Discussion in 'The Anthony Cumia Show' started by Gregsbouch, Jun 6, 2013.
WTF is this guy rambling about.
Hello? Hello? Anybody home? Huh? Think, McFly. Think!
I am the rat catcher, the sandpit man is something or other I zoned out.
Wow, that sucked
I had to turn it off, he was boring, and I wasn't understanding a fuckin' thing he said
i guess i'm in the minority, but i thought he was pretty fascinating.
I would have enjoyed it more if I weren't listening at work doing other things. I'd get sidetracked zone out on some work, miss a few precious moments and be totally fucking lost.
To me that was one of the more fascinating interviews I've ever heard on their show or the radio. And as much as he is a nut, I tend to believe his side vs Bob Gale.
Er, okay, so what is his side of the story? They wanted to pay him less? The upside-down George was a dick move, but other than that the movies were fine without him. (I hope they paid him well for all the re-purposed footage though.)
I liked it as well.
Crispin's side of the story is that because he questioned the style of the ending (making the payoff of the ending based on money moreso than happiness) the Producers wanted to not deal with him in the sequels.
So my DirecTV went out this weekend and like a total dork I decided to watch Back to the Future parts 1 and 2 on Blu-Ray with the commentary. It's really interesting to hear Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis after hearing the Crispin interview. Bob Gale sounds like a rigid lawyer and he did sound very bitter about Crispin whereas Zemeckis just tried to be fair about him. Also Zemeckis admitted that when the original movie came out European critics mentioned the point Crispin made that the financial payoff of the characters shouldn't have been the focus and Zemeckis stated if he made the film today he wouldn't have put it in.
That's really pretty interesting -- thanks!
While it appears he was "right" (and remarkably thoughtful for such a young actor) there's a real problem with that approach. Marty doesn't go back in time to make his parents happier -- the family is perfectly happy as it is. He goes back by accident and stays because he himself "broke" something. The financial upgrades were just a side benefit to him actually making it back home. What would a "happiness as payoff" plot involve? It would require that everyone be sad/depressed/dead/divorced at the beginning. No thanks. (I didn't like that part of the sequel.) Much of the movie would have to be rewritten...