Comic Books Magazine

The Future is Now – Back to the Future Makeup Aging Vs. Actual Aging

Posted on the 09 August 2013 by Geekasms @geekasms

We are getting closer to the year 2015, with no flying cars, jet packs, or sharks with lasers, but 2015 will bring us the thirty year anniversary of the original Back to the Future, and the date that Marty travels to the future in the sequel.   However in the original film, Marty doesn’t travel to the future, but to the past 30 years, making the actors Leah Thompson, Crispin Glover, and Tom Wilson roughly the ages they were meant to be portraying in 1985.  Still following?  Well with the crossing of the streams that are fact and fiction, Reddit user Native-New-Yawkah put together the below image comparisons to see how well they aged the actors 30 years using makeup versus the actual aging process of 30 years.


Lets be honest, we can all agree that they pretty much nailed Tom Wilson.  Leah Thompson has obviously taken better care of herself than her character did, and Crispin Glover is just sorta creepy no matter the age, and the horn-rimmed glasses don’t help his case any.

As a bonus, here are comparisons of both Michael J Fox and Elisabeth Shue as how they aged them for Back to the Future II and what they look like now, approximately the same age as what was being portrayed in the film.

False-Prediction-of-the-Day-Oh-Back-to-the-Future-847 (1)

images (1)

Yeah, just a wee bit off there.  Fox isn’t great, but darken his hair and I don’t think it would look as bad.  They didn’t even try for Elisabeth Shue though.  A definite difference in quality between these two and the three from the first film.

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog