160 replies to this topic

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by ChandlerBing
Yep, you had the MGM lion and the Tarzan yell all in the same movie!

I remember seeing that Transamerica UA logo in the movie theater growing up. I kinda miss it because to me as a kid that always meant a James Bond movie was about to start - it was as tied into the EON series as the gunbarel sequence was.

[ChandlerBing]

Yeah, I remember running to the room when I heard the UA logo when I was younger. My parents would laugh at me because they were getting ready to watch some western or something, and I thought Oh Goody, it's Bond, baby!

[DLibrasnow]

Same here...I'm glad I am not alone in missing that!

[doublenoughtspy]

You can argue until you are blue in the face over whether or not Connery was fairly compensated or not - but the sheer fact of the matter is that the man is obsessed with money, and probably would complain no matter how much he made from the Bond series.

Fact: Connery had back end profit participation from Goldfinger on.

Fact: Connery sued Broccoli and UA, etc. in the 80s because he argued that he should have a percentage on ALL Bond merchandise, IN PERPITUITY, even after he left the series. Yes this includes items with Roger Moore's face on them for God's sake.

Fact: While technically he donated his upfront salary to the Scottish Educational Trust - the money was put into a bank HE OWNED - and therefore he made money off the ability to make loans based on a percentage of deposits. Also he in no way donated his back end participation - so the people who claim he made no money on DAF are wrong on multiple counts.

Fact: When he was scheduled to host the Sammy Davis Jr. show - he found out Liz & Dick had been paid $50k to appear - and he then demanded that his fee be doubled to match theirs

[DLibrasnow]

Wow -- I never knew half of that doublenoughtspy, where did you read all that?

[Loomis]

[quote]Originally posted by doublenoughtspy

Fact: Connery sued Broccoli and UA, etc. in the 80s because he argued that he should have a percentage on ALL Bond merchandise, IN PERPITUITY, even after he left the series.  Yes this includes items with Roger Moore's face on them for God's sake.
[/quote]

I've brought this up a couple of times on this thread (presumably Connery feels he deserves money from the sale of everything from Raymond Benson novels to DIE ANOTHER DAY soundtrack CDs), but I've yet to receive a reply from the Connery supporters.

[quote]Originally posted by doublenoughtspy

the sheer fact of the matter is that the man is obsessed with money, and probably would complain no matter how much he made from the Bond series.

Fact: Connery had back end profit participation from Goldfinger on.

Fact: While technically he donated his upfront salary to the Scottish Educational Trust - the money was put into a bank HE OWNED - and therefore he made money off the ability to make loans based on a percentage of deposits.  Also he in no way donated his back end participation - so the people who claim he made no money on DAF are wrong on multiple counts.

Fact: When he was scheduled to host the Sammy Davis Jr. show - he found out Liz & Dick had been paid $50k to appear - and he then demanded that his fee be doubled to match theirs

[doublenoughtspy]

The merchandising info is from a Variety article, the Sammy Davis Jr info is from a 60s movie magazine, and the other tidbits are from 3 different Connery biographies.

The bank one to me is the most fascinating - it shows how shrewd Connery was.

[DLibrasnow]

Has it EVER been released what the conclusion of the 1980s court case on royalties was?

[doublenoughtspy]

Settled out of court. The figure I heard, and this is just a rumor - was that they gave Connery $7 million and told him to get lost.

[DLibrasnow]

Thanks doublenoughtspy, I have been attempting to find out what the settlement was for awhile now!

[Blox]

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.

...Connery donated his $1 million plus fee to charity after being paid by UA, therefore UA wouldn't have had any tax advantages.

Loomis: And a tax writeoff for Connery, too?

...It would depend how the Trust was constructed. The Trust continues to this day. Here's how Sir Sean describes it at his website http://www.seanconnery.com/patronage/


"Sean Connery believes in helping others.
He has donated to and supported literally hundreds of charities. One little known fact about Sir Sean's philanthropy is that he donated his entire salary (well over $1 million) from his Bond film Diamonds Are Forever to the Scottish International Educational Trust which he co-founded. This generous grant

[Loomis]

[quote]Originally posted by Blox

The Trust continues to this day.  Here's how Sir Sean describes it at his website http://www.seanconnery.com/patronage/


"Sean Connery believes in helping others.    
 He has donated to and supported literally hundreds of charities. One little known fact about Sir Sean's philanthropy is that he donated his entire salary (well over $1 million) from his Bond film Diamonds Are Forever to the Scottish International Educational Trust which he co-founded. This generous grant

[Blox]

doublenoughtspy: Fact: Connery sued Broccoli and UA, etc. in the 80s because he argued that he should have a percentage on ALL Bond merchandise, IN PERPITUITY, even after he left the series. Yes this includes items with Roger Moore's face on them for God's sake.

...The context of that related to his tenure with Eon. You don't settle in litigation if a case is baseless.

doublenoughtspy: I have dozens of other anecdotes, but I

[Blox]

Loomis: Nice to know that "Sir Sean" "believes in helping others" Mind you, it's his own website. To quote Mandy Rice-Davies: "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" Equally, if one were to visit the Labour Party's official site, one would be hard pressed to find any criticisms of Blair's time in office among all the spin and positivity.

...What kind of mind construes charity to help the needy as a form of "spin"?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blox

...What kind of mind construes charity to help the needy as a form of "spin"?  

Nothing wrong with charity. Quite a lot wrong with self-importance.

Come on, Blox, surely you can't view Connery's own website as an unbiased source? Not much of a surprise that there's no analysis of the man's failings there, now is it? Is there a section on his views regarding violence against women? No? Thought not.

[ChandlerBing]

Well, despite what some people think, I still like Connery. He's a pretty cool guy.

[Blox]

Loomis: Nothing wrong with charity. Quite a lot wrong with self-importance.

...What is that supposed to mean?


Come on, Blox, surely you can't view Connery's own website as an unbiased source? Not much of a surprise that there's no analysis of the man's failings there, now is it? Is there a section on his views regarding violence against women? No? Thought not.

...The excerpt I cited had as its context information on his trust. If some here wish to foolishly persist in the insinuation that Sir Sean's SIET is a sham trust, and imply that it has functioned as designed to help the needy over a 32 year period, I would not be surprised to find the contents of this thread under review by the firm handling that trust.

[ChandlerBing]

Sean Connery ran over someone's dog here, right? Did he run off with your wife? Did he cut you off in traffic somewhere? Jesus, some of these comments on here are getting kind of ****ing ugly.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blox

...The excerpt I cited had as its context information on his trust.  If some here wish to foolishly persist in the insinuation that Sir Sean's SIET is a sham trust, and imply that it has functioned as designed to help the needy over a 32 year period, I would not be surprised to find the contents of this thread under review by the firm handling that trust.  

What rubbish. I have written nothing remotely libellous or actionable. Neither have I implied that Connery's charitable activities are bogus.

[doublenoughtspy]

Blox,

I'm rather curious how you call my description of Connery's merchandise lawsuit false.

Considering I've personally seen documents relating to them in the Glidrose Archive (Glidrose held Bond merchandise rights jointly with EON until they were sold their share to EON).

Quoting you here:

"You don't settle in litigation if a case is baseless."

This is a laughable statement - and you obviously are not in the legal profession.

Bogus lawsuits are settled all the time - even by the party that knows they can win. The reason - they would have to air their dirty laundry in court and they did not want to do so.

If the Connery lawsuit went forward - they would have to bring out all of their financials for public record - something they would loathe to do - and $7 million would seem like a bargain in the process.

This lawsuit was watched very closely by the industry for all kinds of reasons - because it would have been a catastrophe for movies in general.

Should Michael Keaton be given royalties on Christian Bale Batman toys? If you use that argument - why not Adam West...no wait Lewis Wilson.

I fail to also see how not paying for his poor friends dinner and getting Sammy Davis, Jr to double his fee consitutes "justice" as you put it.

I am not a Broccoli apologist by any stretch. I do think it slightly unfair that EON/Danjaq etc can crank out toys, posters, and everything else with Connery's likeness - and he doesn't get a cent.

But that is the contract he willingly signed.

He does not get "take backs" or "make overs" or "Mulligans" or anything else when the series becomes popular.

They increased his salary, gave him profit participation, let him do other films on the side, etc.

He willingly left the series multiple times when they would have been happy to have him continue.

Crying foul 10 years after the fact and holding out his hand for money is just sad.

As Broccoli said at the time - Sean's lawsuit should have just been against UA - they were the ones responsible for giving out the profit points.

As others point out - if Connery can sue to get money because he felt his work contributed to its profits - then the same rule should hold true against him on films that flopped.

Can you imagine if the producers or distributors of The Avengers or Zardoz sued Connery for back money? His head would explode.

[Blox]

Loomis: What rubbish. I have written nothing remotely libellous or actionable. Neither have I implied that Connery's charitable activities are bogus.

...I never said that you did.


doublenoughtspy: I'm rather curious how you call my description of Connery's merchandise lawsuit false.

