Any cinephile worth his salt knows this piece of trivia.
In 1985 before Michael J. Fox charmed the pants off audiences as Marty McFly in the now iconic Robert Zemeckis film, “Back to the Future” — by far the filmmaker’s greatest triumph — Eric Stoltz originally had the part. And not even was cast, but then dropped out. Zemeckis shot for five whole weeks before he realized that Stoltz, while a great actor, wasn’t really capturing the chemistry of the comedy on the page.
The Amblin Entertainment producers, including Steven Spielberg, made the difficult decision of going back to the studio asking if they could replace their actor and start over again, scrapping five weeks of production. Today, that’s unheard of. It’s more like, “tough” and films get buried, but back then, evidently Amblin and Universal (the destrib) were OK with it.
“I had to make this horrific decision that was very heartbreaking for everybody,” Zemeckis said in a clip that was premiered by several outlets today including THR. “But luckily, I was able to convince the studio to reshoot five weeks of work.” Poor Eric Stoltz.
We’ve all seen glimpses of photos and video of this footage before (just do a simple Google search if you haven’t), but why is it coming out now you ask? Simple, “Back To The Future 25th Anniversary Trilogy” to be released on Blu-Ray on Oct. 26. Anyone out there think the other two “Back To The Future” films are far inferior to the original, which is as close to art as entertaining mainstream cinema gets? This writer sure thinks they’re akin to the two woeful “Matrix” sequels. Discuss.
I do not agree with that.
Take the this 80's vision of the future for example, who would have wanted to miss out on that! and what about the fucking sneakers!
To answer your question, I do think the Back to the Future 2 was very underwhelming especially since it finally dealt with the future, but I found Back to the Future 3 to be brilliant. Now I am a sucker for westerns, but I'll be damned if it just wasn't pure fun and it tied up things quite nicely. In fact, it's almost a better straight sequel than 2 was. But I agree that Part 1 is perfect, and is my favorite film of the 80s.
As far as the Stoltz footage goes, I wish we could see it with the audio included to see some of his line deliveries. I was pissed when the regular DVDs didn't include this footage, but I don't I'm gonna rebuy just for this. Still, I don't think any of this footage looked bad, just differnet than what we're used to.
I see the two Pirates sequels more akin to the Matrixes, but I know all of these sequels were filmed together after the first was a hit.
In a fit of nostalgia, I JUST watched all three movies last week. I would have to agree that the original film is far superior to the sequels (they weren't even originally planning on doing sequels – but of course, a successful film demands them!).
However, I don't think the sequels are necessarily bad films. They just live in the shadow of their oldest sibling. Comparing the two sequels, the third in the trilogy is much better story-wise, even if it is a carbon copy of the original . . . this time in the 1800s!
"which is as close to art as entertaining mainstream cinema gets?"
What a pretentious thing to say
I would argue that the first Back to the Future is an overrated B movie, and that its sequels aren't even worth mentioning.
Zemeckis and Gale said they never want to release actual footage — the video was probably a concession enough. They said that the reason is because they respect Stoltz so much as an actor and person BUT man, oh man, he's just so awful and off-the-mark in the role. And he shouldn't have to face public humiliation for their casting mistake while he's still an active actor.
I mean, just look at him! He even looks 100% wrong for the part — dark, brooding, mature, even a little disturbed. He's the exact opposite of what you need — goofy, boyish, nerdy, but charming.
BTTF 2 is amazing. Possibly the best.
Zemeckis doesn't want to release real Stoltz footage from BTTF because he doesn't want to look like a baffoon of a director, not because he's protecting Stoltz's reputation. Zemeckis cast Stoltz, prepped with Stoltz and shot for 5 damn weeks with Stoltz. 5 weeks on a comedy in the mid-1980s is a HUGE chunk of the film. Stoltz must have shot at least half of the Marty scenes if not more. It is ultimately the director's job to, um direct, the actors, to choose their hair style and clothing and guide them through how they envision the scenes playing out tonally and emotionally.
I don't blaim Stoltz at all for filling in his character with stuff like listening to Joy Division, etc. He was just trying to make it interesting. Marty, even in the Fox version, is somewhat of an outcast.
But apparently Zemeckis was out to lunch for the first two months of this project and dropped the ball on paying close attention to his actors.
I guarantee if we ever do get to see Stoltz footage that the performances of the other actors opposite him are not as good as the final version either. So rather than calling them "massive reshoots", he downplays it as a "recast" and gets Michael J. Fox. I love Fox by the way, he is amazing, but I've always hated how Zemeckis talks about this situation instead of just owning up to his own mistakes.
That's my point Anon, you don't shoot for 5 whole weeks with someone who is "awful" in a role. You shoot maybe a week or two and make achange. You may shoot with someone for 5 weeks if they either A) They are fine, just different than you planned, or B) They are fine, but you change your mind or have new ideas of how the character should be played, or C) You have no vision or idea of what you are doing as director.
circusfolk – the footage doesn't look bad, but I don't think anyone ever said it was outright bad, just didn't turn out like they'd planned, specifically not as humorous. Stoltz has always been a subtle actor, and you can tell even from that quick clip of him looking at George McFly that his choices were not nearly as "big" as Fox's–he's low energy and Fox is high-energy. Fox does a lot of comic yelling and screaming in the movie; I can't see Stoltz doing much of that.
ATM – You're right that Zemeckis is more at fault here than Stoltz, but it's also worth mentioning that Fox was the original choice for Marty, and when he became available, Zemeckis realized there was a slim chance he could make the movie he wanted and took it. I wouldn't doubt that Zemeckis isn't much of an actor's director–a lot of action oriented directors aren't (hell, a lot of directors aren't good with actors period). And in those cases, the success of the performances is all in the casting.
Fair point. I wonder if they'd have been able to make the movie a year or two later? I guess it wasn't worth it to Zemeckis to take that risk so he went with Stoltz his second choice.
I'm with @anon4. BTTF2 is the most unfairly vilified sequel ever. I love it. 3 stinks, though.
Went to see the reissued first film just a few nights ago and grinned all the way through, especially when we all spontaneously sang along to "Earth Angel". And looked out for, and marvelled at, the Twin Pines/Lone Pines thing that I'd missed before. All these years and the film still gives…
I love BTTF3. Deal with that.