Is the Ending of the Back to the Future All About Materialism?

Crispin Glover who played George McFly in the original Back to the Future didn't come back for the sequels. And he claimed that there was a big philosophical reason for not returning:

He noted that he wasn't the only person asking questions about the original ending "It had to do with money, and what the characters were doing with money ... I said to Robert Zemeckis I thought it was not a good idea for our characters to have a monetary reward, because it basically makes the moral of the movie that money equals happiness". Glover argued "the love should be the reward", and "Zemeckis got really mad" over Glover's questioning.

This shows a Hollywood actor can be part of a great movie and entirely miss its point. The ending of Back to the Future wasn't about materialism, in the end it was about the power of a father to shape his family's destiny.

Warning: This discussion will contain spoilers for any of the three people who haven't seen it yet and you ought to

At the beginning of the movie before Marty goes back to the 1955, George McFly is a joke. He's been being pushed around by the same bully he has for more than 30 years. Biff Tannon is still getting George to do his work for him and reaping the profits.

George won the love of his wife because he was peeping into her window, fell out and got hit by a car. She felt sorry for him. Again pathetic.

Even worse, we learn that George McFly would let Biff interfere with his kids and call his kids name without any defense. George McFly was a weak immature man who never grew up and was never really challenged to. No wonder his kids grew up a bunch of insecure underachievers.

However, one moment in 1955 when he laid out Biff Tannon to save the lovely Elaine. The same woman fell in love with him: not because he was pathetic, but because he'd stood up for her. He grew up and developed moral courage. He became a different man and it changed the destiny of his entire family. Yes, that meant Marty had a nice truck, but it also meant he had a better family whose lives were touched by a father who could stand up for himself and for them.

Understanding that, I can get why Robert Zemeckis got mad because a 20 year old actor came in and suggested a major rewrite because he didn't actually understand what the movie was about. The sad thing is that all these years later, Glover still doesn't.