160 replies to this topic

[Blox]

Loomis: I ask again: did Connery invest his own money in the Bond films?

...Who strapped on the Walther? Harry Saltzman? The question of whether he took the risks of a producer, etc has nothing to do with how much an actor is worth. That said, I don't think Sean left solely over money issues.

Loomis: If Connery was as crucial to the series as you seem to be claiming,

...I didn't make that statement as a broad generality. I made it relative to that period in time.

Blox

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Blox

...Sorry -- you are just wrong on the facts. Octopussy _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

You are correct Blox, I just checked the press material and the MGM/UA logo is there....wierd.... <>

Curious.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blox

Loomis: I ask again: did Connery invest his own money in the Bond films?

...Who strapped on the Walther? Harry Saltzman?

Connery did, but that does not mean that he should have received the lion's share of the loot. United Artists and Eon went on the hook financially for the Bond films - Connery didn't. The moneymen gambled with their cash - Connery didn't.

Originally posted by Blox

...Do you believe in paying actors what they are worth?  

Actors are worth whatever their employers decide they ought to be paid. Connery's feeling that he deserved a few million more does not constitute a watertight case.

If he was seeking - as is claimed - royalties in perpetuity on all Bond-related merchandise regardless of whether said merchandise used his image or name, presumably he feels that he should be getting money from the sale of everything from Dalton action figures to DIE ANOTHER DAY soundtrack CDs. Greed, surely?

Originally posted by Blox

Are you seriously suggesting that Connery was underpaid?

...Are you seriously suggesting that he wasn't?  

I don't believe he was underpaid. And I ask once again, which actors were paid better than Connery in 1967?

[Blox]

Dlib: Blox, you are wrong, wrong, wrong....

...Sorry, I don't mean to embarass you. I have just pulled the folder containing the original OP teaser one-sheet, and theatrical release onesheets, as well as the press kit -- all of which are branded "Distributed by MGM/UA Entertainment Company."

[Blox]

Loomis: Connery did, but that does not mean that he should have received the lion's share of the loot.

...Who said anything about "the lion's share"? I think it is more accurate to say that Connery wanted to be paid a _fair_ share.

Loomis: United Artists and Eon went on the hook financially for the Bond films - Connery didn't. The moneymen gambled with their cash - Connery didn't.

...You are trying to construct a straw-man argument built on a faulty premise that Connery didn't risk-take as a producer. No one is suggesting that he did. The point is whether he was paid enough as an actor by # 5. I think he was; I think negotiations by his agent for more lucre were normal for the industry; and that he didn't leave solely because of money issues. Reports are that he wanted to be a partner and have a creative hand, and when they said no -- he left. This is different from just asking for a raise.


Blox

[DLibrasnow]

What exactly are you and Loomis arguing about???

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blox

...Check youself. You are saying "lions share."  By the measure of the deal he cut for DAF, I think it is more accurate to say that Connery wanted to be paid a _fair_ share.

...You are trying to construct an argument that Connery didn't perform as a producer. No one is suggesting that he did. The point is whether he was paid enough as an actor by # 5.

...Its a strawman argument. The question should be -- how much was he paid relative to the grosses the pictures were earning.  There was a reason why the producers upped his salary after Dr. No.  As much as they rose, relative to the grosses, he was underpaid.

Why is it a strawman argument if Connery was the highest-paid person in the entire acting profession at the time? And why do you believe that he wasn't being paid enough as an actor by # 5? How exactly was he being shafted?

[DLibrasnow]

Connery evidently felt he was getting shafted from the royalties...

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blox

The question should be -- how much was he paid relative to the grosses the pictures were earning.  There was a reason why the producers upped his salary after Dr. No.  As much as they rose, relative to the grosses, he was underpaid.

Don't forget that, as the 60s wore on, the Bonds went from relatively cheap and speedy productions to megamovies, requiring more money and time to shoot and market, and employing more people. Just because the grosses increased it doesn't mean that there would have been more money floating around that could have been given to Connery. I imagine that Connery's final three Bonds were probably less profitable than DR. NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER, and that there would have been more investors to pay back.

And if we're going to talk about earnings being pegged to grosses, shouldn't Connery have taken a pay cut, rather than a pay rise, after YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, since YOLT took a lot less at the box office than THUNDERBALL? Yet according to the Variety source you cite, Blox, his take from DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER was six times what he made on YOLT! (You Only Live Twice (1967) - $1,000,000
Diamonds Are Forever (1971) - $1,250,000 + a share in the profits (According to 'Variety' $6,000,000 in total))

[DLibrasnow]

Didn't a lot of Connery's take for DAF go to charity?? Therefore probably a write-off on some level for United Artists.

