Verbatim

Pô, a moderação já estragou a festa daquele tópico de SW... Eu tinha até abandonado a discussão quando li o resto. E a prova de que você ganhou é quando começam a apelar pra xingamentos infantis.  
Primeiro que eu nunca falei dentro do tópico que era protótipo de macho alfa, o coitado que fez esse comentário não sabe nem o que é beta, alfa, zeta... Isso que dá discutir com quem só assiste ao JN, vê novela ou lê jornal... Só faltou xingar de bobo e feio.
 
Segundo que é engraçado o Dook falar em complexo de algum órgão sexual quando ele mesmo já foi comparado ao próprio testículo de um cara numa discussão aí.
 
Terceiro que eu ia perguntar qual o tipo de mulher ele acha que resolveria nosso "problema", seria morena, loira ou... RUIVA? Acho que ele tem experiência com essa última, não é mesmo, Conde? Hehehehe
 
Enfim...

Quando foi que eu falei bem de Jurassic World? Que troll fraco que você é, hein?   
 
Até JW tem agendas esquerdistas e é uma merda justamente por isso.
 
Nenhum filme feito nas últimas décadas se salva.
 
E se a gente parar pra pensar, nem os antigos eram isentos disso.
 
A diferença é que a esquizofrenia chegou a níveis alarmantes nesse século 21.
 
Primeiro: eu falei que é muito raro que sequências sejam tão boas quanto os originais. Remakes e reboots então, tem chance ínfima de serem bons.
 
A sequência pra ser boa precisa se escorar na essência do original, e ser uma variação, pra justamente não cansar, mas não tão diferente assim, pra não ser vista como uma deturpação.
 
Todos os remakes/reboots feitos hoje só se prestam a contar as mesmas histórias sob a ótica suja, imoral de seus idealizadores. É incrível como o objetivo maior é destruir o passado e substituir por um futuro em que ninguém quer viver.
 
Não vale nem argumentar que devem ser feitos remakes por conta da evolução nos efeitos especiais, porque no passado se fazia tudo com mais dedicação, mesmo sem ajuda de computadores, combinavam várias técnicas, e o resultado saia bem melhor que qualquer um com orçamento de 200 milhões feito hoje.
 
Fica claro pra mim que o esquerdista apenas posa de evoluído, progressista, mas suas ideias (e mentalidade) são previsíveis, as mesmas de sempre.
 
Desconstruir o bom e colocar as agendas do partidão no lugar.
 
Segundo: aqui está minha crítica de Jurassic World:
http://forum.cinemaemcena.com.br/index.php?/topic/3914-jurassic-world/page-12
 
Eu achei ruim da mesma forma que SW.
 
Mas nesse ponto dos PERSONAGENS tenho que reconhecer que acertaram EM CHEIO. O Jurassic Park original tem pessoas normais da mesma forma que Jurassic World.
 
Desde quando uma Mary Sue é alguém inspirado na realidade?
 
Só se for na fantasia doente de vocês.
 
E o Jurassic Park original é um filme que, ironicamente (apesar de ser mais antigo), não é tão melhor que JW em alguns pontos.
 
Primeiro que os dinossauros são todos fêmeas (e até mudam de sexo). Aposto que se fosse hoje, diriam que são todos castrados, apesar que os "machos" de hoje só não são castrados fisicamente, mas se comportam como tal.
 
Segundo que temos diálogos como esses em JP. O que era apenas sarcasmo hoje virou obrigação de enfiar goela abaixo em quem assiste.
 
- God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs. - Dinosaurs eat man. - Woman inherits the earth. 
Ou ainda aquela parte do John Hammond se oferecendo pra religar a energia do parque por ser algo que um homem deveria fazer e não uma mulher (a Dra. Sattler), em que o diálogo rola assim:
 

- But it ought to be me, really, going. - Why? - I'm a... And you're a... - Look.  - Come on, let's go. - We can discuss sexism in survival situations when I get back. 
Pra você ver, em 1993 quem escrevia esses roteiros era mentalmente são.
 
Hoje, com essa ideologia de gênero (a última palhaçada é a dos banheiros unissex), ninguém mais sabe quem é o macho ou a fêmea, o que significa ser masculino ou feminino.
 
Fosse hoje em dia esse tipo de diálogo seria reescrito, porque haveria uma Mary Sue pra chutar o cu dos raptores e fazer coisas impossíveis que nem um MAcGyver pensaria.   
 
Em Jurassic World rola uma cena em que um irmão até questiona o outro do porquê ele se comporta como um idiota só porque tem garotas por perto.
 
Só por esse trecho esse filme já ganhou meu eterno respeito, ao contrário de tantos outros em que colocam homens como capacho pra elevar figuras femininas.
 
Tanto é que comédias românticas nem são mais produzidas como antes. Assim como musicais, esse é um gênero de filme que morreu hoje em dia.
 
Sabem o porquê? Porque também se tornaram ridículas de tão forçadas. Mesmo na época quem via já achava isso.
 
Imagine hoje com essa geração zumbi, imediatista, que fica fixada no celular, que vai embora na terceira coisa que você fala, em que só sobraram sites de relacionamento que são puro estelionato, sem contar a perversão de padrões atuais de beleza em que uma mulher de 100 kg com 2 filhos de pais diferentes se acha uma deusa? Ninguém da geração atual acharia um filme como "Harry e Sally - Feitos um para o Outro"  minimamente verossímil.

O meu "discurso retrogrado" e o consenso cientifico atual ( diferencas raciais de cognicao ). O problema e que a tua cabeca foi feita, ha muito tempo atras. Afinal a Esquerda adora a teoria da Evolucao quando e conveniente ( para ridicularizar os cristaos ). No momento em que alguem comecar a discutir os efeitos da evolucao nas populacoes humanas, esses "esquerdas seculares" pisam no breque e viram criacionistas. Nao pode haver diferencas de inteligencia entre as racas pois Deus / Darwin jamais come teria tal injustica.

atrapalhar o que, a punheta coletiva? nao sabia que esse era o topico da masturbacao para SW, deveriam ter informado no titulo.  Qualquer um que nao esteja bronhando em sincronia com o resto e voces ja comecam a chorar por moderacao... tsc tsc.  