...Curious how, or curious why? Connery made statements in interviews suggesting that the case related to his tenure, and monies owed, but not paid by the company.

Considering I've personally seen documents relating to them in the Glidrose Archive (Glidrose held Bond merchandise rights jointly with EON until they were sold their share to EON).

...I can only relate to statements made by the person who brought the legal action.


Quoting you here: "You don't settle in litigation if a case is baseless."
This is a laughable statement - and you obviously are not in the legal profession.

...I do understand when and why a party elects to fish or cut bait. The $7 million settlement you spoke of was larger than his front and back end take on DAF. That's not a get-lost sum for a film company to pay. One illustration: Peter Hunt suggested in an interview that the producers assigned YOLT directing chores to Lewis Gilbert rather than buy out their agreement with him.

I fail to also see how not paying for his poor friends dinner and getting Sammy Davis, Jr to double his fee consitutes "justice" as you put it.

...You will continue to fail to see -- until you elect to view what I said in its proper context.


He willingly left the series multiple times when they would have been happy to have him continue.


...Its an overstatement to suggest he left "multiple times". He left the series -- twice. A business transaction is, by definition, a fair bargain between two parties. If both sides couldn't cut a deal -- each shares in a measure of the blame. Here is how Connery put it in this article: http://www.klast.net/bond/sc_feud.html

"There was considerable bitterness some years ago when he said: "I had many problems during the Bond movies. They [Broccoli and Saltzman] would be sitting opposite each other at a table thinking, "That a******e has got my other

[DLibrasnow]

OKay, whatever....thank you for setting the record straight doublenoughtspy!

[Loomis]

[quote]Originally posted by Blox

"They [Broccoli and Saltzman] would be sitting opposite each other at a table thinking, "That a******e has got my other

[DLibrasnow]

It's clearly obvious that Connery did disassociate himself from the series even to the point of suing Broccoli and Saltzman. Connery even refused to attend Broccoli's funeral so apparently he is still bitter!

[Blox]

DLibrasnow: Connery even refused to attend Broccoli's funeral so apparently he is still bitter!

...No, not at all. Cubby called Connery before he died and the two patched. Connery was the first to phone condolences to the family. Its misleading to suggest that Connery "refused" to attend Cubby's funeral, when neither neither Connery, Moore or Brosnan could make it:
http://www.ianflemin...broccoli2.shtml

Albert Broccoli's Funeral
Tuesday, July 2, 1996 7:00 p.m.

Former 007 Timothy Dalton helped lay Albert Broccoli to rest today in a funeral attended by some other Hollywood notables.

Dalton, who played Bond in The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill, was the only 007 to attend Broccoli's funeral. According to Extra, Pierce Brosnan was on location filming, and Sean Connery and Roger Moore were out of the country. Although they did not attend, all three sent their condolences.

End Quote.....


DLibrasnow: thank you for setting the record straight doublenoughtspy!

...I don't think his facts support his contention: Here's a run-through:

DNS: You can argue until you are blue in the face over whether or not Connery was fairly compensated or not - but the sheer fact of the matter is that the man is obsessed with money, and probably would complain no matter how much he made from the Bond series.

...I'd like to meet someone (who is working) in Hollywood who isn't obsessed with money. Based on a comment Connery made once, from his perspective, B&S were just as "obsessed with money." But that's NORMAL for Hollywood. So much for that bombshell. Next...


DNS: Fact: Connery had back end profit participation from Goldfinger on.


...This is a non-issue. No one here is suggesting that he didn't. In fact Connery can be heard making an off-hand comment about this on a UA Thunderball Promo acetate that was part of the presskit. Next....


Fact: Connery sued Broccoli and UA, etc. in the 80s because he argued that he should have a percentage on ALL Bond merchandise, IN PERPITUITY, even after he left the series. Yes this includes items with Roger Moore's face on them for God's sake.

....Addressed above, next...


DNS: Fact: While technically he donated his upfront salary to the Scottish Educational Trust - the money was put into a bank HE OWNED - and therefore he made money off the ability to make loans based on a percentage of deposits. Also he in no way donated his back end participation - so the people who claim he made no money on DAF are wrong on multiple counts.

...The language "technically donated" sounds misleading. The money was legitimately donated and forms the basis of the trust that has functioned since 1970. Its also a straw-man argument that "he in no way donated his back end participation - so the people who claim he made no money on DAF are wrong on multiple counts" -- because no one has suggested this in this thread. If people haven't made the claim -- people can't therefore be "wrong on multiple counts." Next...


