219 replies to this topic

[triviachamp]

Is a similar book on Casino Royale next on the cards? Although not as litigious, there is certainly a story.

That would be interesting certainly, like Ratoff's plans (Finch and Susan Hayward[!!!]), Feldman's plans and how his movie turned out to be a mess. Perhaps there was something planned during CR's three decades of legal limbo? However there might not be enough info or not as interesting.

[Navy007Fan]

I finished reading my copy last week, and, as a historian, I have never seen a better work of research. The amounts of first-hand (a historian's best friend) information made this a great book. Well Done!!!!

[Qwerty]

[box]

The battle for the soul of Thunderball

It

[Mr. Blofeld]

A very nice article by Robert Sellers; well done!

[Bill]

My sister and brother-in-law gave the book to me for Christmas and I just finished it today.


Well done, Mr. Sellers, echoing the sentiments of many here. While the shifts in narrative style are a little jarring--going from a reporting the facts tone to some odd colloquialisms from time to time, I suppose it was to keep the reader interested.

A well balanced account re: the conduct of all the playes. Given that most of the major players are dead, it is a shame that we will never be given their side of the story aside from what appears in the legal papers held by Ms. Whittingham and the others that you interviewed.

A comment in that the book could use some annotations, or at the very least, a bibliography, as I would love to track down all of the sources. Presumably all of the quotes come from personal interviews, but that is not clear in the book.

One thing which the book did clear up was the invention of SPECTRE. I had read accounts in the past that that was McClory's major contribution to the Bond series. After reading the Battle for Bond, that appears not to be the case. Although McClory takes credit for it, it certainly looks as if it was Ian Fleming himself who was responsible for the organization and its head.

This would also seem to explain something which I always thought puzzling. UA and EON deliberately got away from SPECTRE in the Roger Moore era, and even had to change the dialogue of the wheel chair bound bald man in the pre-titles of FYEO to remove the direct Blofeld references. At the same time, John Gardner resurrected SPECTRE in some of his best Bond novels. The logical explanation is that altough McClory did not create SPECTRE, he still retained the rights to the Thunderball script and its early drafts, which did feature SPECTRE. No mention appears to have been made re: any future Bond novels and presumably the then Glodrose retained the right to use SPECTRE in the books.

Now it appears as if all the rights to Thunderball and indeed SPECTRE are safely in Sony/MGM/EON's hands. It would be cool if they are indeed the threat behind Mr. White in Casino Royale and will be revealed as such in Bond 22. We shall see.

Once again, a well done book recommended for all scholars of Bond.

Bill

Edited by Bill, 07 January 2008 - 07:02 AM.

[Genrewriter]

Read this a few days ago, truly a fascinating story.

[MarcAngeDraco]

I starting reading this a while back, but had to put it aside to deal with more pressing issues. What I've read so far was fascinating, and I'll get back to it as soon as time allows.

[SakaR]

Sorry to be rude, especially for a first time post but I thought I'd advertise Robert Sellers new Wikipedia page, fully endorsed by the man himself. Check here for any new information regarding the author and his upcoming work, plus also some new information regarding the Battle for Bond book.

Robert Sellers - Wikipedia Page

Edited by SakaR, 26 February 2008 - 05:48 PM.

[TheSaint]

No need to apologize. Thanks for the link.

Welcome to CBn, SakaR.

[Loomis]

Finally took the plunge and bought THE BATTLE FOR BOND, prompted, obviously, by recent developments.

It's a book that could have sorely used some serious proofreading, but that's about my only gripe. A treasure trove of surprising information not just on The Famous Court Case™ (which I personally find an uninteresting topic, but that's just me; I'm interested in many Bond-related things, but the Fleming/McClory legal tussles don't really do it for me) - never knew, for instance, that Barbara Carrera was offered the lead role in OCTOPUSSY before she signed for NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN. And Sellers has plenty more eyebrow-raising trivia where that came from.

It's also a very depressing read, a real exposing-our-idols'-feet-of-clay affair, with many famous names of Bondage coming across as unpleasant and/or incompetent. Here's just one example: discussing the Connery/McClory/Len Deighton WARHEAD screenplay, Sellers notes the character of "Bomba, Largo's black muscle-bound henchman who, according to the script, 'makes Muhammad Ali look like a fag'". One wonders which of the writers came up with such charming stuff.