Ele vai passar a prestar atenção quando a coisa sair do mero debate de ideias pra discriminação DE FATO. Enquanto se restringir ao fórum CeC, ao monitor dele, estará tudo tranquilo. Mas quando passar a afetar não só a diversão mas o dia a dia, aí ele vai se perguntar que tipo de opressão ele, o idiota útil, fez pra "merecer isso". 
A pessoa tem que ser muito desprovida de cérebro pra acreditar piamente em benfeitores como J. J. Abrams, ou mesmo artistas em geral. Um sintoma da baixeza moral da sociedade moderna é a autoridade quase sacerdotal que nela desfrutam essa gente do show business, aos quais todas as demais culturas, sem exceção, reservavam o último lugar na escala da respeitabilidade pública.
 
Vocês sabem que partidos políticos adoram usar todos eles pra alcançar seus objetivos, não sabem?

forum CeC = mentalmente sodomizados pela esquerda.

Qual foi o outro blockbuster em que tu ouviu este tipo de critica? Nenhum. A critica e especifica a esse filme do JJ pela forma que foi concebido, e imperador tem que ser macho sim, nao tem outro jeito.

O raciocínio desses psicopatas é invertido. Pessoas normais não percebem a malícia deles. Colocar pessoas de classe, etnia e credo diferentes umas contras as outras é uma das agendas dos esquerdistas. Dividir pra conquistar. 
Lógico que pra desconstruir o discurso deles você precisa notar algo mais além de palavras, querer enxergar além das aparências.
 
Pra começo de conversa, não é racismo ou discriminação um filme não ter pessoas negras em sua maioria, assim como mulheres, asiáticos, gordos, etc.
 
Sempre tivemos negros e mesmo mulheres desde que existe cinema, a diferença é que não se usava o expediente do vitimismo e coitadismo pra que eles tivessem oportunidades.
 
Hoje a gente lembra de um Morgan Freeman, Samuel L. Jackson e tantos outros não pela cor da pele, mas talento. E não só talento, óbvio, mas porque tá cheio de gente boa aí que não vinga, mas pelos personagens e filmes que eram bons.
 
Já que quando o filme é ruim ninguém lembra deles, é tão difícil que isso aconteça quanto colocar um Messi numa equipe de pernas de pau e querer que ele carregue o time nas costas.
 
Pessoas como o J. J. enchem a boca pra falar de uma discriminação que se existiu já acabou faz tempo, mas graças a "benfeitores" como ele continua viva. Essa dívida histórica não será paga nunca, eu vou ter que responder pelo que o meu antepassado de 300 anos atrás fez pelo resto da vida?
 
Ele é ao mesmo tempo racista contra brancos e negros. Acho até que rolou uma entrevista aí dele dizendo que não via problema em colocar um gay no próximo SW.
 
Veja que eu citei o Zachary Quinto como péssima escolha pro Spock, mas quando conheci o ator, achei ele excelente em Heroes. Será que ele só teve essa chance por ser gay? O que isso importa no final das contas?
 
E o problema não é se fazer um filme com mulheres tendo destaque. Reveja meus últimos posts aqui no fórum que você vai ver que eu avaliei Supergirl (1984) melhor que SW. Se já viu esse filme sabe que os homens que aparecem nele são meros coadjuvantes.
 
Mas sabe qual a diferença entre um e outro? É que não rola depreciação tanto dos homens que estão nele quanto da película em si. Uma mentalidade mesquinha derruba um filme inteiro.
 
O que vejo em SW seria o mesmo que fazer um filme aos moldes da antiga série Esquadrão Classe-A e mostrando mulheres como donzelas indefesas, materialistas ou algo do tipo. Claro que isso pode ter rolado, mas não era em 100% do que se fazia.
 
É que nem a censura no tempo dos militares, proibiam uma notícia, e um tempinho depois ela era divulgada.
 
Hoje, meu filho, TODOS os jornais são vendidos ou apenas replicam o que meia dúzia de famílias no mundo todo querem, e censuram eles mesmos DE GRAÇA, e contando com as bênçãos de toda a mídia, o que for inconveniente.
 
Isso não é censura? Ah, não, é "democracia". É, deve ser, em um governo cada vez mais totalitário e despótico...
 
Será que não rola um meio-termo aí não? Tem que um subir nas costas do outro? Ou seja, eu só posso fazer um filme em que homens são fracos, maus, incompetentes, maus exemplos ou subordinados a mulheres com habilidades fantasiosas? Ou então quando a mulher é má, foi algum homem que a levou a isso?
 
Mas nunca houve isso em tempo algum do outro lado! E o resultado é que esse SW foi apenas uma novela de puta mal gosto (e novela é com o J.J.), pra causar, pra querer apagar aquilo que já foi bom, nesse caso o Han Solo. Podem reparar, todos esses remakes e reboots visam apenas isso.
 
Acabaram as ideias, só restou chupinhar o episódio IV? Não se fazem mais filmes originais? Claro que não. É que se for realmente original, com uma história legal, personagens realistas, homens tendo algum destaque positivo, mulheres baixando mais a bola, aí não pode, é feio...
 
Eu ficaria quieto se fosse um filme ou outro, mas todos os produzidos hoje seguem essa fórmula denunciada. TODOS. 100%. Então deixou de ser cinema, e virou peça de propaganda feminista, politicamente correta. Estamos vivendo já há pelo menos algumas décadas assim, e ninguém se ligou nisso.
 
Engraçado que os mesmos que acham cotas ridículas e imorais ou errado não se poder seguir padrões pra criticar os outros (como de gordos não serem automaticamente bonitos, como querem nos convencer a qualquer custo hoje) não reclamam quando o mesmo expediente é usado no cinema. Então não reclamem, daqui a pouco vai valer tudo.
 
O negócio já começa viciado quando no primeiro diálogo puxam o saco da Leia. E sem contar que não fazem mais filmes que não sejam PG-13. Então é claro que o objetivo é faturar, e dane-se a qualidade final.
 
É claro que isso é fruto de emasculação, coisa de viadinho não permitir violência, é claro que é fruto de um ginocentrismo.
 
E outra coisa, quer colocar algum personagem masculino? Que não seja mais um andrógino, como tem a rodo hoje.
 