[Loomis]

And a tax writeoff for Connery, too?

[Turn]

Originally posted by Loomis
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.

I hope you aren't basing this on the overblown story of his misunderstood quote from the 1965 Playboy article. Barbara Walters tried blowing this into more than it was worth years ago and instead of people trying to understand the quote, Connery is labled a sexist pig.

I don't have the story in front of me, but he was basically asked if he believed in hitting women and Connery responded if that was the only other resort left if a woman is hysterical or beyond the point of reason when any other course is exhausted.

Connery is always praised by fellow actresses and other women as professional and a good person to work with. I've never heard any other story of his alleged mistreatment of women. This story is like the blanket way people thought about director Stanley Kubrick, about his wearing football helmets in a car and never allowing his driver to go over 15 miles an hour. It's just a bunch of crap some people take as gospel.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Turn

I don't have the story in front of me, but he was basically asked if he believed in hitting women and Connery responded if that was the only other resort left if a woman is hysterical or beyond the point of reason when any other course is exhausted.  

Here's another resort: walk away. If Connery had been smart he'd have replied: "I believe in hitting women, and men too for that matter, only under very extreme conditions of self-defence"; or: "No, I don't believe in violence." Something like that - but not something that boils down to: "Sure, if she's screaming her head off I'll clock her one; if they're throwing a tantrum it's all good." The kindest thing to think is that Connery made a bit of a hash of explaining himself clearly.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Turn


I hope you aren't basing this on the overblown story of his misunderstood quote from the 1965 Playboy article. Barbara Walters tried blowing this into more than it was worth years ago and instead of people trying to understand the quote, Connery is labled a sexist pig.

I don't have the story in front of me, but he was basically asked if he believed in hitting women and Connery responded if that was the only other resort left if a woman is hysterical or beyond the point of reason when any other course is exhausted.  

Connery is always praised by fellow actresses and other women as professional and a good person to work with. I've never heard any other story of his alleged mistreatment of women. This story is like the blanket way people thought about director Stanley Kubrick, about his wearing football helmets in a car and never allowing his driver to go over 15 miles an hour. It's just a bunch of crap some people take as gospel.

Thanks for setting the record straight Turn

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Turn
I hope you aren't basing this on the overblown story of his misunderstood quote from the 1965 Playboy article. Barbara Walters tried blowing this into more than it was worth years ago and instead of people trying to understand the quote, Connery is labled a sexist pig.
I don't have the story in front of me, but he was basically asked if he believed in hitting women and Connery responded if that was the only other resort left if a woman is hysterical or beyond the point of reason when any other course is exhausted.  
Connery is always praised by fellow actresses and other women as professional and a good person to work with. I've never heard any other story of his alleged mistreatment of women. This story is like the blanket way people thought about director Stanley Kubrick, about his wearing football helmets in a car and never allowing his driver to go over 15 miles an hour. It's just a bunch of crap some people take as gospel.

For whatever it's worth, I'd like to offer my own opinion on this. I remember reading this article in Playboy at the time and wish I'd kept it. At the time I just shrugged my shoulders and didn't take any offense at his response (I still don't). And I remember being amazed at the fallout from it. I have had several arguments with fellow feminists about Connery on this quote and have taken a lot of flack for it. I've wavered a couple of times but ultimately I stand my ground when they bash me for it. I basically explain to them that the quote was blown WAY out of proportion, and that while he certainly could've given a more sensitive reply, what he did say was just an honest response from a man with strong, traditional working class values (this is my own background as well -- I come from a family of domestic servants, construction and factory workers) and that I have never heard any woman who's ever worked with him utter any complaints about him. (And I win no friends when I tell them that I've met plenty of women whom *I'd* like to punch out myself.)

I have loved Sean Connery since I was a child, and still do. I agree with some of his political views. Like I said earlier, I have no opinion on his battles with EON or anyone else simply because I don't know enough about the facts and have no particular investment in any particular side of the dispute, tho (again) I was taken aback by a couple of those quotes. They were certainly ill-considered and tasteless but I suppose I cut him some slack because I understand that no-nonsense, direct, impolite style of his, so much like members of my family, it often gets them into trouble. At least the guy tells you what he really thinks.

Loomis, this isn't to challenge your view on this particular point at all, in fact I quite respect your response to Connery's quote.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Jaelle
They were certainly ill-considered and tasteless but I suppose I cut him some slack because I understand that no-nonsense, direct, impolite style of his, so much like members of my family, it often gets them into trouble.  At least the guy tells you what he really thinks.

You have to respect someone who speaks their mind without tip-toeing around the issues..

[Blox]

Dlibrasnow: You are correct Blox, I just checked the press material and the MGM/UA logo is there....wierd.... <>

...No problem. Happens to the best!