As a fan of NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, I'm disappointed by Sellers' harshness towards the film, although I do recognise that we're all entitled to our opinions and that in any case my opinion of NSNA is very much a minority view. No biggie.

One of the few books on Bond that's a real must.

[doublenoughtspy]

I'm glad you bought the book, Loomis.

I've tried to sing the praises of Battle for Bond from its offset, and I'm surprised that it has taken litigation to get major Bond fans, even CBn admins, to finally pony up and get it.

While you are right that Sellers isn't enamored with NSNA, I think there is so much never before published information about the film in there that his opinion doesn't get in the way. That is one of the reasons I asked in my interview with him if it had been part of his original plan to cover NSNA. (it wasn't). Other than the 007 magazine's NSNA/CR issue - there wasn't a lot of info regarding the film - so it was a great bonus.

[Loomis]

I'm glad you bought the book, Loomis.

I've tried to sing the praises of Battle for Bond from its offset, and I'm surprised that it has taken litigation to get major Bond fans, even CBn admins, to finally pony up and get it.

Well, you'll be pleased to know that, while I was indeed prompted to act by the recent litigation, the main reason I bought THE BATTLE FOR BOND was your praise of it in the past here on CBn. I was already convinced that it was a good purchase and had long been "meaning to get it", without, obviously, feeling that time might be running out.

Your posts were in fact the main thing that sold me on THE BATTLE FOR BOND.

[doublenoughtspy]

Your posts were in fact the main thing that sold me on THE BATTLE FOR BOND.

I'm so glad

Your point about the Court Battle™ is a very valid one. I wonder if a number of potential readers thought it was going to a boring recap of the court case? Thank goodness it wasn't.

[stamper]

That's it, the book is gone, the UK at last.

Ian Fleming Trust, whoever those idiots are, took all the stock and will probably burn it.

A new version, without the interesting material they objected to, will come out in june.

All the details here

http://www.007magazi...rages_on_01.htm

[bang bang]

The new edition of 'Battle for Bond' will not be missing the interesting material the Fleming Trust objected to, only the reproduction, in full, of Fleming letters will not be used this time. Quotes from those letters, though, will remain in the text. The book's text will remain unaltered. Lots of the other illustrations will also not be used in order to release a cheaper price version.

[Jim]

Ian Fleming Trust, whoever those idiots are...

The idiots whose property this stuff was, probably.

[stamper]

It's like an elephant stomping on a fly. As the author explains, this material was within the court case. It's not like he went out and reproduced a complete novel inside another book... many books exist about the writing of Fleming with quotation, and they were never threatened with lawsuits. The guys who bug the publication of this book are idiots, and I stand by it.

[Loomis]

It's like an elephant stomping on a fly.

Indeed. It's a very mean thing to do. Sure, they may have the "legal right", but with rights come (or should come) responsibilities, including the responsibility not to be unpleasant.

I hope they're proud of a stunning victory against a small publishing house and one of the best books in the history of Bond fandom.

[doublenoughtspy]

While I agree that going after this book wasn't the "nice" thing to do, the fact remains that Ian Fleming's written output is the property of the Ian Fleming Will Trust.

The issue with intellectual property and copyrights is that if you don't enforce them, you lose them.

So while we as fans don't see what the problem is with this particular book - if they don't enforce them in this case it would be that much harder for them to win any future cases against a major violator if they don't go after the little guy as well.

[dodge]

While I agree that going after this book wasn't the "nice" thing to do, the fact remains that Ian Fleming's written output is the property of the Ian Fleming Will Trust.

The issue with intellectual property and copyrights is that if you don't enforce them, you lose them.

So while we as fans don't see what the problem is with this particular book - if they don't enforce them in this case it would be that much harder for them to win any future cases against a major violator if they don't go after the little guy as well.

Well, you're right here, my friend. That said, I'm left with one poignant question: how do I obtain a copy? Am willing to tell stories about the Royal Family, breakdance on one leg, or display an extreme talent for obscene epigrams in exchange...

[dee-bee-five]

Ian Fleming Trust, whoever those idiots are...

The idiots whose property this stuff was, probably.

Ah, but Jim, those who spend 24/7 surfing the web do not respect copyright. They will post copyrighted material on a site like YouTube and then bleat when the copyright holder - rightly, in my opinion - has it removed. Breaching someone else's copyright is theft, pure and simple; no less than if you broke into his/her house and stole something.

