[templer1972]

Is there still a legal loophole that will allowed Kevin McClory remake Thunderball in future?

[TheSaint]

Nope-stick a fork in his Bond film producing career-it's done.

[Streetworker]

templer1972, on 3 February 2006 - 07:00, said:

Is there still a legal loophole that will allowed Kevin McClory remake Thunderball in future?

Doubtless there are some clever money grabbing lawyers who can convince deluded old producers to waste more of their money and lives on spurious writs.

But don't fret, in the real world that ship has sailed and ain't coming back.

This post has been edited by Streetworker: 03 February 2006 - 07:43 AM

[K1Bond007]

templer1972, on 3 February 2006 - 01:00, said:

Is there still a legal loophole that will allowed Kevin McClory remake Thunderball in future?

I don't think it's a question of whether he can or can't. He's in his 80s now. I just don't think he'd take the initiative here. Not anymore.

[Streetworker]

K1Bond007, on 3 February 2006 - 07:47, said:

templer1972, on 3 February 2006 - 01:00, said:

Is there still a legal loophole that will allowed Kevin McClory remake Thunderball in future?

I don't think it's a question of whether he can or can't. He's in his 80s now. I just don't think he'd take the initiative here. Not anymore.

It's a great shame Ian Fleming didn't live to see his 80s like Mr. McClory. But then, of course, he was given the last shove into his coffin at the age of 56 by the stress of a certain plagiarism case...

[Qwerty]

K1Bond007, on 3 February 2006 - 02:47, said:

templer1972, on 3 February 2006 - 01:00, said:

Is there still a legal loophole that will allowed Kevin McClory remake Thunderball in future?

I don't think it's a question of whether he can or can't. He's in his 80s now. I just don't think he'd take the initiative here. Not anymore.

Agreed.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]As I understand it Kevin thinks it would be possible as long as it

[Skudor]

I thought he was dead.

[Lounge Lizard]

Streetworker, on 3 February 2006 - 08:51, said:

It's a great shame Ian Fleming didn't live to see his 80s like Mr. McClory. But then, of course, he was given the last shove into his coffin at the age of 56 by the stress of a certain plagiarism case...

I may be frightfully naive, but didn't McClory have right on his side on that one? Wasn't he pushed aside as producer on Longitude 78 West by Fleming, only to find much of his own script material reworked as a Bond novel without being given the credit for it? True, these things happen all the time in Hollywood, and some people let go easier than others, but that doesn't diminish McClory's case, in my opinion.

And isn't it a bit harsh to suggest that McClory is, albeit partially, responsible for Fleming's early death? Weren't Fleming's boozing and smoking habits the main cause for that?

It has become a trend to (partially) blame Fleming's death on McClory. The man is perhaps a bitter and resentful old fellow with a less than glorious producer's record, and it is a great shame that Fleming isn't alive today to comment on the casting of Daniel Craig- but I don't think scapegoat theories should apply there. Fleming was a responsible adult, and no saint either.

[K1Bond007]

Lounge Lizard, on 3 February 2006 - 12:30, said:

Streetworker, on 3 February 2006 - 08:51, said:

It's a great shame Ian Fleming didn't live to see his 80s like Mr. McClory. But then, of course, he was given the last shove into his coffin at the age of 56 by the stress of a certain plagiarism case...

I may be frightfully naive, but didn't McClory have right on his side on that one? Wasn't he pushed aside as producer on Longitude 78 West by Fleming, only to find much of his own script material reworked as a Bond novel without being given the credit for it? True, these things happen all the time in Hollywood, and some people let go easier than others, but that doesn't diminish McClory's case, in my opinion.

It wasn't McClory's script. The first draft was written by Ernest Cuneo (the book is dedicated to him). The rest were rewrites by McClory, Whittingham, and Fleming. To say it was solely McClory is a grievous error. This isn't to say what Fleming did was right...

Quote

And isn't it a bit harsh to suggest that McClory is, albeit partially, responsible for Fleming's early death? Weren't Fleming's boozing and smoking habits the main cause for that?

