Does Connery really disassociate himself from the Bond series? If so, why?
Started by
Loomis
, Sep 08 2003 07:10 PM
160 replies to this topic
#121
DLibrasnow
-
- Enlisting
-
- 16568 posts
Commander
- Location:Washington D.C.. USA
Posted 24 September 2003 - 02:32 AM
I doubt Connery would be willing to put up the money for the lawyer...he is after all a "greedy fellow"...
#122
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 24 September 2003 - 04:24 AM
Loomis: 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.
...I am repulsed by some of the sleights against Sir Sean's character in this thread...
...I am repulsed by some of the sleights against Sir Sean's character in this thread...
#123
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 24 September 2003 - 05:17 AM
doublenoughtspy: The reason I mentioned the Goldfinger back end participation was to put a date on when Connery was getting a percentage of the profits.
...Fair enough, but its a non-issue in this thread, & a "fact" that doesn't support your argument. No one is questioning when he started, etc, but rather why he eventually left. Check Loomis's first post in this thread.
DNS: 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 to prove a point that some people have rose colored glasses when they talk about Connery's fee for DAF.
... It doesn't surprise me that anybody operating a seven figure trust profits from the management of it to some extent. Sir Sean donated all of his $1.25 fee from DAF to fund that trust. Do you dispute that? The trust SIET has been making grants to help the needy in Scotland since 1970. Do you dispute that? That Sir Sean elected to retain his profit participation beyond that fee, or benefits from the operation of that trust does not diminish the legitimacy of the charitable organization he founded.
DNS: 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.
...It's yet another "fact" that proves nothing about your premise about "greed." It is NORMAL, COMMON for celebs, etc to receive many thousands to the tens of thousands for appearences. Former Presidents can receive seven figures. Sir Sean was very hot in 66 after Thunderball. As he hosted, rather than appearing as a guest, it would be NORMAL for him to receive a large fee for hosting chores, double Liz & Dick, etc.
DNS: I have quotes and articles from the show and wanted to show that Connery had news-making money disputes with other people in the 60s besides B&S.
....Agents haggle over fees for their clients all the time. That's NORMAL in Hollywood. If every star who negotiated a fat fee either directly or through an agent was branded "GREEDY" by some -- you'd have an auditorium full of GREEDY people at every Oscar presentation. Its the way things operate in Hollywood and a phony argument about Connery.
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.
...Something can be true without being pertinent, relevant or supportive of a premise, ie: "GREED." My impression is that your "facts," while true unto themselves, have contexts outside of your claim about Sir Sean's character that you are marshalling them to support. From my vantage point, they don't prove your argument.
DNS: Now if you think Connery is totally in the right, and the producers are totally in the wrong -
...I have never suggested otherwise.
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?
...your question relies upon inuendo to support your thesis, and is a non-starter. The absense of any legal action by other parties does not preclude any legitimate claim Sir Sean may have had in his business dealings.
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?
...I would never suggest, as you have, that Connery was "shortchanged." There was a confluence of factors, the principal of which was his desire to be a partner and have a creative hand in the production of the films. The "its all about money argument" fails to factor in the direction he took later on -- writing scripts, producing and executive producing films -- even efforting to start a studio in Scotland.
Blox
...Fair enough, but its a non-issue in this thread, & a "fact" that doesn't support your argument. No one is questioning when he started, etc, but rather why he eventually left. Check Loomis's first post in this thread.
DNS: 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
... It doesn't surprise me that anybody operating a seven figure trust profits from the management of it to some extent. Sir Sean donated all of his $1.25 fee from DAF to fund that trust. Do you dispute that? The trust SIET has been making grants to help the needy in Scotland since 1970. Do you dispute that? That Sir Sean elected to retain his profit participation beyond that fee, or benefits from the operation of that trust does not diminish the legitimacy of the charitable organization he founded.
DNS: 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.
