160 replies to this topic

[Turn]

It's sad the whole thing about people not wanting to contribute to the commentaries. I think it began two or three years ago when Arnold Schwarzenegger got some fee, not anything substantial, but enough to make other actors maybe want to follow the example of not participating in DVD extras without being paid.

It would be nice if Eon would offer up some sort of compensation for the actors to participate in the tracks for the next rereleases in 2005. It would sure be a bigger selling point to rebuy the DVDs than just remastered sound.

The next hurdle would be, as doublenoughtspy touched on, how much of the audio would they actually let them use. After all, they do have the commentary disclaimer in the beginning that says it doesn't document the definitive history of the film. I don't want a whitewashed version of something, I want the whole story. Sadly, this will probably further prohibit anything like this in the future.

[Triton]

I would hope that soon Eon or MGM/UA would release audio, video, or transcripts of the interviews and comments in their entirety. Derek Meddings, John Stears, Peter Hunt, and Desmond Llewelyn are some of the people who participated in the commentaries who have since passed on. Some of the participants in the early James Bond films unfortunately won't be with us for much longer, so it would be nice to see some of this material.

Now back to the original topic of this thread. I was not previously aware that Sean Connery, or Terence Young for that matter, wanted to be partners with Harry Saltzman and Albert R. "Cubby" Broccoli in the Bond series. I wonder if Sean would have made the announcement that You Only Live Twice was to be his last James Bond film if he was getting a bigger percentage of the box office and the merchandising as a partner in Eon. The way Sean Connery tells it, he was exploited and taken advantage of by Saltzman and Broccoli. In the Playboy interview it's clear that Sean Connery felt that he would have been a movie star eventually if he was not cast as James Bond by Saltzman & Broccoli. It seems like one of the reasons Connery left was to prove that he would be just as big a movie star without Saltzman & Broccoli and the James Bond character.

If David Picker hadn't intervened and given Connery a king's ransom and a deal to make three movies on any subject he wanted, it's clear that Connery would not have appeared in Diamonds Are Forever.

If he was so bored with the James Bond character and no longer wanted to be associated with the James Bond image, it's very strange that he would chose to ally himself with Kevin McClory in 1975/76 when McClory was free to make a movie based on the film scripts he wrote with Ian Fleming and Jack Whittingham. Although my feeling is part of his motivation was vindictiveness, kicking Eon when it was down after it had gone through a very unpleasant period because of Harry Saltzman's bankruptcy and the future of the company was in doubt.

After all the vitriol against Saltzman, Broccoli, and United Artists that appeared in the press over the years, the lawsuits, and the backstabbing perpetrated with Kevin McClory, I really don't think that a reconcilation is possible between Sean Connery and the Broccoli's, Eon, and MGM/United Artists. He wouldn't be invited to film premieres or memorial services, nor do I think that he would have been welcome if he had attended. I really think that there is too much bad blood and poison between them.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Triton
I really don't think that a reconcilation is possible between Sean Connery and the Broccoli's, Eon, and MGM/United Artists. He wouldn't be invited to film premieres or memorial services, nor do I think that he would have been welcome if he had attended. I really think that there is too much bad blood and poison between them.

Very much so....I cannot imagine that Connery will ever make peace with EON, especially given the lawsuits of the 1970s (and early 1980s) which pitched Sean against the Broccoli clan. Connery has made no secret of the fact that he felt cheated by EON (he even sued EON for royalties).

[Blox]

.......I disagree with some of the suppostions and characterizations being made by some in this thread. For example, one fellow "Triton" claims:

"Sean Connery was never very smart in his dealings with the press...It seems like his agreement to join forces with Kevin McClory was meant as a big scr*w you message to Broccoli, Eon, and MGM/UA....I think that the whole project was meant to let the wind out of Octopussy's sails and hurt MGM/UAs box office."