Acreditar que esse episódio VII é exemplo de alguma coisa pra mim é o mesmo que cuspir na cara até de fãs que poderiam bolar histórias muito melhores. Alguém aqui é ingênuo de acreditar nas boas intenções dessa gente?
 
Star Wars acabou depois de 2 filmes e meio, quando os ursinhos carinhosos começaram a pipocar na minha tela eu sabia que dali em diante só viria punhetação lixo.

Esse J. J. é um esquerdopata, racista sem vergonha, e ainda diz que outros é que são racistas, querendo ao mesmo tempo faturar com as imundices dele.  
Peguem qualquer entrevista desse cara que vocês irão constatar isso:
 
http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-7-racially-diverse/ 
 
 
 

 
Fonte: https://archive.is/sF8fx
 
Quem transforma esses filmes nesses esgotos são as produtoras que são igualmente doentes, é só ver aqueles emails vazados da Sony em que os caras estavam decidindo quem seria o novo 007 negro.
 
Botar um diretor desses não é nada comparado a tudo que a Disney e todas essas empresas já fizeram de ruim.
 
O que falta nesse filme é testosterona. Atualmente só predomina a fórmula de pintar mulheres como fodonas de uma maneira 100% fantasiosa, totalmente artificial, e todos os homens como fracos e/ou vilões.
 
Teve um comentário no iMDB que resumiu esse episódio VII perfeitamente:
 

A diferença é que quando a parada é orquestrada por TODA A MÍDIA (ou os fãs são tapados), não há sinais de rejeição GENERALIZADA, como ocorreu com esse novo Caça-Fantasmas, que caíram matando em cima do trailer. Mas há uma rejeição EM MASSA, se levarmos em conta não feministas e críticos comprados, mas fóruns de discussão e a opinião mais abalizada de quem realmente gosta de cinema. 
Claro que quem tem opiniões mais acertadas não tem o mesmo destaque dos outros macaquinhos midiáticos. E outra coisa (não só pra SW, ressalto): ninguém contesta essas bilheterias e mesmo orçamentos divulgados, nunca.
 
A trilogia original de SW e muitos filmes de décadas passadas fizeram um sucesso muito mais expressivo, muito mais significativo, comparando-se com o que gastaram pra lançar, que esses 2 bilhões de hoje em dia (em que também se gasta muito nas idas ao cinema). Qual filme feito hoje, mesmo o mais simples, que não gasta no mínimo 100, 200 milhões? Mas aí o fã bobão que só sabe ler estatísticas vazias acha que esse episódio VII abafou.
 
SW hoje em dia só se sustenta pela marca, pelo que de bom já rolou num passado bem distante.
 
"Ah, mas você não curte a franquia!".
 
Minha resposta pra quem pensa isso: tu tá de sacanagem, né?
 
Olha o que esse cretino desse J. J. fez com Star Trek. Eu adorava a série clássica, os filmes antigos, as séries que vieram depois...
 
Star Trek estava morto, mas era melhor ter continuado assim, que ganhar esses reboots, peguem o que foi o Kirk da série original (o ator todos reconhecem que é péssimo, mas o personagem fantástico), e no que se transformou, um moleque sem carisma, peguem o Spock, que era contido/comedido, sagaz, e que agora de "vulcano" não tem nada, sem contar que Star Trek sempre foi muito mais cerebral/filosófico/político, que escorado em explosões, efeitos especiais e histórias mais infantis, diversão pipoca tipo Star Wars, isso que diferenciava mais os dois, e agora se tornaram iguais.
 
E depois da recepção ruim que o novo filme Trek teve no trailer, processaram até quem realmente aprecia a série e fez um filme no Youtube com dinheiro arrecadado... Claro, quem OUSAR criar algo melhor que esses grandesíssimos filhos duma puta tem que ir pra cadeia, mesmo.
 
Peguem LOST, outra cria do J. J., toda aquela punhetação vazia, a série mais embusteira de todos os tempos, que no final terminou pior que novela da Globo...
 
Meu, na boa, querem defender Star Wars? Defendam.
 
Mas o que fizeram com esse filme foi um crime.
 
Em tempo:
 

Um bom 2016 a todos 

Um bom 2016 a todos 

Mas ninguém aqui negou que fosse cristão ou ateu. A falha no seu argumento é que você imputa à RELIGIÃO e não a pessoas a culpa por esses massacres.

Seria como se eu atribuisse ao Sol o fato da minha casa ter sido incendiada. Lógico que se o Sol não existisse não teríamos piromaníacos, mas também não existiria vida na Terra. O seu argumento implica que a mera existência do SOL é a causa dos incêndios criminosos, quando já se provou por A+B que a perversão não é intrínseca à religião.

Esse argumento não faz sentido algum, não é só generalizar, como fazer uma simplificação grosseira de como o ser humano funciona.

Daqui a pouco você vai dizer que só porque a mídia noticiou casos de pedofilia dentro da igreja efusivamente, que a maioria dos pedófilos são padres. É porque falar também dos assistentes sociais da ONU não interessa para alcançar o objetivo desejado, não é mesmo?

Outra coisa, é verdade que em outros tempos essas barbáries ocorreram e ainda ocorrem, o Antigo Testamento é um verdadeiro inferno. Porém foi preciso tudo isso pra que tivéssemos Jesus/o Novo, eu acho que você está discutindo que o sofrimento e todo tipo de adversidade não DEVERIAM acontecer, mas se não houvesse nada disso, o mundo como você conhece (cientificamente falando) seria uma impossibilidade, afinal tudo estaria pronto, nada seria recriado...

Concordo com a linha de pensamento que é preciso haver parâmetros ruins para que existam os bons. 

Não concordo com fanatismo religioso e negação da busca pela verdade/desprezo pela lógica, aonde quer essa aponte, mas ao mesmo tempo sou contra o modo ateu de ser, que é sim, como o Nando Moura comentou, o cultivo à falta de propósito e especialmente ao mundo material, a aceitação que vamos morrer e foda-se tudo mais, vou ali olhar pras estrelas e fingir que isso me realiza pessoalmente.

Os benefícios da religião não podem ser ignorados, pra mim o maior de todos é fazer você cogitar algo além desse mundo, o que automaticamente desenvolve seu intelecto, pois as ideias não são tangíveis, não se pode restringir tudo ao que os sentidos apontam. Se esse "algo" da religião foi pervertido ou nunca foi bom, aí são outros 500. Essencialmente, pra mim, a religião (e também ciência) não é a causa de todos os males.