...It's yet another "fact" that proves nothing about your premise about "greed." It is NORMAL, COMMON for celebs, etc to receive many thousands to the tens of thousands for appearences. Former Presidents can receive seven figures. Sir Sean was very hot in 66 after Thunderball. As he hosted, rather than appearing as a guest, it would be NORMAL for him to receive a large fee for hosting chores, double Liz & Dick, etc.
DNS: I have quotes and articles from the show and
....Agents haggle over fees for their clients all the time. That's NORMAL in Hollywood. If every star who negotiated a fat fee either directly or through an agent was branded "GREEDY" by some -- you'd have an auditorium full of GREEDY people at every Oscar presentation. Its the way things operate in Hollywood and a phony argument about Connery.
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.
...Something can be true without being pertinent, relevant or supportive of a premise, ie: "GREED." My impression is that your "facts," while true unto themselves, have contexts outside of your claim about Sir Sean's character that you are marshalling them to support. From my vantage point, they don't prove your argument.
DNS: Now if you think Connery is totally in the right, and the producers are totally in the wrong -
...I have never suggested otherwise.
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?
...your question relies upon inuendo to support your thesis, and is a non-starter. The absense of any legal action by other parties does not preclude any legitimate claim Sir Sean may have had in his business dealings.
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?
...I would never suggest, as you have, that Connery was "shortchanged." There was a confluence of factors, the principal of which was his desire to be a partner and have a creative hand in the production of the films. The "its all about money argument" fails to factor in the direction he took later on -- writing scripts, producing and executive producing films -- even efforting to start a studio in Scotland.
Blox
#124
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 24 September 2003 - 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Blox
...Would you like someone to assess your character, and malign it in a public venue, based on a murky short list of your supposed peccadilloes?
You mean saying something along the lines of: "They [Broccoli and Saltzman] would be sitting opposite each other at a table thinking, "That a******e has got my other
#125
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 24 September 2003 - 03:54 PM
Doublenought: 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.
...Cite them.
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.
...You missed the context of the reference. Connery reportedly said that he didn't feel the film (YOLT) justified the year it took to make. Got it? Here's the calender:
1966
14 February - Cubby Broccoli flies, together with a small productionteam, to Japan to prepare filming
11 May - Construction of volcano-set at Pinewood starts
4 July - First principal photography on You Only Live Twice (The "death" of James Bond in a hotelroom was filmed at Pinewood)
26 July - Crew and press fly from London to Tokyo (flightnumber JP 8007...)
27 July - Sean Connery arrives in Tokyo for 6 weeks of location filming (filming started at Kagoshima)
29 July - Special pressconference to comfort the agressive Japanese press, who were a plague for the crew and Sean Connery...
31 July - Filming starts in Japan in Kagoshima (40 days of filming were planned in Japan)
22 September - Cameraman Joe Jordan loses one leg while filming the helicopterscene for You Only Live Twice
11 November - Actor Jan Werich, who was to play Blofeld in YOLT, is taken ill. The producers decide to find another actor for the role.
21 November - The scenes in the 'volcano control room' (Bond meets Blofeld and fires cigarette-rocket) for You Only Live Twice are filmed
23 December - Last principal photography on You Only Live Twice
February to December is one month shy of a year. Missing from this list are time frames for post production, dubbing sessions, etc. that would undoubtedly bring us to a year `to make the film'
Have a nice day,
Blox
...Cite them.
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.
...You missed the context of the reference. Connery reportedly said that he didn't feel the film (YOLT) justified the year it took to make. Got it? Here's the calender:
1966
14 February - Cubby Broccoli flies, together with a small productionteam, to Japan to prepare filming
11 May - Construction of volcano-set at Pinewood starts
4 July - First principal photography on You Only Live Twice (The "death" of James Bond in a hotelroom was filmed at Pinewood)
26 July - Crew and press fly from London to Tokyo (flightnumber JP 8007...)
27 July - Sean Connery arrives in Tokyo for 6 weeks of location filming (filming started at Kagoshima)
29 July - Special pressconference to comfort the agressive Japanese press, who were a plague for the crew and Sean Connery...
