WI: Eric Stoltz kept on in Back to the Future

Eric Stoltz was the original Marty McFly in Back to the Future. From all accounts, his tone was different from the movie's intent, and he was playing it more dramatic and intense (for example, he said that he thought it was sad in the movie how no one remembered anything, which was not the tone intent of the two Bobs). Tom Wilson, who played Biff, said that he was a total method actor on set and made everyone call him Marty and acted like his character, and projected a lot of anger towards Tom Wilson and was very rough in fight scenes, and Wilson was going to punch him if he kept it up. He was fired five weeks into shooting (and after several million dollars of shooting) and replaced by Michael J. Fox, who had better comedic timing and sensibilities.

But what if Eric Stoltz had not been fired and he was kept on to just finish up the film?
 
Eric Stoltz was the original Marty McFly in Back to the Future. From all accounts, his tone was different from the movie's intent, and he was playing it more dramatic and intense (for example, he said that he thought it was sad in the movie how no one remembered anything, which was not the tone intent of the two Bobs). Tom Wilson, who played Biff, said that he was a total method actor on set and made everyone call him Marty and acted like his character, and projected a lot of anger towards Tom Wilson and was very rough in fight scenes, and Wilson was going to punch him if he kept it up. He was fired five weeks into shooting (and after several million dollars of shooting) and replaced by Michael J. Fox, who had better comedic timing and sensibilities.

But what if Eric Stoltz had not been fired and he was kept on to just finish up the film?

Most likely it's never the money spinner it was OTL and thus no trilogy.
 
It's a flop. So what does that do?

First, it drastically alters the movie scene in 1985. Back to the Future was released on July 4, 1985 (with some July 3 screenings), went straight to #1 at the box office, and stayed there for 11 out of the next 12 weeks. It would hang around in theaters for another 25 weeks, until March 20, 1986. Put another way: Universal Studios released seventeen movies in 1985 -- including The Breakfast Club, Fletch, Out of Africa, Brewester's Millions and Weird Science -- and despite all of those hits, Back to the Future still accounted for more than one-third of Universal's revenue for the entire year. (!)

Particularly in 1985, movie-going was relatively inelastic; that is, people "went to the movies" as entertainment and picked the movie they wanted to see the most. The upshot is that most of the dollars that were spent on Back to the Future in 1985 and 1986 would have been spent on other movies instead.

In the first few weeks, that probably means that Cocoon stays at #1 instead of duking it out for second and third place with Clint Eastwood's Pale Rider. Fletch hangs around a little longer, too.

In mid-July, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome probably debuts at #1 instead of #2, and possibly stays there for a couple of weeks. That might give it the momentum to become a summer blockbuster instead of a mild disappointment.

Or you might look to mid-August, when Real Genius opened at #7 and only lasted for three weeks in the theaters (even though it's held up relatively well even today, IMO, and is a staple of cable TV movie broadcasts). If just half of the people who saw Back to the Future IOTL the week of August 9 would have seen Real Genius as their second choice, then Real Genius would have debuted #1 at the box office instead and possibly become a runaway hit....
 
It's a flop. So what does that do?

First, it drastically alters the movie scene in 1985. Back to the Future was released on July 4, 1985 (with some July 3 screenings), went straight to #1 at the box office, and stayed there for 11 out of the next 12 weeks. It would hang around in theaters for another 25 weeks, until March 20, 1986. Put another way: Universal Studios released seventeen movies in 1985 -- including The Breakfast Club, Fletch, Out of Africa, Brewester's Millions and Weird Science -- and despite all of those hits, Back to the Future still accounted for more than one-third of Universal's revenue for the entire year. (!)

Particularly in 1985, movie-going was relatively inelastic; that is, people "went to the movies" as entertainment and picked the movie they wanted to see the most. The upshot is that most of the dollars that were spent on Back to the Future in 1985 and 1986 would have been spent on other movies instead.

In the first few weeks, that probably means that Cocoon stays at #1 instead of duking it out for second and third place with Clint Eastwood's Pale Rider. Fletch hangs around a little longer, too.

In mid-July, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome probably debuts at #1 instead of #2, and possibly stays there for a couple of weeks. That might give it the momentum to become a summer blockbuster instead of a mild disappointment.

Or you might look to mid-August, when Real Genius opened at #7 and only lasted for three weeks in the theaters (even though it's held up relatively well even today, IMO, and is a staple of cable TV movie broadcasts). If just half of the people who saw Back to the Future IOTL the week of August 9 would have seen Real Genius as their second choice, then Real Genius would have debuted #1 at the box office instead and possibly become a runaway hit....

Interesting analysis, and of course Real Genius would probably do better if people weren't comparing it to OTL BTTF.

There's also what would have happened to the Robert Zemeckis and co made afterwards OTL. For example what about Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Would that go ahead if Zemeckis wasn't coming off the back of the success of BTTF?
 
Back to the Future only got made because Zemeckis, after a string of commercial failures, got a hit (I forget what movie that was). If it's a failure (I'm not sure it would be with Stotlz, though) that would set him back.
 
Are we sure Back to the Future would be a flop as a dramatic film?

If it was just the tone difference could Stoltz get his way and get some rewrites so they don't clash so much?
 
Are we sure Back to the Future would be a flop as a dramatic film?

If it was just the tone difference could Stoltz get his way and get some rewrites so they don't clash so much?

The problem is it's an adventure comedy film. It wouldn't be a dramatic film, just an adventure comedy Stotlz is being too serious in even in the non-dramatic scenes. Also, by the time Stotlz was fired, they were already almost done with the film, so no room for rewrites. Whether it would flop, I don't know. Apparently the reason the footage wasn't released for eons was because the two Bob's thought his performance would be embarrassing to him as a still working actor. That may say something.
 
Are we sure Back to the Future would be a flop as a dramatic film?

If it was just the tone difference could Stoltz get his way and get some rewrites so they don't clash so much?

I can sum up the problem with that idea in two words; Doc Brown.

In more than two words there is just no way you can make the film more serious and still have Doc Brown as the lovable eccentric; make the film serious and he's a dangerous crank, and lets not get into how gross the Marty/Mom/Dad triangle is if you aren't playing it for laughs.

As others have said it was an action-comedy and Eric Stoltz just wasn't on the right wavelength, trying to bend it to fit Stoltz would probably have guaranteed if not a flop then a movie that does OK but quickly slides into obscurity.

Oh and one other effect, a certain Fringe episode probably has to pick a different movie for the Observers to watch. :)
 
Back to the Future only got made because Zemeckis, after a string of commercial failures, got a hit (I forget what movie that was). If it's a failure (I'm not sure it would be with Stotlz, though) that would set him back.

A quick look at IMDB would suggest that movie was Romancing the Stone. I don't think a string of failures is really fair because he only has two full length movies credited with him as Director prior to that.
 

Cook

Banned
Stoltz annoys me and I only appreciate him in roles where I am meant to hate his character.
 
Stoltz just does not play Marty very well, and looking at him and Wilson side by side it just is not the intimidating matchup that Fox and Wilson are. If nothing else I'd probably have put money down on (Stoltz as)McFly if he and Biff mixed it up. Michael J Fox simply owned the role and made it look much more credible, I think you can find the other footage on Youtube.
 
Top