[Blox]

This thread is beginning to resemble the "argument sketch" from Monty Python. I don't think anyone has suggested here that Connery should have been paid more than the producers, or that he was underpaid relative to other actors. It is normal for agents to try and negotiate fatter fees for their clients. I don't think money was the only reason he left.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Blox
Dlibrasnow: You are correct Blox, I just checked the press material and the MGM/UA logo is there....wierd.... <>

...No problem. Happens to the best!

Really truly wierd...so I assume that OP was the first Bond movie to appear under the MGM/UA banner.
I believe that in 1981 (when FYEO was released) United Artists was still a Transamerica Corporation entity.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blox

...Its a strawman argument Loomis because salaries are scaled to budget and receipts, amongst other things.  When Dr. No was made on a tiny budget with the relatively unknown Connery, his fee was quite small. As Connery proved that he could draw at the box office, his fees rose.  As a percentage of the gross, by # 5, his fee was still too small. You can see that when he was cut in for a share of the profits in DAF he netted $6 million instead of $1.25 million.  What other actors were earning, and what other pictures were grossing is irrelevant.  Connery's pay should be tied to David Niven's fee for Casino Royale in 67  -- but rather the work done for the company that hired him. Apples and oranges...  

So, do you accept that Connery ought to have taken a pay cut instead of the pay rise he received for DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER after YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE failed to take as much money at the box office as THUNDERBALL?

[DLibrasnow]

C'mon Loomis. You and I both know that after the performance of OHMSS United Artists was concerned the public would not accept anyone but Connery in the role of 007. Of course they were willing to pay more to get him to reprise the James Bond role.

[ChandlerBing]

Who made more money than Connery being a spy in the late 1960s? Dean Martin did. James Coburn did. They were able to negotiate better deals than Connery did, and it really stuck in Connery's craw that they were able to that, and he wasn't.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

You and I both know that after the performance of OHMSS United Artists was concerned the public would not accept anyone but Connery in the role of 007. Of course they were willing to pay more to get him to reprise the James Bond role.  

Sure, but he did get more than before - much more, in fact. But if we're going to suggest that salaries be pegged to previous grosses or what is perceived to be one's current box office "form", isn't there an argument that Connery ought to have been paid less after YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE since YOLT didn't take as much money as THUNDERBALL?

And isn't there also an argument that, as his employers, MGM/Eon were entitled to pay Connery whatever they thought he was worth? Also, no one put a gun to Connery's head to make him sign those contracts. He was a grown man who ought to have known what he was doing; and if he didn't he ought to have sought legal and financial advice before signing the contracts. Quite why people's hearts are bleeding over the supposed underpayment of one of the richest actors in the world (at the time as well as today) is beyond me.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Loomis

And isn't there also an argument that, as his employers, MGM/Eon were entitled to pay Connery whatever they thought he was worth?

Surely you mean United Artists/EON
I know for a fact that in 1971 United Artists was separate. It was the 1980 debacle that was "Heaven's Gate" that ultimately led to the merger with MGM.

[Blox]

Loomis: So, do you accept that Connery ought to have taken a pay cut instead of the pay rise he received for DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER after YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE failed to take as much money at the box office as THUNDERBALL?

...Though YOLT failed to gross as much as TB, it did as well as or better than the other three. Sean's contract was up after # 5. I doubt the producers ever considered trying to entice him into a new contract by offering him a pay cut.

Blox

[Blox]

DLibrasnow: What exactly are you and Loomis arguing about???

...I am not arguing as much as trying to reason with him & get him to think more clearly and objectively.

Blox

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


Surely you mean United Artists/EON  
I know for a fact that in 1971 United Artists was separate.  It was the 1980 debacle that was "Heaven's Gate" that ultimately led to the merger with MGM.

I post as my evidence this poster for FYEO from 1981. You will notice the UA logo (circa 1970/early 1980s) at the bottom and no sign of a lion anywhere!

[Blox]

Dlibrasnow: I post as my evidence this poster for FYEO from 1981. You will notice the UA logo (circa 1970/early 1980s) at the bottom and no sign of a lion anywhere!

...Wasn't OP the first Bond to bear the MGM/UA banner?

[ChandlerBing]

Yep, you had the MGM lion and the Tarzan yell all in the same movie!

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blox

DLibrasnow: What exactly are you and Loomis arguing about???

...I am not arguing as much as trying to reason with him, and get him to think more clearly and objectively.

Thanks, but I'll pass on the lessons in clarity of thought and objectivity. Is implying bias and muddled thinking your usual recourse when dealing with posters who don't share your opinions? I happen to believe that Connery was paid fairly. I do not believe that it was up to Connery and Connery alone to decide how much he was worth.