31 July - Filming starts in Japan in Kagoshima (40 days of filming were planned in Japan)
22 September - Cameraman Joe Jordan loses one leg while filming the helicopterscene for You Only Live Twice
11 November - Actor Jan Werich, who was to play Blofeld in YOLT, is taken ill. The producers decide to find another actor for the role.
21 November - The scenes in the 'volcano control room' (Bond meets Blofeld and fires cigarette-rocket) for You Only Live Twice are filmed
23 December - Last principal photography on You Only Live Twice
February to December is one month shy of a year. Missing from this list are time frames for post production, dubbing sessions, etc. that would undoubtedly bring us to a year `to make the film'
Have a nice day,
Blox
#126
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 24 September 2003 - 04:07 PM
Loomis: You mean saying something along the lines of: "They [Broccoli and Saltzman] would be sitting opposite each other at a table thinking, "That a******e has got my other
#127
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 24 September 2003 - 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Blox
February to December is one month shy of a year. Missing from this list are time frames for post production, dubbing sessions, etc. that would undoubtedly bring us to a year `to make the film'
So it took a year to make YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE? No wonder, given its scope and scale. So what? What's your point? That Connery should have been paid more for YOLT, I expect. Connery must have had a pretty good idea how long the film would take before starting work on it. If he didn't have a pretty good idea, he was a fool.
Originally posted by Blox
Would you like someone to assess _your_ character, and malign it in a public venue, based on a murky short list of your supposed peccadilloes? Yes or no...
No, but I don't make my posts based on what I feel Connery or anyone else would like - that, surely, is the whole point behind the notion of freedom of expression. Connery and his representatives and supporters have right of reply.
Anyhow, I do not believe I am maligning Connery's character in a public venue. Please provide quotations of my posts and those of others to support your view that what I am writing is unacceptable.
#128
doublenoughtspy
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 4122 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:USA
Posted 24 September 2003 - 05:11 PM
Blox - you said "year long shoot" - not year long production. Production and shooting are two different things, especially since we are talking Connery's participation - and thus he would be present for 6 months - not an entire year.
I am not claiming that YOLT was not a difficult or long shoot for Connery. I am sure it contributed greatly to him leaving the series the first time.
I am sure Sean's upbringing has a lot to do with the way he handles and views money. By his own admission, he has sued practically every studio he has ever worked for.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss why Sean Connery disassociates himself from the series. The answer always comes back to money.
Yes, I concur that the industry is profit driven and Connery is not unique in that aspect.
My point is the degree.
I hope you would at least conceed that Connery is the most "money concious" of the 5 Bond actors.
I am not claiming that YOLT was not a difficult or long shoot for Connery. I am sure it contributed greatly to him leaving the series the first time.
I am sure Sean's upbringing has a lot to do with the way he handles and views money. By his own admission, he has sued practically every studio he has ever worked for.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss why Sean Connery disassociates himself from the series. The answer always comes back to money.
Yes, I concur that the industry is profit driven and Connery is not unique in that aspect.
My point is the degree.
I hope you would at least conceed that Connery is the most "money concious" of the 5 Bond actors.
#129
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 24 September 2003 - 05:51 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Blox
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
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
#130
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 24 September 2003 - 07:56 PM
doublenoughtspy: Blox - you said "year long shoot" - not year long production.
...His statement that the film (YOLT) didn't justify the year it took to make related to the end result of a film that took a year to make. He wasn't alone in his dissatisfaction. Peter Hunt apparently didn't like it either.
DNS: The purpose of this thread is to discuss why Sean Connery disassociates himself from the series. The answer always comes back to money.
...That's one answer, but not the only answer. He reportedly wanted to be a partner with editorial input after YOLT, but was turned down, and imo the key reason he left.
DNS: I concur that the industry is profit driven and Connery is not unique in that aspect.My point is the degree.
...I don't agree that Sean Connery is uniquely driven by profit in a town that widely thrives upon it.