The project happened to coincide with Octopussy, but had been on the boards since 1975 when McClory's TB contract gave him the right to remake the film. So how is this somehow a jab at Octopussy? The two films weren't released at the same time. Octopussy in summer; NSNA in the fall. As for the press, they weren't very kind to Mr. Connery in the beginning, in fact they could be quite cruel at times, asking questions like "How did driving a truck prepare you for the role of an Etonian graduate" etc.

Some here seem to take the arbitrary posture that Connery was a villain and that he betrayed his loyalties to Eon. This approach is a little too studio-centric imo. I would ask them to consider that there was a reason why Connery won all of the law suits. As for his supposedly being full of himself and money grubbing, Connery donated all of the money he made for DAF and used it to create the Scottish Educational Trust -- something he is still a steward of -- designed to help people make their way in life.

Nobody is perfect -- but to heap the sort of blame as some have in this thread is unfair and inaccurate.

Blox

[Triton]

Well I could have criticized "Cubby" Broccoli and Harry Saltzman for their stinginess in not making Sean a partner with them. I am convinced that if Broccoli and Saltzman would have agreed to do this that Sean would not have left after You Only Live Twice. But Sean did sign a multi-picture contract and he was bound by the terms of that contract. Broccoli and Saltzman really should have released Sean from the terms of his contract and they should have renegotiated with him. They are partially to blame for what happened.

Never Say Never Again is a very entertaining motion picture and I play my DVD copy often. But I am very surprised by Sean Connery's involvement with Kevin McClory and Len Deighton in 1975/76 in helping to write the script for Warhead and agreeing to return as James Bond. Sean Connery said that he wanted to distance himself from the James Bond character and his image as James Bond. So why did he join forces with Kevin McClory? What was his motivation? The only explanation that fits the facts is that he wanted to get back at Eon and United Artists.

I am not disputing Kevin McClory's agreement with Broccoli and Saltzman to get the rights to make Thunderball. He did have the right to make a film based on the film script material that he wrote with Jack Whittingham and Ian Fleming in 1975.

I also have to say that Albert R. "Cubby" Broccoli wasn't such a saint as he is portrayed to be in the documentary material on the Special Edition DVDs. He was a very shrewd business man.

I believe that I was totally accurate when I wrote that "Sean was never very smart in his dealings with the press." The press were very cruel to him when he first started playing James Bond. But Sean wanted to be a superstar, and superstars have to deal with stupid and incompetent press people and he should have been more gracious and polite to them. He also exercised poor judgment when he said "What I'm really tired of is a lot of fat-slob producers living off the backs of lean actors." or when referring to Broccoli and Saltzman "Unfortunately they're both dead now, or fortunately, it depends on your point of view." Sean still feels that they short-changed him and he clearly resents them for that.

I agree that Sean Connery has also done some great things as a philanthropist, such as donating his salary for Diamonds Are Forever to create the Scottish International Educational Trust.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Turn
It's sad the whole thing about people not wanting to contribute to the commentaries. I think it began two or three years ago when Arnold Schwarzenegger got some fee, not anything substantial, but enough to make other actors maybe want to follow the example of not participating in DVD extras without being paid.

I believe the DVD in question is "Conan: The Barbarian"...proved that just because Arnie was the star of the picture does not translate into a good commentary!

[Blox]

Triton: "Broccoli and Saltzman really should have released Sean from the terms of his contract and they should have renegotiated with him. They are partially to blame for what happened.

...He seemed to become bored when the films became larger, and the focus on the Bond character a little more secondary. Connery had very little to do as an actor in YOLT compared with a film like FRWL. If he tried to negotiate being cut in as a producer, it may have been to contribute his vision to what Bonds would become rather than just a greedy money grab.

Triton: "Sean Connery said that he wanted to distance himself from the James Bond character and his image as James Bond.


...I have yet to find any evidence of this. Quoting Connery:
http://www.allstarz....nery/quotes.htm

SC: "I never disliked Bond, as some have thought. Creating a character like that does take a certain craft. It's simply natural to seek other roles."
SC:"I care about Bond and what happens to him. You cannot be connected with a character for this long and not have an interest ... All the Bond films had their good points."


