreamboat
User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2004, 10:36
Posts: 33129
alan smithee wrote:
Steel Frog wrote:
alan smithee wrote:
Image

And why is this question being pondered by a dinosaur?
Did I miss an episode of "Velisophaptor" ?

Image

Ah.

_________________
www.steelfrogblog.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2011, 01:17 
Offline
Lead Actor
Lead Actor
User avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2010, 17:19
Posts: 448
Location: Casanegra
On store for public in 2015.


_________________
Casablanca: Hometown and favourite movie!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2011, 15:47 
Offline
Lead Actor
Lead Actor
User avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2010, 17:19
Posts: 448
Location: Casanegra

_________________
Casablanca: Hometown and favourite movie!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2012, 14:44 
Offline
Director
Director
User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2006, 05:31
Posts: 599
Crispin Glover on why he didn't feature in the sequels.

From http://www.avclub.com/articles/crispin-glover,67635/

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2012, 16:50 
Offline
Academy Award Winner
Academy Award Winner
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2005, 16:16
Posts: 8012
Location: Over your shoulder
It sure takes a lot of words for him to make a point!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2012, 17:31 
Offline
Bastard Son of FilmWise
Bastard Son of FilmWise
User avatar

Joined: 09 Dec 2002, 09:30
Posts: 14462
Location: Stuck in a sand trap
Still think he's bat-shit crazy.

_________________
Squirrel!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2012, 17:35 
Offline
FilmWise's Best Friend
FilmWise's Best Friend
User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2006, 17:57
Posts: 34275
Location: Sheila's Dungeon...oh no! Shhh, she's coming.
spymeg wrote:
It sure takes a lot of words for him to make a point!

That's the Hollywood version of an Agrasplosion.

_________________
I'm not insane, my mother had me tested!
Image Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Back to the Future"
PostPosted: 03 Feb 2012, 05:29 
Offline
Academy Award Winner
Academy Award Winner
User avatar

Joined: 07 Sep 2006, 15:14
Posts: 6394
sldawgs wrote:
spymeg wrote:
It sure takes a lot of words for him to make a point!

That's the Hollywood version of an Agrasplosion.

:lol:

_________________
All things truly wicked start from innocence.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group