DNS: I hope you would at least conceed that Connery is the most "money concious" of the 5 Bond actors.
...I am sure that agents for Pierce Brosnan, Roger Moore, et al were sufficiently "money conscious" as their agents negotiated their deals.
Blox
...His statement that the film (YOLT) didn't justify the year it took to make related to the end result of a film that took a year to make. He wasn't alone in his dissatisfaction. Peter Hunt apparently didn't like it either.
DNS: The purpose of this thread is to discuss why Sean Connery disassociates himself from the series. The answer always comes back to money.
...That's one answer, but not the only answer. He reportedly wanted to be a partner with editorial input after YOLT, but was turned down, and imo the key reason he left.
DNS: I concur that the industry is profit driven and Connery is not unique in that aspect.My point is the degree.
...I don't agree that Sean Connery is uniquely driven by profit in a town that widely thrives upon it.
DNS: I hope you would at least conceed that Connery is the most "money concious" of the 5 Bond actors.
...I am sure that agents for Pierce Brosnan, Roger Moore, et al were sufficiently "money conscious" as their agents negotiated their deals.
Blox
#131
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 24 September 2003 - 08:16 PM
Originally posted by Blox
The context of the "year" related to Connery's statement that he felt that the film (YOLT) didn't justify the year it took to make. He apparently wasn't pleased with the result, and he wasn't alone. Peter Hunt didn't like it either -- but for different reasons.
I am not claiming that YOLT was not a difficult or long shoot for Connery. I am sure it contributed greatly to him leaving the series the first time.
...One of the factors.
Why was Connery bashing the quality of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE? Letting the side down, anyone? Professionalism?
Originally posted by Blox
I am sure Sean's upbringing has a lot to do with the way he handles and views money.
...He came out of poverty, worked very hard, and was a self made man.
A self-made man? The thing is, the chief foundation of his fame and fortune was the Bond series and his employment by United Artists/Eon, which is something that Connery occasionally seems to forget.
Originally posted by Blox
Anyhow, I do not believe I am maligning Connery's character in a public venue.
...No comment.
Why no comment? You're the one alleging character assassination and talking about libel, legal action and so forth.
Originally posted by Blox
Please provide quotations of my posts and those of others to support your view that what I am writing is unacceptable.
...This thread is five pages long. Go fetch...
No, you go fetch. Since you're the one accusing myself and others of writing unacceptable posts, the burden of proof is on you.
BTW, do you know how to use the "Quote" facility when citing people's posts? It would make your posts easier to read.
#132
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 25 September 2003 - 03:15 PM
Loomis: A self-made man?
...Yes, a self made man. Terence Young recalled once that he would suggest to Sean that he read Proust, and Connery would go away, devour the whole of Proust, and come back and discuss it. He grew up in poverty, used to sleep in a dresser drawer. He worked hard in a series of jobs, gave himself visibility in the Mr Universe Contest and South Pacific, worked in a number of films including a Disney before Bond, and earned critical notice for some of them -- Requiem & Frightened City as I recall. Broccoli and Young gave him his break, but his career didn't come to crashing halt when he stopped playing Bond. Its the 21st century and he's still working. If one is fair minded, one will expand one's field of vision. It is arbitrary to elect to view an actor's life through one studio's prism.
Loomis: The thing is, the chief foundation of his fame and fortune was the Bond series and his employment by United Artists/Eon, which is something that Connery occasionally seems to forget.
...You mean he has Alzheimers?
Loomis: Why no comment?
...No comment.
Loomis: You're the one alleging character assassination and talking about libel, legal action and so forth.
...What I've read in this thread speaks for itself.
Loomis: Since you're the one accusing myself and others of writing unacceptable posts, the burden of proof is on you.
...I'm not the only one to comment on some of the repugnant content in this thread. The body of the thread speaks for itself.
BTW, do you know how to use the "Quote" facility when citing people's posts? It would make your posts easier to read.
...You'll just have to do your best.