Not really unfair. Yes Fleming lived a bad lifestyle of drinking and smoking, but it was the added stress that sealed the deal in the end. Ivar Bruce, Fleming's friend, essentially made him settle the case because his health had taken a turn due to the stress. Who knows though.

[DLibrasnow]

Streetworker, on 3 February 2006 - 02:51, said:

It's a great shame Ian Fleming didn't live to see his 80s like Mr. McClory. But then, of course, he was given the last shove into his coffin at the age of 56 by the stress of a certain plagiarism case...

Well if Fleming hadn't plagiarized McClory then he wouldn't have had to face that case.

You'd think that someone with a journalistic background like Fleming would have had more sense than to rip off McClory's ideas.

[Gabriel]

If I'd collaborated on a script with a college friend in 1996 and discovered that they'd turned it into a bestselling novel in 2006, without consulting me first, even as a courtesy, I'd be p!ssed off! I made a sequel to a college film I worked on ten years ago, late last year. I contacted my collaborator on the first film before I started it and kept him in the loop throughout. It was the respectful thing to do!

What Fleming did was ill-mannered and I suspect that's as much why McClory went after Fleming for Thunderball, as to get some money out of it!

People seem to react to McClory as if he was some schemeing Blofeld-type who worked out that he could kill Ian Fleming and swipe the rights to Thunderball if he went to court over the novel!

Nothing could be further from the truth. Litigation over ownership of materials in books and film has been commonplace for decades.

This post has been edited by Gabriel: 03 February 2006 - 10:55 PM

[Turn]

I'm also confused by the hatred McClory always seems to get. I'd welcome his making another Bond film. The more Bond the better in my opinion, especially in light of how slowly Eon moves these days.

I also agree he's hardly the villain he seems. He wanted a part of the Bond pie and we got Thunderball, my personal favorite Bond film. Although Cubby Broccoli is practically sainted, you can't tell me he was always correct in his decisions. Nor Saltzman, Wilson or Babs. If anything, they've deprived us fans of some things over the years and taken serious control issues. For proof, look back to the fan community when OP and NSNA were being produced and you'll find the fanzines getting tons of converage courtesy of McClory and the NSNA team, while Cubby and Eon seemed to keep their distance.

[ACE]

As I understand it:

1 McClory assigned his rights to Sony in 1997.

2 Those rights were transferred to Danjaq and UA Corp upon the settlment in 1999.

3 McClory was then seeking compensation for his purported creative input for the entire Bond series. Whether this had any legal merit or not (I seriously doubt it), was beside the point because McClory was time-barred in 2003.

I am not sure about where the film rights for Thunderball currently lie or if 1) above occured. This merely my understanding based on reports and memory of events. I could be wrong about 1).

However, I agree with Lounge Lizard's view of the matter. Of course, Fleming was a trifle reckless in publishing TB (but attitudes and the values of intellectual property and copyright and its importance have changed so much since that time) and settlement was reached.

Bond is a victim of his own success. The reversion of rights to McClory after 10 years from 1965 might seem a little short-sighted now but the run of James Bond in the cinema is phenomenal in the original sense of the word. Quite simply, there was and is no precedent for 007's enduring success. It has NEVER happened before! No-one in 1964-5 could have conceived that the same company would still be having global success with the same property over 40 years later. Perhaps, it was the only way to get the rights from McClory at the time.

I think McClory arouses ire amongst Bond fans for his shameless and baseless proposals to produce Bond films, TV shows etc which he knows he cannot make and probably has no intention of making. The Sony announcement of a rival Bond franchise timed just when MGM was attempting to make a public re-capitalization was very definitely a low blow against Bond. NSNA reneged on its promises (regardless of the merits of the film, rather than trade on Fleming, it traded on Eon). McClory has not sought so much to promote his own rights and films but to do so deliberately at the cost of Eon, broadsiding Cubby whenever he could. McClory is an immensely wealthy man with a fascinating personal history but he has tried to make a living out of nuisance value to Danjaq for many years. This is why some of hold him in low regard.