Triton: So why did he join forces with Kevin McClory? What was his motivation? The only explanation that fits the facts is that he wanted to get back at Eon and United Artists.

... Try looking at things from McClory's perspective -- the perspective of a producer. If its 1975, and Roger Moore is bombing at the BO in MWTGG, and you have remake rights to what was then one of the top grossing pictures --it makes perfect sense to seek out the involvement of a highly bankable name who made the Bond character a star, and get his creative vision, as well as his name attached to help sell your property. He hadn't been asked by McClory to assume the role until seven years later.


Triton: I believe that I was totally accurate when I wrote that "Sean was never very smart in his dealings with the press. The press were very cruel to him when he first started playing James Bond. But Sean wanted to be a superstar,

...Come on, every actor wants to be a superstar.

Triton: and superstars have to deal with stupid and incompetent press people and he should have been more gracious and polite to them.

...Agreed. In fairness, Connery hadn't become a superstar when the English press mauled him. That happened right out of the gate in 62, 63, 64. Here's his take on rudeness:
http://www.allstarz....nery/quotes.htm

SC: "My view is that to get anywhere in life you have to be anti-social, otherwise you'll end up being devoured. I've never been particulary social, anyway, but if I've ever been rude, fifty per cent of it has usually been provoked by other people's attitudes. Though I do admit, like most Celts, I'm moody. It's fine until people try to cheer you up with gems like, 'snap out of it' or 'Come on, now'."

Beyond this Triton, it may be unrealistic to expect too much social grace from a man who emerged from an impoverished, working class background



Triton: He also exercised poor judgment when he said "What I'm really tired of is a lot of fat-slob producers living off the backs of lean actors."


...You are assuming that he was referring exclusively to B&S & himself. I think he was making a broader, more generalized statement. By that time, he and Michael Caine had taken on other "fat slob" producers and a studio -- and brought them down. This statement has less to do with axe grinding and more to do with his intolerance of injustice.

Triton: "or when referring to Broccoli and Saltzman "Unfortunately they're both dead now, or fortunately, it depends on your point of view." Sean still feels that they short-changed him and he clearly resents them for that."

...Its not accurate to say that Sean still feels that as he and Cubby reportedly mended their fences before Cubby died. Sean was the first to phone in his condolences to the family.

Blox

[Triton]

Hopefully, Sean Connery will soon write his memoirs so we can hear the story from his perspective.

[DLibrasnow]

Well it depends on what the terms of the court case resolution was....

[Blox]

Triton Hopefully, Sean Connery will soon write his memoirs so we can hear the story from his perspective.

...In the meantime, you'll have to use your judgment. And if some will let go of trying to interpret everything through the studio-centric Eon filter, a more reliable picture of the players and situations will emerge.

[DLibrasnow]

I think the picture is plain....Sean Connery has, since the late 1970s, had a dislike for the way he felt EON ripped him off during his tenure as 007.

[Blox]

...Reports suggest that more was going on after YOLT than just a grab for more money. He is said to have wanted to be cut in as a producer --to have a creative hand in the films.

[Jim]

Fascinating thread

It is interesting how the perception of the Broccoli family (relative to the perception of COnnery's character) seems to develop.

If Connery was screwed over by Broccoli and Saltzman, good for him for suing them. BS (one wonders how appropriate an acronym that is) were businessmen, not some variety of loveable old uncles. If they did Connery down and Connery gave them a bloody nose for it, so be it. There seems to be some ill-deserved sentimentality attaching to (especially) Mr Broccoli who was a) a businessman and making James Bond films to make himself richer. There's a lot of swallowing of the Eon party line going on.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blox

MGM/UA was in talks with Sean for Octopussy in 82

Really? Didn't know that. You learn something new on CBn every day.

Originally posted by Jim

It is interesting how the perception of the Broccoli family (relative to the perception of COnnery's character) seems to develop.