Have a nice day
...Yes, a self made man. Terence Young recalled once that he would suggest to Sean that he read Proust, and Connery would go away, devour the whole of Proust, and come back and discuss it. He grew up in poverty, used to sleep in a dresser drawer. He worked hard in a series of jobs, gave himself visibility in the Mr Universe Contest and South Pacific, worked in a number of films including a Disney before Bond, and earned critical notice for some of them -- Requiem & Frightened City as I recall. Broccoli and Young gave him his break, but his career didn't come to crashing halt when he stopped playing Bond. Its the 21st century and he's still working. If one is fair minded, one will expand one's field of vision. It is arbitrary to elect to view an actor's life through one studio's prism.
Loomis: The thing is, the chief foundation of his fame and fortune was the Bond series and his employment by United Artists/Eon, which is something that Connery occasionally seems to forget.
...You mean he has Alzheimers?
Loomis: Why no comment?
...No comment.
Loomis: You're the one alleging character assassination and talking about libel, legal action and so forth.
...What I've read in this thread speaks for itself.
Loomis: Since you're the one accusing myself and others of writing unacceptable posts, the burden of proof is on you.
...I'm not the only one to comment on some of the repugnant content in this thread. The body of the thread speaks for itself.
BTW, do you know how to use the "Quote" facility when citing people's posts? It would make your posts easier to read.
...You'll just have to do your best.
Have a nice day
#133
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 25 September 2003 - 03:48 PM
Loomis: Why was Connery bashing the quality of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE? Letting the side down, anyone? Professionalism?
...One can't be certain what Connery's reasoning was, but it may have approximated Peter Hunt's. Quoting from this link:
http://www.secretint...res/hunt03.html
Gary: So at what point did you begin to think about what you were going to do with your film? I'm curious as to when you began to think about it, how you saw your Bond film coming about.
Peter: Oh, I saw my Bond film the way we did the early Bonds. I mean You Only Live Twice was not a Bond film. It was what you said, a large, big-budget extravaganza. And I never thought for one moment that the right advantage was taken of the right scenes in it. As a piece of filmmaking, to me, it didn't work. It's a long time after [so] I can say that.
End Excerpt.
Blox
...One can't be certain what Connery's reasoning was, but it may have approximated Peter Hunt's. Quoting from this link:
http://www.secretint...res/hunt03.html
Gary: So at what point did you begin to think about what you were going to do with your film? I'm curious as to when you began to think about it, how you saw your Bond film coming about.
Peter: Oh, I saw my Bond film the way we did the early Bonds. I mean You Only Live Twice was not a Bond film. It was what you said, a large, big-budget extravaganza. And I never thought for one moment that the right advantage was taken of the right scenes in it. As a piece of filmmaking, to me, it didn't work. It's a long time after [so] I can say that.
End Excerpt.
Blox
#134
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 25 September 2003 - 04:34 PM
I am still waiting for someone to construct an intelligent and plausible argument to convince me that Connery was underpaid and in other ways shabbily treated by the makers of the Bond films.
I'm sorry, I may be a stupid man, but I cannot for the life of me see that Connery suffered financially from Bond (quite the contrary, it seems to me), or that he has been the victim of gross injustice.
On a related point, let me say how much I respect Timothy Dalton - an actor who was undeniably on the receiving end of unpleasant treatment from certain people involved in the Bond series - for keeping his dignity and never bitching or washing his dirty linen in public.
I'm sure Dalton has many things he could say to us. And I'm equally sure that he will never say those things. His conduct has been admirable since leaving the Bond series.
And just as I am not impressed by Connery's bashing of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, I am unimpressed by Peter Hunt's slating of that film. Rule of showbiz professionalism #32: if you have nothing positive to say about a project or person you have been professionally involved with, say nothing.
I'm sorry, I may be a stupid man, but I cannot for the life of me see that Connery suffered financially from Bond (quite the contrary, it seems to me), or that he has been the victim of gross injustice.