[Napoleon Solo]

Streetworker, on 3 February 2006 - 07:51, said:

It's a great shame Ian Fleming didn't live to see his 80s like Mr. McClory. But then, of course, he was given the last shove into his coffin at the age of 56 by the stress of a certain plagiarism case...

I think Ian's lifestyle (smoking, drinking, etc.) had as much to do with it as McClory.

Gabriel, on 3 February 2006 - 22:54, said:

If I'd collaborated on a script with a college friend in 1996 and discovered that they'd turned it into a bestselling novel in 2006, without consulting me first, even as a courtesy, I'd be p!ssed off! I made a sequel to a college film I worked on ten years ago, late last year. I contacted my collaborator on the first film before I started it and kept him in the loop throughout. It was the respectful thing to do!

What Fleming did was ill-mannered and I suspect that's as much why McClory went after Fleming for Thunderball, as to get some money out of it!

People seem to react to McClory as if he was some schemeing Blofeld-type who worked out that he could kill Ian Fleming and swipe the rights to Thunderball if he went to court over the novel!

Nothing could be further from the truth. Litigation over ownership of materials in books and film has been commonplace for decades.

I tend to agree. Whatever one thinks of Kevin McClory, clearly Ian Fleming made use of material from the McClory film project in writing the Thunderball novel.

[K1Bond007]

ACE, on 4 February 2006 - 17:24, said:

As I understand it:

1 McClory assigned his rights to Sony in 1997.

2 Those rights were transferred to Danjaq and UA Corp upon the settlment in 1999.

3 McClory was then seeking compensation for his purported creative input for the entire Bond series. Whether this had any legal merit or not (I seriously doubt it), was beside the point because McClory was time-barred in 2003.

Pretty sure McClory still has the rights. MGM claims those rights expired - which I think goes back to Mister Asterix's post about how McClory still thinks it's possible outside the US, but like him I just don't see it happening. As I initially wrote in this thread, it's not really a question of if McClory can or can't.

The deal you're talking about was for Casino Royale. In '99 Sony gave up their aspirations for doing anything Bond-related as well as Casino Royale for the rights (which was only partial) MGM had of Spider-Man. Sony had been trying to get that for years. I don't remember the specifics, but Sony, MGM, and I think Viacom all had partial rights to it and they were constantly in court in the 90s about it. I think Viacom just lost whatever they thought they had in court. See CNN report to understand it better.

[ACE]

Thanks, K1Bond007.

Someone I know has written a book on this subject and trying to process the legal side of it including these finer points.

[Gabriel]

Problem is, Thunderball is an epic Bond. Had McClory held the rights to, say, Casino Royale, I reckon he could have made that on a relatively low budget and even snagged Dalton or Brosnan for the Bond role.

NSNA, though, is a rip-off of the EON style, when it should have attempted to be its own film. Consequently, it's a Bond movie without the Bond music!

I suppose, though, that McClory could argue that Thunderball has been ripped off by EON on countless occasions down the the years!

This post has been edited by Gabriel: 09 February 2006 - 02:05 PM

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Kevin is Irish, as Pierce...

Imagine... Kevin McClory presents James Bond in Warhead 2000 AD Starring Pierce Brosnan

[templer1972]

Does Mr McClory still hold the right to NSNA? If he still hold the right why can't he remake NSNA? Can someone explain in a simple term.

[K1Bond007]

templer1972, on 13 March 2006 - 03:41, said:

Does Mr McClory still hold the right to NSNA? If he still hold the right why can't he remake NSNA? Can someone explain in a simple term.

You can't make a movie based on another movie that is based on something else if you don't own that something else. In this case it would be the rights to Fleming's Thunderball.

The distribution rights to NSNA were acquired by MGM in 97 when they bought up Orion pictures. I think. In anycase MGM has those now.