Ótima notícia essa de que o seriado Arquivo-X sairá em Blu-ray...
http://bjc.uol.com.br/2015/10/01/confirmado-serie-completa-de-arquivo-x-em-blu-ray-para-dezembro/
 
Pena que isso não se aplique a outros de décadas passadas... como eu gostaria que Star Trek: DS9 e Babylon 5 um dia pudessem sair no formato...

Falando em lançamentos (esses em DVD), o seriado O SANTO com Roger Moore parece que saiu completo, infelizmente sem legendas nem em inglês, e lançaram a última temporada de THE PRACTICE, série do David Kelley (Ally McBeal) que antecedeu BOSTON LEGAL. Essa última temporada introduziu os personagens de BL.

THE PRACTICE é uma que nem lá fora saiu completa em DVD, somente existe a primeira temporada e alguns episódios da segunda em DVD, mesmo box que saiu no BRASIL. Isso em 2008

Em 2012 trouxeram as temporadas 1 e 2 completas, mas na região 2, então não vale, pois não é NTSC (em PAL a imagem/som ficam acelerados).

Esse box da última temporada saiu pela Shout! Factory, que disse não ter os direitos sobre as demais. Sobre O SANTO, deram a desculpa padrão que ficaria muito caro lançar em BD, se é que isso é possível.
 
P.S. A página da Shout sobre o DVD:
 
https://www.shoutfactory.com/tv/crime/the-practice-the-final-season
 
E O SANTO: https://www.shoutfactory.com/tv/tv-action-adventure/the-saint-the-complete-series

Scofield, infelizmente ainda continua ocorrendo, sim.
 
Tirei 2 screenshots pra vc ver (clique para ampliar). Veja que na primeira eu mandei pesquisar por FÓRUM CINEMAEMCENA. Na segunda eu cliquei no link que deveria me redirecionar pra cá, mas acabou me enviando pra esse link estranho aí.
 
Somente numa segunda tentativa é que vai. Não sei como arrumar isso, mas talvez seja algo no servidor que o CeC está hospedado.
 
Vou questionar num fórum de informática, pra ver o que dizem. Isso tem que ser resolvido, pois se eu passar o link aqui do tópico pra alguém por ex. ela não vai entrar nele, mas num link nada a ver.
 
 

Uma discussão interessante sobre o Crispin Glover, no IMDB (quem abriu o tópico fui eu). Pra quem entende inglês, estou postando todas as mensagens trocadas aqui, até porque depois de um tempo os tópicos são apagados desse site. Onde aparecem asteriscos o autor do post está citando uma mensagem de outra pessoa.
 
Recomendo a leitura na íntegra e que os links do Youtube também sejam vistos inteiros, do contrário vocês não vão entender.
 

 

In this interview the actor Crispin Glover talks about BTTF. He says if I recall correctly that the whole story about him wanting to earn more money than Michael J. Fox is false. I noticed in the sequences they used money in the plot. In BTTF 3, too, since Doc is killed for the same reason. What do you think? Who is the real s**mbag, Crispin or the BTTF staff? It's like the Eric Stoltz footage: we'll never get all of it. Bob Gale has parroted the "Crispin wanted too much money" story for so long (over various commentaries and interviews) that it just kinda sinks in. Maybe Crispin did turn them off with his speaking out on the financial gain aspects of Back to the Future. Who knows? Or maybe he did get caught up in the movie's success and think he deserved a big raise. What do I think? It is ancient history and I choose not to think about it. All kinds of things go on behind the scenes in getting most movies made, I only concern myself with what the final form of the movie looks like. In my opinion BTTF 2 and 3 didn't suffer by not having Glover as part of the cast so to me it is a non-issue. We'll never know but he is or seems an eccentric, so I can't really take what he says seriously. Tom Wilson (Biff) said Crispin's a bit different but definetly exaggerates that act in public. Anyway I'm glad he wasn't in the sequel. I loved him in the first movie but if he had reprised his role, Marty and Doc would have gone back to the 60's to get the Almanac in part 2, which sounds terrible. Going back to the 50's was a much better idea, so I didn't miss Crispin. Here's the whole story: ************ Crispin Glover was asked to reprise the role of George McFly. Glover expressed interest, but could not come to an agreement with the producers regarding his salary. Glover later stated in a 1992 interview on The Howard Stern Show that the producers' highest offer was $125,000, which was less than half of what the other returning cast members were offered. Gale has since asserted that Glover's demands were excessive for an actor of his professional stature at that point in time. Later, in an interview on The Opie and Anthony Show in 2013, Glover stated that the primary reason was a philosophical (and ethical) disagreement on the overall moral that the film was conveying. For George McFly to appear, Zemeckis used some previously filmed footage of Glover from the first film and inter-spliced Jeffrey Weissman, who wore prosthetics, including a false chin, nose, and cheekbones, and used various obfuscating methods, such as background, sunglasses, rear shot, and even upside-down, to resemble Glover. Dissatisfied with the results, Glover filed a lawsuit against the producers, including Steven Spielberg, on the grounds that they neither owned his likeness, nor had permission to use it. Due to Glover's lawsuit, there are now clauses in the Screen Actors Guild collective bargaining agreements which state that producers and actors are not allowed to use such methods to reproduce the likeness of other actors. ************ We can't really say that if he didn't left things would turn out to be worse than they did, even though the sequences are great, this is not a valid argument. Anyway, I only listened to this interview a while ago, and I find very strange that the producers decided to use money in the plot of both movies after all the problems they had with Crispin. One thing we forgot to mention was the fact they used the footage from the 1st movie and that Jeffrey Weissman to fool the audience into thinking he was still there. Probably (that's obvious) not paying him for anything. It sounded like a mockery to me. We will never know what really happened, but one thing we can all be sure, neither one of them are saints. I am interested to know why the Eric Stoltz footage (if exists, since we only have pictures until now) is never going to be released. Did someone ask Eric if he would agree to this and if his departure from the movie was something so awful that justify this decision? I'd say they were trying to get him cheap...plus he knew they were filming two movies back to back and just wanted fair pay that his costars were getting. He is a weirdo but it wasn't cool what they did and he made them pay. Crispin says Bob Gale is the one who continues to spread lies about him:  