On a related point, let me say how much I respect Timothy Dalton - an actor who was undeniably on the receiving end of unpleasant treatment from certain people involved in the Bond series - for keeping his dignity and never bitching or washing his dirty linen in public.
I'm sure Dalton has many things he could say to us. And I'm equally sure that he will never say those things. His conduct has been admirable since leaving the Bond series.
And just as I am not impressed by Connery's bashing of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, I am unimpressed by Peter Hunt's slating of that film. Rule of showbiz professionalism #32: if you have nothing positive to say about a project or person you have been professionally involved with, say nothing.
#135
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 25 September 2003 - 07:42 PM
Loomis: I am still waiting for someone to construct an intelligent and plausible argument to convince me that Connery was underpaid and in other ways shabbily treated by the makers of the Bond films.
...I don't think that the questions you keep coming back to about being underpaid, taking investment risks, shabby treatment etc are really pertinent. Connery, like any other actor, would want to negotiate more favorable terms when dealing for a new contract. He reportedly wanted to be a partner to have creative/editorial input. This is imo the real reason for departure.
Loomis: I'm sorry, I may be a stupid man,
...no apology necessary. We're all human you know..
Loomis: but I cannot for the life of me see that Connery suffered financially from Bond (quite the contrary, it seems to me), or that he has been the victim of gross injustice.
...Again, I don't think those arguments help us understand why he elected to leave after YOLT. I think he wanted to do more than they were willing to accomodate or allow.
Loomis: And just as I am not impressed by Connery's bashing of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, I am unimpressed by Peter Hunt's slating of that film.
...There's a difference between bashing and critiquing. Connery's statement -- that he didn't feel the results justified the year it took to make -- hinged on his sense of what had previously been accomplished in less time. Hunt's comments related to his vision of what a Bond film should be like. That's fair game for the man who edited the early series and directed one of them. I have read endless comments made by employees of Eon's about what they felt did or didn't work. That's part of the creative process and normal for Hollywood. Everyone has opinions about what does and doesn't work, and many state their feelings publically. Michael Wilson, for example, said during an interview during the post LTK hiatus that Tim hadn't `quite found his way with audiences yet' and that he hoped Dalton would do better fleshing out a Bond persona in the next picture. That was an honest assessment -- not a "bash". I really think you are approaching all of this too defensively. Connery and Hunt were civil, but no less direct in their assessments.
Loomis: Rule of showbiz professionalism #32: if you have nothing positive to say about a project or person you have been professionally involved with, say nothing.
...I trust those who have nothing positive to say about Sir Sean will heed your advice and zip it.
...I don't think that the questions you keep coming back to about being underpaid, taking investment risks, shabby treatment etc are really pertinent. Connery, like any other actor, would want to negotiate more favorable terms when dealing for a new contract. He reportedly wanted to be a partner to have creative/editorial input. This is imo the real reason for departure.
Loomis: I'm sorry, I may be a stupid man,
...no apology necessary. We're all human you know..
Loomis: but I cannot for the life of me see that Connery suffered financially from Bond (quite the contrary, it seems to me), or that he has been the victim of gross injustice.
...Again, I don't think those arguments help us understand why he elected to leave after YOLT. I think he wanted to do more than they were willing to accomodate or allow.
Loomis: And just as I am not impressed by Connery's bashing of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, I am unimpressed by Peter Hunt's slating of that film.
...There's a difference between bashing and critiquing. Connery's statement -- that he didn't feel the results justified the year it took to make -- hinged on his sense of what had previously been accomplished in less time. Hunt's comments related to his vision of what a Bond film should be like. That's fair game for the man who edited the early series and directed one of them. I have read endless comments made by employees of Eon's about what they felt did or didn't work. That's part of the creative process and normal for Hollywood. Everyone has opinions about what does and doesn't work, and many state their feelings publically. Michael Wilson, for example, said during an interview during the post LTK hiatus that Tim hadn't `quite found his way with audiences yet' and that he hoped Dalton would do better fleshing out a Bond persona in the next picture. That was an honest assessment -- not a "bash". I really think you are approaching all of this too defensively. Connery and Hunt were civil, but no less direct in their assessments.