DNS: Fact: When he was scheduled to host the Sammy Davis Jr. show - he found out Liz & Dick had been paid $50k to appear - and he then demanded that his fee be doubled to match theirs

[ChandlerBing]

oh, and Sean Connery burned my house down, shot my dog, raped my wife's sister's brother's cow, and tried to cancel Christmas!

Jesus Christ, guys, get a grip!

[Blox]

Loomis: Unless Connery has mind-reading powers, I fail to see how he could have known what Broccoli and Saltzman were thinking.

...You're right. Having worked for, and negotiated with them over a ten year period, he wouldn't have any idea how they operated. He just made it all up -- right Loomis. Lord, this is getting tedious...


No problem for you, though, Blox, since you seem quite happy to take everything Connery claims on faith.


...Shall I respond by suggesting that you seem quite happy to mistrust everything he claims? I have been trying to do something some here just don't seem disposed to do: examine matters fairly -- from both sides.

Loomis: So what's your point, Blox? That Connery's salary on the Bond films ought to have gone up and up and up..?

...No, that the analogy being made by Doublenought didn't grock.


And I have to say, I find your suggestion that Connery might sue because of posts made on this thread quite hilarious -

...I hope so. I was pulling your leg...

Blox

[Jim]

OK, so

Sean Connery might like money and Broccoli/Saltzman might have liked money as well

Sean Connery can be a "bit grumpy" and Broccoli/Saltzman might have been a "bit grumpy" as well

(None of them are sounding particularly appealing at this point)

There are three people who know all the precise truth of whatever the hell went on. Two are dead and one's not too far off. Ergo, we'll never get the truth. In any event, isn't truth just a series of acceptable interpretations of events?

An opinion?

So, where are we now? Connery felt and may still feel sore about his treatment, whether that's justifiable or not. Eon may feel sore that Connery feels sore...blah blah.

Too bad. It's only money. And it's someone else's money. It's always someone else's money. Litigation only ever breeds litigation.

Having read a number of books which tend to paint a black (-ish) picture of Connery, books which never would have been published had Eon not permitted use of various copyrighted material (thereby giving them some say in editorial content), well...who knows/cares any more?

Why rationalise whether Connery is justified or accurate or completely deluded in what he says/thinks. It's doubtful his opinion would change (and it would appear to have given him some muscle, being prepared to take on Broccoli/Saltzman probably sent out important messages to lesser producers; even if the means looked like biting hands that fed him, at least he was thinking to the future. Who challenges Connery now, then?)

So, none of them are particularly lovely nor particularly horrible. It's only business.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blox

myy impression having met Sir Sean is that he is a no-nonsense, straight-shooting man with a meat and potatoes sense of right and wrong.  

That was also my impression of the man when I met him a few years ago (never met Cubby Broccoli). However, if the various allegations made against Connery are true, I'd have to say that he is a greedy fellow. And I'm still not convinced that they're false.

Originally posted by Blox

And I have to say, I find your suggestion that Connery might sue because of posts made on this thread quite hilarious -  

...I hope so. I was pulling your leg...  

Damn! I'd been looking forward to posting courtroom anecdotes on CBn.

[doublenoughtspy]

Blox,

The reason I mentioned the Goldfinger back end participation was to put a date on when Connery was getting a percentage of the profits.

The reason I mentioned Connery's back end participation of DAF, and the fact that his donation to the SIET actually made him money through his bank was not to go against anything directly said in this thread - it was to prove a point that some people have rose colored glasses when they talk about Connery's fee for DAF. I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to talk about thoughts and ideas outside of this thread.

Hmm, your disclaiming of my Sammy Davis Jr Show fact. This is interesting. I said "Host" not appear. Sean Connery HOSTED the Sammy Davis Jr show on January 26, 1966. I have quotes and articles from the show and TV Guide even talked about him singing. I mentioned this fact because I wanted to show that Connery had news-making money disputes with other people in the 60s besides B&S.

You put my "facts" in quotes like they aren't true - yet all of them are easily verifiable - where as some of yours are just as easily patently false.

You then try to discredit my opinions and comments as "facts". Did I make claims of fact for anything I didn't put "Fact:" in front of? No.

Your claim of a "year long YOLT shoot" Please. Filming started July 4, 1966. Principal & 2nd unit Photography finished Christmas 1966. I must have missed the calendar where 6 months is a year.

Now if you think Connery is totally in the right, and the producers are totally in the wrong - why is it that no other Bond actor, actress, director, extra etc has ever sued for money they supposedly got screwed out of in the 40 year history of the series?

What is your honest opinion of how Connery was shortchanged by the Bond producers Blox?

A promise of profits that didn't happen? A mis-calculated percentage?