"even though the sequences are great this is not a valid argument" It is to me. The 60's idea would be stupid and boring. Marty just trying to retrieve the book from Biff without the fun and danger of interfering with the events of the first movie. Sounds lame. Crispin not doing it made that happen as well as George been dead in alternative 1985 which gave it a unique darker tone. And why would Biff give his younger self the almanac when he's 30? Makes zero sense. At least as it exists he gives his 17-18 year old self it and gives him a few years to hear results for the next few years and realise the book is true and to be prepared for when he's 21 for a great future. I'm glad Crispin didn't do it even though he's great in the first. I think Crispin Glover got too full of himself and thought he was Marlon Brando. By his own admission he was analyzing every scene and line, proving to be difficult to work with trying to change the focus instead of remembering his lines and taking direction. After watching him on the Sirius radio interview I can see why the director must have got seriously annoyed. They were under a very tight shooting schedule and for the first film, money would have been fairly tight with the studio heads breathing down their necks. In movie production, time is money. When you are churning out a light comedy quickie, you don't want an egotistic unknown actor in a supporting role rewriting the script, analyzing the character's motivation and the scene's focus. They were doing comedy not Eugene O'Neill! No one knew that it would be the enormous success it turned out to be and spawn two sequels. For all they knew it would have been a summer holiday teen movie then straight to video. I guess that Crispin just wasn't a team player. The question is, why was he hired in the first place? Steve Buscemi's 'Living in Oblivion' was a hilarious 1995 film about a low budget 'one take' filmmaker whose project was being ruined by an egotistical no name actor (allegedly based on a young Brad Pitt) who was ruining the budget and throwing off the other actors by changing every scene and demanding retake after retake because he had thought of another way to play the part. If they were capable of creating a great story with the absence of Crispin, don't you think they would have done a better one (or at least similar) with him? I think you are underestimating the competence of all people involved in this. One aspect I didn't like from the 3rd movie was that Seamus Mcfly character. The 2nd also became dull when they decided to cast that Jeffrey Weissman to look like Crispin. We may deny, but the sequences were affected by this bickering. I actually think that 1960s would've been much better idea for the Part III instead of Western. I don't think the western idea was bad. Actually it was even better than what they did in the 2nd movie. What spoils that third movie is the romance between Clara and Emmett. Here's what think really happened: Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis originally wanted Michael J. Fox for the role, but he was unavailable because of "Family Ties", so to buy themselves more time to work a deal and to keep the studio from canning the project, they went ahead and started filming with Eric Stoltz, going through the charade of filming almost the entire movie with what was essentially Fox's stand-in. Then when they finally scored a deal with Fox, they used the "Stoltz just isn't funny enough" excuse to can Stoltz and give the job to Fox. Crispin Glover was very critical of the way Gale and Zemeckis treated Stoltz and was uncooperative on set when refilming new scenes with Fox. For instance, a close-up filmed during the first production would have Glover looking left, but when it came time to shoot the two-shot with Glover and Fox, Glover would quickly look right just as the camera rolled in order to blow the continuity. Glover was also apparently vocally critical of the ending of the film which seemed to equate financial prosperity with moral correctness, and he thought it was a bad message. When it came time for the sequel, Glover noticed that he was being offered substantially less than his returning co-stars, so he asked for equal pay. Gale and Zemeckis turned him down, and to add insult to injury spread the rumor that Glover had overestimated his own worth and asked for too much, implying that his demands were unreasonable. Then they turned around and used footage from the first film and an actor wearing prostectics so they could have Glover in the film anyway, which seems like a real slap in the face. So in the end, I think Glover may have pushed things when he shouldn't have, but I have to respect him for standing on his principles. Gale and Zemeckis, on the other hand, unfairly screwed at least two actors during the production of these films, so I don't think too highly of them at all, but they knew how to play the Hollywood game, so they came out on the top. Casting someone to look like George and in the way it was presented in the 2nd movie was a low move, that's for sure. It's one thing to cast another dude, but they made it look like Crispin was still there. That future George walking upside down was ridiculous. Given what the trilogy earned for the studio, it makes sense for actors to hold out for as much as they can get. Especially if it won't really boost their credentials (since Glover already done one bttf movie). It's not like before the first movie, when it's popularity wasn't assured. the sequels were a pretty sure bet in scheme of things. If that's true, it's Crispon Glovers own fault. The average person earns between 30 to 40k a year, give or take, and this *beep* wants 125k for 3 to 6 months work? Greed is what it is. Hell, offer me a movie deal to earn 50k a year, and I'll do it... it's better than average. I never have understood why actors get paid so much to act? They're not putting their lives on the line, they chose to be actors, so stiff *beep* if you don't get to see your family during shooting, but come on, 125k or more for standing in-front of a camera and speaking the way someone wants you to act? You couldn't enjoy the money and time you have off after the film, to between then and your next film? I wanna bitch slap people like Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman who wont even look at a script for under a million bucks and then demand millions to do the film... what the *beep* makes them think they're so special and worth that much? It's acting, not saving the world. I even get sick when I hear a movie coming out cost such and such millions of dollars to make. It just makes me wonder who the greedy prick was who demanded so much to act in the film? A budget of 40 million to make the movie? Or 30 million of it went to some greedy son of a bitch with an ego thinking no matter what they are in, it will make all that money back. Yeah, so the studios make more than the actors, so what, they make movies, thats how they do business and make money to make more movies... but one person thinks they are worth it? get *beep* They need to be kicked out on the street and made to live in the real world for a while to appreciate what you have and what lifes about, not giving them millions so they can live the lifestyle of the rich and shameless. And the actors strike? HA... i'd like to see doctors and fireman etc go on strike and demand more money and have it given to them then some snobby actor who demands it because he thinks his *beep* doesn't stink. ******* If that's true, it's Crispon Glovers own fault. The average person earns between 30 to 40k a year, give or take, and this *beep* wants 125k for 3 to 6 months work? ******* No, he was offered 125K, he wanted more because it was less than HALF of what the other cast was getting who has similar screen time as he was. Why shouldn't he want to be paid equally to his co-stars. Acting isn't exactly a secure job either, right after they finish a movie, they're on looking for their next gig, and it's bad it'll be hard if they don't get anything. Work is competivitive yes, but acting is sometimes even more so and the work is usually very temporary. You also have to consider that his agent will take a cut of that 125K if he accepts it. ***** I never have understood why actors get paid so much to act? They're not putting their lives on the line, they chose to be actors, so stiff *beep* if you don't get to see your family during shooting, but come on, 125k or more for standing in-front of a camera and speaking the way someone wants you to act? You couldn't enjoy the money and time you have off after the film, to between then and your next film? ***** I don't think you're fully aware of the long times and hours it is on set making movies. The days can be really tiring, and hours long. It's not like a 9-5 shift, it can last the entire day. That's not even considering that they would have to go through hours in makeup chair for the old age sequences. You two have missed my point... They chose to be actors, so not working 9-5 or being with familly is a choice they made... 125k or 250k whatever... Wouldn't 50k be a decent price to take? He'll, actors shouldn't even be paid that much. Do it for the love of it, not the money. If someone demands more, tell them to get lost and find someone else happy to accept what's on the table. ******** Anyway I'm glad he wasn't in the sequel. I loved him in the first movie but if he had reprised his role, Marty and Doc would have gone back to the 60's to get the Almanac in part 2, which sounds terrible. ************ Im not sure if that is true. I read the "60's" script online, and George has an even smaller role then in the final film. In the 2015 scenes he is actually dead from old age or something. In 1985-A he was murdered by Biff, just like in the final version. And in 1967, Marty meets Lorraine, but George doesn't show up until the last minute. I'm assuming that this version was written after it was decided that Crispin wouldn't be in the movie. I wonder if there ever was a story that was written before he dropped out. it would be interesting to see what they did with George. You're correct about the script. I don't there's a story that was written with a bigger role for George. ******* They chose to be actors, so not working 9-5 or being with familly is a choice they made... ************ Yes, but they expect to get decent compensation for it, which is usually the case. ****** 125k or 250k whatever... Wouldn't 50k be a decent price to take? ****** Not if you're getting stiffed compared to everyone else. Again, it was LESS THAN HALF of what his other co-stars were getting. How would you feel if you worked for 8 hours and only got 44 while everyone else 88? I'm sure you'd be jumping for joy. Added to that, $125,000 was the SECOND offer he got. The FIRST one was $150,000. Can you see what's wrong here? The second offer was lower. ****** He'll, actors shouldn't even be paid that much. ****** You mean they shouldn't be compensated for working almost 24 hours a day, memorizing lines for scenes, rehershals and such? Also, doing stuff that's possibily dangerous (Micheal J. Fox accidently got hanged during the third film when Buford's gang hung him at the courthouse). Maybe you should try working the movies before you start saying "They shouldn't be paid that much". Outside perspective isn't the same as inside. ****** He'll, actors shouldn't even be paid that much. Do it for the love of it, not the money. ****** Yeah, they love it. But they also need to pay for food, ulitlites, house, car. You know things, you need to live on. Agents will take a chunck of their pay, then the government will take another. That $50K may be the only pay for the year if the acting gig is 6 months and it's the only thing he gets. ***** If someone demands more, tell them to get lost and find someone else happy to accept what's on the table. ***** Which is what they did, by hiring another actor to impersonate him, putting him in makeup and reusing shots that he did for the film without his permission and not paying him for reusing those shots, which in turn caused them him to sue them in court and winning. Crisp in Glover sounds like a greedy bastard ******* So in the end, I think Glover may have pushed things when he shouldn't have, but I have to respect him for standing on his principles. Gale and Zemeckis, on the other hand, unfairly screwed at least two actors during the production of these films, so I don't think too highly of them at all, but they knew how to play the Hollywood game, so they came out on the top. ******* Not necessarily regarding Gale. As a result of Glover's lawsuit, in which Steven Spielberg was a co-defendant, Spielberg got mad at Gale and retaliated against him by buying up a number of scripts Gale had written and then refusing to produce them, effectively blacklisting him from Hollywood. Falando nisso, aqui vai o link (também em inglês) para o primeiro roteiro (rascunho/esboço) de DVPF 2: 
http://backtothefuture.wikia.com/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II_first%20_draft_screenplay
 