Loomis: Rule of showbiz professionalism #32: if you have nothing positive to say about a project or person you have been professionally involved with, say nothing.
...I trust those who have nothing positive to say about Sir Sean will heed your advice and zip it.
#136
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 25 September 2003 - 08:54 PM
See below for post:
#137
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 25 September 2003 - 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Blox
Loomis: I am still waiting for someone to construct an intelligent and plausible argument to convince me that Connery was underpaid and in other ways shabbily treated by the makers of the Bond films.
...These are straw-man arguments. There's an old saying: a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Put another way, you will never find what you are not looking for.
And that's an evasion: given the number of times you've returned to this thread, one would have expected you to have set forth your reasoning calmly, intelligently and intelligibly by now, instead of resorting to "arguments" that basically boil down to:
"SEE REASON!",
and:
"STOP BEING MEAN TO SIR SEAN",
and:
"YOU'RE MAKING A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT".
We know your contention, Blox: that CONNERY WAS RIPPED OFF. However, you have yet to make a persuasive or even coherent case in support of that view.
Your posts do not make enlightening reading (although they are entertaining). Please try harder.
#138
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 25 September 2003 - 08:55 PM
Triple post. Apologies.
#139
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 25 September 2003 - 09:36 PM
Loomis: And that's an evasion:
...You're making the argument that Connery was underpaid and in other ways shabbily treated by the makers of the Bond films, not I. I have no burden to carry here, such as convincing you etc. As for references to strawman arguments -- I'll be happy to stop referring to them if you will stop making them.
Loomis: given the number of times you've returned to this thread, one would have expected you to have set forth your reasoning calmly, intelligently and intelligibly by now,
...There's no reason for snide sarcasm Loomis.
We know your contention, Blox:
...I really think you are mistaken here.
However, you have yet to make a persuasive or even coherent case in support of that view.
...You may never find what you are not looking for.
Your posts do not make enlightening reading (although they are entertaining). Please try harder.
...Again, no reason to be insulting.
Blox
...You're making the argument that Connery was underpaid and in other ways shabbily treated by the makers of the Bond films, not I. I have no burden to carry here, such as convincing you etc. As for references to strawman arguments -- I'll be happy to stop referring to them if you will stop making them.
Loomis: given the number of times you've returned to this thread, one would have expected you to have set forth your reasoning calmly, intelligently and intelligibly by now,
...There's no reason for snide sarcasm Loomis.
We know your contention, Blox:
...I really think you are mistaken here.
However, you have yet to make a persuasive or even coherent case in support of that view.
...You may never find what you are not looking for.
Your posts do not make enlightening reading (although they are entertaining). Please try harder.
...Again, no reason to be insulting.
Blox
#140
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 25 September 2003 - 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Blox
However, you have yet to make a persuasive or even coherent case in support of that view.
...You will never find what you are not looking for.
Perhaps the words you've been using have been too long and complicated for me. Please do not assume that my educational level is equivalent to yours. Why don't you spell out your grounds for believing that Connery received a raw deal in very simple terms?
Note that I am still engaged in this discussion, such as it is, and am throwing no mud at you. I am genuinely interested to know why you think Connery had such a hard time of it.
#141
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 25 September 2003 - 10:00 PM
Loomis: Perhaps the words you've been using have been too long and complicated for me.
...Such as "fairness"?
Blox
...Such as "fairness"?
Blox
#142
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 25 September 2003 - 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Blox
...I'm afraid I can't accomodate you Loomis because its your premise "that Connery received a raw deal" -- not mine. As such, you would be in the best position to spell it out.
No, Blox. It is your premise that Connery received a raw deal - you may not have put it in so many words, but let's not argue semantics, eh? My premise is that Connery does not appear to have been treated harshly.
Originally posted by Blox
Note that I am still engaged in this discussion, such as it is, and am throwing no mud at you.
...No, not at all.