If Connery was screwed over by Broccoli and Saltzman, good for him for suing them. BS (one wonders how appropriate an acronym that is) were businessmen, not some variety of loveable old uncles. If they did Connery down and Connery gave them a bloody nose for it, so be it. There seems to be some ill-deserved sentimentality attaching to (especially) Mr Broccoli who was a) a businessman and making James Bond films to make himself richer. There's a lot of swallowing of the Eon party line going on.

Is there not a Connery party line that's there for the swallowing, too? You know the sort of thing: exploited Artist sticks it to The Man? James Bond can do no wrong? As a bunch of film producers and lawyers (some of considerably wide girth), it wouldn't take much to paint Broccoli, Saltzman and their MGM/Eon cohorts as the black-hatted villains.

Personally, I'm far from convinced that Connery was screwed over. Do you, Jim, complain that your contract of employment does not leave you free to pursue other work? Do you insist that your employers give you a share of the profits of all their ventures, even ones in which you are not directly involved? Connery's behaviour strikes me (as a layman, admittedly) as somewhat George Michaelish.

That is not to say, though, that I view "Cubby" as the Father Christmas of the Bond phenomenon. Frankly, I've always felt (and this is simply my humble opinion) that he comes across in interview footage as an abrasive, grasping and somewhat unpleasant fellow. The Bond DVD documentaries (final cut of which belongs to post-Saltzman Eon Productions, let's not forget) also leave me with the impression that Saltzman was a man of questionable moral character. As for Connery, he appears to possess an overdeveloped awareness of his legal rights (never an attractive trait) and hold exceptionally disturbing views on the treatment of women.

So I'm not taking sides. I'm neither in the Broccoli camp nor the Connery camp, but simply trying to decide which camp's case had merit. I am disinterested but (as is obvious by virtue of the fact that I started this thread and continue to reply to it!) not uninterested. But at the end of the day it all seems to boil down to a bunch of less-than-lovely people on one side and another bunch of less-than-lovely people on the other, squabbling over money.

[ChandlerBing]

Connery has sued almost every studio in Hollywood, I think. Why was Connery in negotiations with MGM in 82? He was already filming NSNA, and MGM was already talking to Mr. Streisand about playing Bond. I would have sided with Connery on this one. Saltzman, from what I have heard, was a real son of a bitch of the worst order. He didn't know what he was talking about a lot of the time. He pissed off John Barry with his comments about the theme for Diamonds Are Forever. Barry was so pissed off he didn't want to come back for Live and Let Die. Saltzman wanted to persuade Syd Cain to use the Maginot Line for Blofeld's hideout for OHMSS, instead of Piz Gloria. Enough **** about Saltzman, I'm done now.

[Blox]

Loomis: There's a lot of swallowing of the Eon party line going on.

...That's my take as well.

[Blox]

ChandlerBing: Connery has sued almost every studio in Hollywood, I think.

...That's a bit of an overstatement. Connery and Caine sued Allied Artists over The Man Who Would be King -- and won. Connery sued the Bond people -- and won "all of the lawsuits."


Why was Connery in negotiations with MGM in 82? He was already filming NSNA, and MGM was already talking to Mr. Streisand about playing Bond.

...I was working for a network at the time. MGM/UA interviewed Connery for Octopussy -- obviously before the production began. That, according to MGM/UA flack that I had spoken to myself. There was also a blurb in the trades from MGM brass that they'd talked to both Moore and Connery -- and that both were in good enough shape to play the part. It obviously didn't go well, because when I followed up about Connery's prospects, the flack responded "there's no danger of that happening." Enough vitriol to go around in Hollywood it seems.


I would have sided with Connery on this one. Saltzman, from what I have heard, was a real son of a bitch of the worst order. He didn't know what he was talking about a lot of the time. He pissed off John Barry with his comments about the theme for Diamonds Are Forever. Barry was so pissed off he didn't want to come back for Live and Let Die.

...I recall an article by Geoff Leonard stating that he also brought in a musical advisor over Barry's head on YOLT. Couldn't have been terribly endearing.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by ChandlerBing
Connery has sued almost every studio in Hollywood, I think.  Why was Connery in negotiations with MGM in 82?  He was already filming NSNA, and MGM was already talking to Mr. Streisand about playing Bond.  