O arquivo PDF:
http://goo.gl/jVGbDr

Uma discussão interessante sobre o Crispin Glover, no IMDB (quem abriu o tópico fui eu). Pra quem entende inglês, estou postando todas as mensagens trocadas aqui, até porque depois de um tempo os tópicos são apagados desse site. Onde aparecem asteriscos o autor do post está citando uma mensagem de outra pessoa.
 
Recomendo a leitura na íntegra e que os links do Youtube também sejam vistos inteiros, do contrário vocês não vão entender.
 

 

In this interview the actor Crispin Glover talks about BTTF. He says if I recall correctly that the whole story about him wanting to earn more money than Michael J. Fox is false. I noticed in the sequences they used money in the plot. In BTTF 3, too, since Doc is killed for the same reason. What do you think? Who is the real s**mbag, Crispin or the BTTF staff? It's like the Eric Stoltz footage: we'll never get all of it. Bob Gale has parroted the "Crispin wanted too much money" story for so long (over various commentaries and interviews) that it just kinda sinks in. Maybe Crispin did turn them off with his speaking out on the financial gain aspects of Back to the Future. Who knows? Or maybe he did get caught up in the movie's success and think he deserved a big raise. What do I think? It is ancient history and I choose not to think about it. All kinds of things go on behind the scenes in getting most movies made, I only concern myself with what the final form of the movie looks like. In my opinion BTTF 2 and 3 didn't suffer by not having Glover as part of the cast so to me it is a non-issue. We'll never know but he is or seems an eccentric, so I can't really take what he says seriously. Tom Wilson (Biff) said Crispin's a bit different but definetly exaggerates that act in public. Anyway I'm glad he wasn't in the sequel. I loved him in the first movie but if he had reprised his role, Marty and Doc would have gone back to the 60's to get the Almanac in part 2, which sounds terrible. Going back to the 50's was a much better idea, so I didn't miss Crispin. Here's the whole story: ************ Crispin Glover was asked to reprise the role of George McFly. Glover expressed interest, but could not come to an agreement with the producers regarding his salary. Glover later stated in a 1992 interview on The Howard Stern Show that the producers' highest offer was $125,000, which was less than half of what the other returning cast members were offered. Gale has since asserted that Glover's demands were excessive for an actor of his professional stature at that point in time. Later, in an interview on The Opie and Anthony Show in 2013, Glover stated that the primary reason was a philosophical (and ethical) disagreement on the overall moral that the film was conveying. For George McFly to appear, Zemeckis used some previously filmed footage of Glover from the first film and inter-spliced Jeffrey Weissman, who wore prosthetics, including a false chin, nose, and cheekbones, and used various obfuscating methods, such as background, sunglasses, rear shot, and even upside-down, to resemble Glover. Dissatisfied with the results, Glover filed a lawsuit against the producers, including Steven Spielberg, on the grounds that they neither owned his likeness, nor had permission to use it. Due to Glover's lawsuit, there are now clauses in the Screen Actors Guild collective bargaining agreements which state that producers and actors are not allowed to use such methods to reproduce the likeness of other actors. ************ We can't really say that if he didn't left things would turn out to be worse than they did, even though the sequences are great, this is not a valid argument. Anyway, I only listened to this interview a while ago, and I find very strange that the producers decided to use money in the plot of both movies after all the problems they had with Crispin. One thing we forgot to mention was the fact they used the footage from the 1st movie and that Jeffrey Weissman to fool the audience into thinking he was still there. Probably (that's obvious) not paying him for anything. It sounded like a mockery to me. We will never know what really happened, but one thing we can all be sure, neither one of them are saints. I am interested to know why the Eric Stoltz footage (if exists, since we only have pictures until now) is never going to be released. Did someone ask Eric if he would agree to this and if his departure from the movie was something so awful that justify this decision? I'd say they were trying to get him cheap...plus he knew they were filming two movies back to back and just wanted fair pay that his costars were getting. He is a weirdo but it wasn't cool what they did and he made them pay. Crispin says Bob Gale is the one who continues to spread lies about him:  