Well, unless you'd like to state otherwise, in which case, as ever, I'd be interested in reading the comments you have to make.
Originally posted by Blox
I am genuinely interested to know why you think Connery had such a hard time of it.
...I hardly think so...
Really? In that case, there we must leave it.
#143
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 25 September 2003 - 10:32 PM
Loomis: No, Blox. It is your premise that Connery received a raw deal - you may not have put it in so many words,
...Sorry but that's not my premise. Connery reportedly wanted to be a partner, was rebuffed, and left. Whether that was a raw deal or not, or whether he received harsh treatment are subjective considerations & I am not concerned with them. Some see only money, greed. I happen to see evidence after the fallingout of his interest in writing scripts, producing, executive producing, and, recently, talk of starting up a studio in Scotland.
Blox
...Sorry but that's not my premise. Connery reportedly wanted to be a partner, was rebuffed, and left. Whether that was a raw deal or not, or whether he received harsh treatment are subjective considerations & I am not concerned with them. Some see only money, greed. I happen to see evidence after the fallingout of his interest in writing scripts, producing, executive producing, and, recently, talk of starting up a studio in Scotland.
Blox
#144
bebopfoot
-
- Crew
-
- 202 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 25 September 2003 - 10:39 PM
You know, I don't think this is ever gonna stop.
#145
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 25 September 2003 - 10:42 PM
bebopfoot: You know, I don't think this is ever gonna stop.
...I wouldn't be the ranch on that one...
Blox
...I wouldn't be the ranch on that one...
Blox
#146
Genrewriter
-
- Veterans
-
- 4360 posts
Cammander CMG
- Location:South Pasadena, CA
Posted 25 September 2003 - 10:59 PM
Well, this proves why circular discussions never make a straight line towards the truth.
Bebopfoot-Put me down for twenty on it lasting until a mod steps in. I'm good for it. Note that I didn't say what the twenty would consist of, (probably smart-aleck comments).
Bebopfoot-Put me down for twenty on it lasting until a mod steps in. I'm good for it. Note that I didn't say what the twenty would consist of, (probably smart-aleck comments).
#147
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 25 September 2003 - 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Blox
Some see only money, greed. I happen to see evidence after the fallingout of his interest in writing scripts, producing, executive producing, and, recently, talk of starting up a studio in Scotland.
What does Connery's interest in continuing his film career post-Bond have to do with the question of whether or not he is a greedy man? Personally, Blox (and I imagine I am counted among the "some" you refer to - a fair enough assumption, you'll agree), I do not only see money and greed - far from it. I would never deny that Connery, regardless of any faults he may have, is a creative and productive individual who has always shown commitment to his chosen field.
#148
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 25 September 2003 - 11:23 PM
Blox, would you mind refraining from constantly re-editing your previous posts after I have responded to them? If you have something new to say, please create a new post for it. I find myself frequently re-reading your above posts and finding that the content has changed.
Whose notion of "fairness" would this be? Connery's?
If you dispute this, please have the courtesy to explain why you think I am throwing mud at you. Alternatively, contact CBn staff and make a complaint.
Originally posted by Blox
Loomis: Perhaps the words you've been using have been too long and complicated for me.
...Such as "fairness"?
Whose notion of "fairness" would this be? Connery's?
Originally posted by Blox
Note that I am still engaged in this discussion, such as it is, and am throwing no mud at you.
...No, not at all.:
If you dispute this, please have the courtesy to explain why you think I am throwing mud at you. Alternatively, contact CBn staff and make a complaint.
#149
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 26 September 2003 - 12:00 AM
Loomis: I find myself frequently re-reading your above posts
...That's a positive sign.
...That's a positive sign.
#150
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 26 September 2003 - 12:24 AM
Loomis: Personally, Blox I do not only see money and greed - far from it. I would never deny that Connery, regardless of any faults he may have, is a creative and productive individual who has always shown commitment to his chosen field.
...I am glad to hear it. What are you stuck on then?
...I am glad to hear it. What are you stuck on then?