Talk:Crispin Glover/Archives/2012

Disorganized

Right now the article seems too segregated. There are eight dividers for information that hardly makes up a paragraph (i.e. Glover contra Spielberg or Final notes). Also, I don't think it's obvious why Glover's film history warrants "early" v. "later" distinctions. If those distinctions are made they should be justified. More importantly, anything relating to film should be consolidated under one major heading. Having two "film sections" that are so far apart within the article gives the impression of disorganization. In fact, if we consolidate anything pertaining to film we would get rid of four unnecessary headings. Also titles should represent what's written under the headings. For example, if the heading reads: Art, Music, and Deconstruction there should be something about deconstruction under the heading--also the 'art' mentioned are his books. A lot of what Glover does in many media can be considered 'art'.

Also, is it me, or are there too many links?

Examples of links that probably should be removed:

• Williard-era interview, film stills
• Transcript of Glover's notorious first appearance on Late Night with David Letterman
• Unpop Promo Poster for What is It? (click on FILMS, CHG promo is at top, extreme left, Shirley Temple and the Swastika . Image is from Apocalypse Culture vol. 2. Ed. by Adam Parfrey.)

The "notorious" Letterman appearance wasn't even mentioned in the article, and even if it was, perhaps this link should be present where the appearance would be mentioned? Also a link to the "Unpop Promo Poster" is completely unnecessary. First, it's a very indirect link. Second, it's a link to a promotional poster for a film. The image would easily fall under the fair use conditions for using copyrighted materials on-line. Also links to articles that aren’t mentioned or used as sources for the info in the article should be removed.

I'm only complaining because I think Glover and the casual wiki-surfer deserves a well-organized article. If more people agree with my criticisms, we should attempt to restructure the page. I hesitated in implementing my suggestions because what I'm proposing will drastically change the article. --Imma 07:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The big problem

What is it? 69.136.162.114 19:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's his nose, I think. It could be a latex appliance. -Ashley Pomeroy 16:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been curious about this for years myself. Шизомби (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit

The article says that Glover "won a landmark victory, setting a precedent for how actors' images may be used in films." But did Glover actually win the lawsuit or did he "win" an out-of-court settlement? (Here Glover says that the lawsuit "was settled with mutual satisfaction.") --Keith111 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If it was settled out-of-court, then the case has no precedential value in legal terms. Though it may have "precedential" value informally on how contracts in this area are formed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.28 (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Crispin's own comments in the March, 1992 issue of "Interview Magazine" (pp111-112,127) indicate that a settlement was in fact reached out of court, and that it was a mutual settlement. Zemecki's own remarks on the BTTF DVD Compilation are words to this effect, also. Updated article to reflect this, and attempted to remove some anti-studio bias. (Wernhervonbraun (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Coverup?

What happened to the info about Glover's David Letterman appearance? Claytonian 08:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the article states that he dressed up in his character from the 1991 "Rubin and Ed", which came out in 1991, 4 years after this appearance. This is obviously wrong. User:71.217.10.147 03:48, 10 August 2007

He could have had the character before 1991, 1991 User:Petchboo 14:52, 12 March 2008

The article is wrong. The video is available on YouTube. He was there to promote River's Edge, not Rubin and Ed.[1] --JHP (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Esoterica

Speaking with Crispin the other night at a show, he objected to the description that he is an archivist of esoterica. Considering the lack of citation on this information it should probably be removed if it cannot be verified. To paraphrase him: "I'm interested in esoteric things, but I'm not a collector or archivist. I spend too much of my time raising money for my films to do anything else." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.135.207.2 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, especially since the article makes no other mention of it. I removed the archivist mention. Mathiastck (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Characters

It's been noted that Glover was dressed as Ruben Farr for the first Letterman interview. In his video "Clowny Clown Clown", he appeared as the same. Interestingly, in the beginning of that video, he is wearing the same suit and tie in which he would appear in the second Letterman interview several years later. Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.77.10 (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Section: "Late Night appearance"

This section seems biased in Glover's favor, taking liberties with the facts, and thereby conflicting with WikiPedia's impartiality policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.132.219 (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that the section doesn't mention his second appearance on 8/21/87. 142.103.8.38 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"But Glover has consistently refused to go into detail about the reasons for his behavior, other than to mention that he's flattered that fans are still speculating on the performance over 20 years later. Glover has also mentioned that his performance was an artistic one, and that he prefers there to be an "aura of mystery" about the appearance." This seems like an awfully charitable way of describing a desperate attention seeker. NPOV? User:71.202.150.152 16:01, 5 July 2009

Late night, take 2

Come on now...Letterman is not that stupid. He had to have realized it was all just an act, even if he wasn't in on it prior. Nc40lady (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Martial arts

Does anyone know if Crispin studied any martial arts in his career? When he portrayed the thin man, he seemed to be able to do quite a bit of what seems like Karate or some other form of. I'm not much of a researcher let alone a Wikipedia editor, but I thought I'd ask. User:98.215.128.112 23:59, 25 June 2009

Missing Film References

For some reason, on the filmography, there is no reference to his part as George Mc Fly in the three Back to the Future movies. These are the only three I've personally seen him in, however there is likely many more films missing from the list. --86.5.94.41 (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

missing reference regarding to songs written about him

the boulder, colorado music group "warlock pinchers" wrote and performed a song called 'where the hell is crispin glover?'

missing reference regarding to songs written about him

the boulder, colorado music group "warlock pinchers" wrote and performed a song called 'where the hell is crispin glover?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.59.128 (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Typo?

In the section Acting Career, the following appears: "Despite winning the lawsuit and became one of the most important factors in SAG rule history,..." I'm not sure how it should read, but it doesn't seem right the way it is. Since I'm not exactly sure what the author intended, I don't want to edit it. Van Vidrine (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ruben Farr

On his second appearance on "Late Night, with David Letterman" Crispin intimated that there was a classmate who looked exactly like him. I later read that Crispin taylored his Ruben character from "Ruben and Ed" after Ruben Farr. Is this just another joke by Mr. Glover, or does Ruben Farr really exist? --Bourbon King 23:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

james taylor? tim taylor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Peculiar

Why is it acceptable to have a negative attitude towards Glover because he is considered to be peculiar and odd? Of all places, Hollywood should not shun an actor because he is eccentric. Hollywood is the center of weird behavior. Lestrade 17:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the center of calculated uncalculatedly wierd behavior. Crispin's behavior is uncalculatedly calculated. The opposite, you see. User:Petchboo 14:51, 12 March 2008

I'm not sure what the above is supposed to have to do with the article, but it might be nice if the article could somehow explain Glover's odd behavior. TheScotch (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

please see the article on abnormal psychology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)