"even though the sequences are great this is not a valid argument" It is to me. The 60's idea would be stupid and boring. Marty just trying to retrieve the book from Biff without the fun and danger of interfering with the events of the first movie. Sounds lame. Crispin not doing it made that happen as well as George been dead in alternative 1985 which gave it a unique darker tone. And why would Biff give his younger self the almanac when he's 30? Makes zero sense. At least as it exists he gives his 17-18 year old self it and gives him a few years to hear results for the next few years and realise the book is true and to be prepared for when he's 21 for a great future. I'm glad Crispin didn't do it even though he's great in the first. I think Crispin Glover got too full of himself and thought he was Marlon Brando. By his own admission he was analyzing every scene and line, proving to be difficult to work with trying to change the focus instead of remembering his lines and taking direction. After watching him on the Sirius radio interview I can see why the director must have got seriously annoyed. They were under a very tight shooting schedule and for the first film, money would have been fairly tight with the studio heads breathing down their necks. In movie production, time is money. When you are churning out a light comedy quickie, you don't want an egotistic unknown actor in a supporting role rewriting the script, analyzing the character's motivation and the scene's focus. They were doing comedy not Eugene O'Neill! No one knew that it would be the enormous success it turned out to be and spawn two sequels. For all they knew it would have been a summer holiday teen movie then straight to video. I guess that Crispin just wasn't a team player. The question is, why was he hired in the first place? Steve Buscemi's 'Living in Oblivion' was a hilarious 1995 film about a low budget 'one take' filmmaker whose project was being ruined by an egotistical no name actor (allegedly based on a young Brad Pitt) who was ruining the budget and throwing off the other actors by changing every scene and demanding retake after retake because he had thought of another way to play the part. If they were capable of creating a great story with the absence of Crispin, don't you think they would have done a better one (or at least similar) with him? I think you are underestimating the competence of all people involved in this. One aspect I didn't like from the 3rd movie was that Seamus Mcfly character. The 2nd also became dull when they decided to cast that Jeffrey Weissman to look like Crispin. We may deny, but the sequences were affected by this bickering. I actually think that 1960s would've been much better idea for the Part III instead of Western. I don't think the western idea was bad. Actually it was even better than what they did in the 2nd movie. What spoils that third movie is the romance between Clara and Emmett. Here's what think really happened: Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis originally wanted Michael J. Fox for the role, but he was unavailable because of "Family Ties", so to buy themselves more time to work a deal and to keep the studio from canning the project, they went ahead and started filming with Eric Stoltz, going through the charade of filming almost the entire movie with what was essentially Fox's stand-in. Then when they finally scored a deal with Fox, they used the "Stoltz just isn't funny enough" excuse to can Stoltz and give the job to Fox. Crispin Glover was very critical of the way Gale and Zemeckis treated Stoltz and was uncooperative on set when refilming new scenes with Fox. For instance, a close-up filmed during the first production would have Glover looking left, but when it came time to shoot the two-shot with Glover and Fox, Glover would quickly look right just as the camera rolled in order to blow the continuity. Glover was also apparently vocally critical of the ending of the film which seemed to equate financial prosperity with moral correctness, and he thought it was a bad message. When it came time for the sequel, Glover noticed that he was being offered substantially less than his returning co-stars, so he asked for equal pay. Gale and Zemeckis turned him down, and to add insult to injury spread the rumor that Glover had overestimated his own worth and asked for too much, implying that his demands were unreasonable. Then they turned around and used footage from the first film and an actor wearing prostectics so they could have Glover in the film anyway, which seems like a real slap in the face. So in the end, I think Glover may have pushed things when he shouldn't have, but I have to respect him for standing on his principles. Gale and Zemeckis, on the other hand, unfairly screwed at least two actors during the production of these films, so I don't think too highly of them at all, but they knew how to play the Hollywood game, so they came out on the top. Casting someone to look like George and in the way it was presented in the 2nd movie was a low move, that's for sure. It's one thing to cast another dude, but they made it look like Crispin was still there. That future George walking upside down was ridiculous. Given what the trilogy earned for the studio, it makes sense for actors to hold out for as much as they can get. Especially if it won't really boost their credentials (since Glover already done one bttf movie). It's not like before the first movie, when it's popularity wasn't assured. the sequels were a pretty sure bet in scheme of things. If that's true, it's Crispon Glovers own fault. The average person earns between 30 to 40k a year, give or take, and this *beep* wants 125k for 3 to 6 months work? Greed is what it is. Hell, offer me a movie deal to earn 50k a year, and I'll do it... it's better than average. I never have understood why actors get paid so much to act? They're not putting their lives on the line, they chose to be actors, so stiff *beep* if you don't get to see your family during shooting, but come on, 125k or more for standing in-front of a camera and speaking the way someone wants you to act? You couldn't enjoy the money and time you have off after the film, to between then and your next film? I wanna bitch slap people like Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman who wont even look at a script for under a million bucks and then demand millions to do the film... what the *beep* makes them think they're so special and worth that much? It's acting, not saving the world. I even get sick when I hear a movie coming