Yes, Connery was involved in the NSNA project since the late 1970s (probably mostly to stick it to EON), so I would suspect any claim that Connery had any involvement with OP would be complete garbage.

[ChandlerBing]

Ah, and there is also the story of the elephant shoes for The Man With The Golden Gun...

Still cannot see why and how they even had the idea for Connery for Octopussy...Wow.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blox

Loomis: There's a lot of swallowing of the Eon party line going on.

...That's my take as well.

Disagreeing with Connery's stance does not automatically equate to swallowing Eon propaganda or toeing a particular party line. To paraphrase Blofeld (in NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, funnily enough), in matters of legal wrangling between people I don't know, I am strictly impartial.

Originally posted by Blox

Triton: He also exercised poor judgment when he said "What I'm really tired of is a lot of fat-slob producers living off the backs of lean actors."  

I'm with Triton on this one. In what way was Connery a "lean" actor? Wasn't he one of the highest paid performers in the world by the time of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, if not the highest paid? Perhaps he wasn't "referring exclusively to B&S & himself", but why come out with a statement like that unless he felt it reflected his own situation?

Sure, Broccoli/Saltzman may have made more money than Connery from the Bond films.... and rightly so, since they were the producers and took the financial risk (did Connery actually invest his own money in the series?).

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Blox
That, according to MGM/UA flack that I had spoken to myself.  

I thought the movie OP was released under the United Artists banner.
Even so, I think a studio publicist (or whichever studio) would be a very unreliable source since they are prone to say whatever to get some buzz for their product.

[Blox]

Dlib: Why MGM/UA?? MGM was not involved in the James Bond movies until 1984 and the production of AVTAK...The movie OP was released under the United Artists banner because the two companies were completely separate entities in 1982 when OP was in pre-production.

...Octopussy was MGM/UA.


Dlib: Even so, I think a studio publicist (or whichever studio) would be a very unreliable source since they are prone to say whatever to get some buzz for their product.

...I have no reason to believe that the flack I spoke to was lying, nor the MGM brass who met with him and made the comment that he had interviewed Moore and Connery and both were fit enough to play the part.


ChandlerBing: Still cannot see why and how they even had the idea for Connery for Octopussy...Wow.

...Perhaps because of the way he would have pronounced her name: Octo-poosy.

Blox

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Blox

...wrong again -- Octopussy was MGM/UA. Check your facts before you spout.

Isn't this really a minor point?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blox
 
You guys take the cake.  

Talking of cakes, I think Connery was trying to have his and eat it.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Blox

...Fortunately reality doesn't function the way you "think".  If the flack I spoke to was lying, then so was his studio chief who made a statement to one of the trade rags that he had interviewed Moore and Connery and both were fit enough to play the part.  

Rather curious wouldn't you think since Connery had been working on NSNA since the late 1970s (known at the time as "Warhead") and was already contractually committed to NSNA when casting was being conducted for OP.

Even if he was approached Since Connery was suing EON at the time in the courts, so it's hardly surprising that he told them to b*gger off.

[Blox]

Loomis: Disagreeing with Connery's stance does not automatically equate to swallowing Eon propaganda or toeing a particular party line.

...Many here do with statements about "sticking it to Eon" etc.


Loomis: I'm with Triton on this one. In what way was Connery a "lean" actor? Wasn't he one of the highest paid performers in the world by the time of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, if not the highest paid? Perhaps he wasn't "referring exclusively to B&S & himself", but why come out with a statement like that unless he felt it reflected his own situation?

...look carefully at what he said: "...living off the back of lean actors" -- that's "actors" plural. Cast regulars like Lee, Maxwell, and Llewelyn would come in and get paid scale for a few days work on set. As for Connery being highest paid actor, he earned approximately $8,357,000 for six pictures. Now compare his take with the combined box office grosses totaling $632,100,000. Let's place them side by side:

Sean Connery: $ 8,357,000
UA: $632,100,000


Though well paid relative to other actors, if he did lobby the producers for more money after YOLT, it wouldn't have been entirely unreasonable given that Connery's take was a paltry fraction of the return. Here is Connery on his salary:
http://www.allstarz....nery/quotes.htm
SC: "I admit I'm being paid well, but it's no more than I deserve. After all, I've been screwed more times than a hooker."