out cost such and such millions of dollars to make. It just makes me wonder who the greedy prick was who demanded so much to act in the film? A budget of 40 million to make the movie? Or 30 million of it went to some greedy son of a bitch with an ego thinking no matter what they are in, it will make all that money back. Yeah, so the studios make more than the actors, so what, they make movies, thats how they do business and make money to make more movies... but one person thinks they are worth it? get *beep* They need to be kicked out on the street and made to live in the real world for a while to appreciate what you have and what lifes about, not giving them millions so they can live the lifestyle of the rich and shameless. And the actors strike? HA... i'd like to see doctors and fireman etc go on strike and demand more money and have it given to them then some snobby actor who demands it because he thinks his *beep* doesn't stink. ******* If that's true, it's Crispon Glovers own fault. The average person earns between 30 to 40k a year, give or take, and this *beep* wants 125k for 3 to 6 months work? ******* No, he was offered 125K, he wanted more because it was less than HALF of what the other cast was getting who has similar screen time as he was. Why shouldn't he want to be paid equally to his co-stars. Acting isn't exactly a secure job either, right after they finish a movie, they're on looking for their next gig, and it's bad it'll be hard if they don't get anything. Work is competivitive yes, but acting is sometimes even more so and the work is usually very temporary. You also have to consider that his agent will take a cut of that 125K if he accepts it. ***** I never have understood why actors get paid so much to act? They're not putting their lives on the line, they chose to be actors, so stiff *beep* if you don't get to see your family during shooting, but come on, 125k or more for standing in-front of a camera and speaking the way someone wants you to act? You couldn't enjoy the money and time you have off after the film, to between then and your next film? ***** I don't think you're fully aware of the long times and hours it is on set making movies. The days can be really tiring, and hours long. It's not like a 9-5 shift, it can last the entire day. That's not even considering that they would have to go through hours in makeup chair for the old age sequences. You two have missed my point... They chose to be actors, so not working 9-5 or being with familly is a choice they made... 125k or 250k whatever... Wouldn't 50k be a decent price to take? He'll, actors shouldn't even be paid that much. Do it for the love of it, not the money. If someone demands more, tell them to get lost and find someone else happy to accept what's on the table. ******** Anyway I'm glad he wasn't in the sequel. I loved him in the first movie but if he had reprised his role, Marty and Doc would have gone back to the 60's to get the Almanac in part 2, which sounds terrible. ************ Im not sure if that is true. I read the "60's" script online, and George has an even smaller role then in the final film. In the 2015 scenes he is actually dead from old age or something. In 1985-A he was murdered by Biff, just like in the final version. And in 1967, Marty meets Lorraine, but George doesn't show up until the last minute. I'm assuming that this version was written after it was decided that Crispin wouldn't be in the movie. I wonder if there ever was a story that was written before he dropped out. it would be interesting to see what they did with George. You're correct about the script. I don't there's a story that was written with a bigger role for George. ******* They chose to be actors, so not working 9-5 or being with familly is a choice they made... ************ Yes, but they expect to get decent compensation for it, which is usually the case. ****** 125k or 250k whatever... Wouldn't 50k be a decent price to take? ****** Not if you're getting stiffed compared to everyone else. Again, it was LESS THAN HALF of what his other co-stars were getting. How would you feel if you worked for 8 hours and only got 44 while everyone else 88? I'm sure you'd be jumping for joy. Added to that, $125,000 was the SECOND offer he got. The FIRST one was $150,000. Can you see what's wrong here? The second offer was lower. ****** He'll, actors shouldn't even be paid that much. ****** You mean they shouldn't be compensated for working almost 24 hours a day, memorizing lines for scenes, rehershals and such? Also, doing stuff that's possibily dangerous (Micheal J. Fox accidently got hanged during the third film when Buford's gang hung him at the courthouse). Maybe you should try working the movies before you start saying "They shouldn't be paid that much". Outside perspective isn't the same as inside. ****** He'll, actors shouldn't even be paid that much. Do it for the love of it, not the money. ****** Yeah, they love it. But they also need to pay for food, ulitlites, house, car. You know things, you need to live on. Agents will take a chunck of their pay, then the government will take another. That $50K may be the only pay for the year if the acting gig is 6 months and it's the only thing he gets. ***** If someone demands more, tell them to get lost and find someone else happy to accept what's on the table. ***** Which is what they did, by hiring another actor to impersonate him, putting him in makeup and reusing shots that he did for the film without his permission and not paying him for reusing those shots, which in turn caused them him to sue them in court and winning. Crisp in Glover sounds like a greedy bastard ******* So in the end, I think Glover may have pushed things when he shouldn't have, but I have to respect him for standing on his principles. Gale and Zemeckis, on the other hand, unfairly screwed at least two actors during the production of these films, so I don't think too highly of them at all, but they knew how to play the Hollywood game, so they came out on the top. ******* Not necessarily regarding Gale. As a result of Glover's lawsuit, in which Steven Spielberg was a co-defendant, Spielberg got mad at Gale and retaliated against him by buying up a number of scripts Gale had written and then refusing to produce them, effectively blacklisting him from Hollywood. Falando nisso, aqui vai o link (também em inglês) para o primeiro roteiro (rascunho/esboço) de DVPF 2: 
http://backtothefuture.wikia.com/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II_first%20_draft_screenplay
 
O arquivo PDF:
http://goo.gl/jVGbDr