Loomis: Broccoli/Saltzman may have made more money than Connery from the Bond films.... and rightly so, since they were the producers and took the financial risk

...Yes they took that risk, but its not unusual or unreasonable for an agent to try and negotiate fatter fees. We see this today for actors in television -- ie: cast of Friends.

Blox

[Blox]

Dilibrasnow: I am correct. OP was NOT an MGM/UA production. The first James Bond movie that was an MGM/UA production was AVTAK. The merger between the studios occurred after production had concluded on OP.

...Sorry. OP _was_ released by MGM/UA -- not UA as you claim. Everything having to do with OP -- the credit prior to the gunbarrel, publicity materials, trailers -- everything was branded MGM/UA.

Blox

[Blox]

DLibrasnow: Rather curious wouldn't you think since Connery had been working on NSNA since the late 1970s (known at the time as "Warhead") and was already contractually committed to NSNA when casting was being conducted for OP. Even if he was approached Since Connery was suing EON at the time in the courts, so it's hardly surprising that he told them to b*gger off.

...the head of MGM/UA interviewed both Connery and Moore at some point coinciding with OP pre-production. This may have been `81 -- its been about 22 years you know. The head of the studio commented in a trade rag (may have been Hollywood Reporter) that he had spoken with both actors, and that he thought both were fit enough to play the part. MGM flack confirmed this to me as well during my tenure in network news. Obviously something didn't work well, given the same flack's sour response a short while later.

Blox

[Blox]

Loomis: Talking of cakes, I think Connery was trying to have his and eat it.

...That sounds like something a "fat slob" producer might say.

Blox

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blox

look carefully at what he said: "...living off the back of lean actors" -- that's "actors" plural.  Cast regulars like Lee, Maxwell, and Llewelyn would come in and get paid scale for a few days work on set.

Is it safe to assume that Connery was referring to actors like Lee, Maxwell and Llewelyn, and not to the likes of Michael Caine and himself? Besides, why shouldn't Lee, Maxwell and Llewelyn have been paid scale for a few days' work? Ought they to have been paid hundreds of thousands of pounds? If so, why?

Originally posted by Blox

Connery earned approximately $8,357,000 for six pictures.  Now compare his take with the box office grosses: (http://www.klast.net/bond/boxoff.html)  

Dr. No  - $59.5 million
From Russia With Love - $ 78.9 million
Goldfinger - $124.9 million
Thunderball - $141.2 million
You Only Live Twice Connery - $111.6 million
Diamonds Are Forever Connery $116 million

That's a BO total of $632,100,000.  Let's place them side by side:

Sean Connery: $   8,357,000  
UA:                $632,100,000


Relative to the scale of the box office receipts, Connery's take was a paltry fraction of the return.  

And rightly so, in my opinion. I ask again: did Connery invest his own money in the Bond films? Is it not right that the studio and producers made much more cash than Connery? Are you seriously suggesting that Connery was underpaid?

Also, if Connery wasn't the highest-paid actor in the world at the time of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, who was? I'm not saying he was or wasn't, since I don't know who the highest-paid actor in the world was, but if you know of anyone who was paid more than Connery I'd be interested in reading about it.

Originally posted by Blox

...Well they got what they paid for in OHMSS, and their "James Bond is the star" retort didn't hold much water when it grossed a sorry $64.6 million. OHMSS was a bomb relative to the other pictures.  Not suprisingly, B&S ponied up for DAF. You can also see how much Connery netted in DAF when finally cut in for a profit share.

If Connery was as crucial to the series as you seem to be claiming, how come we're now looking forward to BOND 21? And don't forget that the downbeat tone and tragic ending of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE may have hurt it at the box office.