Edited by dee-bee-five, 07 March 2008 - 03:24 PM.

[dee-bee-five]

While I agree that going after this book wasn't the "nice" thing to do, the fact remains that Ian Fleming's written output is the property of the Ian Fleming Will Trust.

The issue with intellectual property and copyrights is that if you don't enforce them, you lose them.

So while we as fans don't see what the problem is with this particular book - if they don't enforce them in this case it would be that much harder for them to win any future cases against a major violator if they don't go after the little guy as well.

Well, you're right here, my friend. That said, I'm left with one poignant question: how do I obtain a copy? Am willing to tell stories about the Royal Family, breakdance on one leg, or display an extreme talent for obscene epigrams in exchange...

You can have mine. But it'll cost... As I wrote elsewhere, the good thing about this is its price will rocket on ebay. It's an ill-wind...

That said, I have a first edition copy of John Pearson's biog of Fleming in immaculate condition. And it has the correction slip in it demanded by McClory ahead of publication. I wouldn't part with it for the world.

Edited by dee-bee-five, 07 March 2008 - 03:35 PM.

[stromberg]

Ian Fleming Trust, whoever those idiots are...

The idiots whose property this stuff was, probably.

Ah, but Jim, those who spend 24/7 surfing the web do not respect copyright. They will post copyrighted material on a site like YouTube and then bleat when the copyright holder - rightly, in my opinion - has it removed. Breaching someone else's copyright is theft, pure and simple; no less than if you broke into his/her house and stole something.

There really should be an icon for sarcasm...

If there's something one can learn as a CBn mod, it is about peoples calousness and ignorance about copyright, as well as the many pitfalls of copyright laws.

[Loomis]

While I agree that going after this book wasn't the "nice" thing to do, the fact remains that Ian Fleming's written output is the property of the Ian Fleming Will Trust.

The issue with intellectual property and copyrights is that if you don't enforce them, you lose them.

So while we as fans don't see what the problem is with this particular book - if they don't enforce them in this case it would be that much harder for them to win any future cases against a major violator if they don't go after the little guy as well.

Okay, fair enough.

Just annoyed by what's happened with Sellers' book, but I'm sure that that goes for us all.

I guess it's not as though they took active delight in doing this, I suppose. I had a mental image of a Mr Burns figure rubbing his hands with glee as he uses his might to crush a small enterprise, but I guess it wasn't like that. But even if it was, you're still correct in what you say.

You make good points, DNS, and also dee-bee-five and others.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I don't see why IFP should be "delighted" by the book. Throughout the case, McClory used the excuse of being a David against a Goliath in order to secure himself the support of the bleeding hearts, while in reality he was as much of a bastard as Fleming and, worst of all, a bloody freeloader. He didn't write any of the treatments/drafts himself (Fleming and Whittingham did). He didn't contribute any original ideas to the plot. He came up with "brilliant" ideas such as having third rate American stars such as Milton Berle and Ethel Merman make cameos in the movie and film it in widescreen, none of which count as plot points by any standard. The only "original" idea he contributed was the underwater treasure hunt which sounds suspiciously like the final act in Fleming's LALD, which the author suggested as one of his books suitable for adapting, to which McClory objected. The whole creating an original screenplay was a calculated move by McClory not to be removed from the project. It was McClory who blew the Hitchcock deal by insisting he was promised directing it. If such deal had been a film of LALD, McClory wouldn't have been able to falsely claim any authorship in the script. McClory knew himself to be a talentless phony who's only shot at success was to milk Bond for all it was worth. Why in the two decades between TB and NSNA didn't he come up with any other "brilliant" screenstory? Because he never wrote one.
Whittingham came to the project towards the end and didn't contribute any substantial changes with his rewrites. I suspect McClory brought him in order to legitimise his claim that Fleming didn't write everything. His only contribution was clarifying Domino's brother's relationship and Fleming didn't include that in the novel, so he didn't even plagiarise Whittingham! Whittingham went on to support McClory at the trial and how did McClory repay him? By not paying him his share of the rights. In later years, Whittingham came to realise he'd been fooled into believing McClory.
McClory even visited Fleming in Jamaica while he was writing the novel. Are we expected to believe he didn't realise about the existence of the book until the very last minute when it was too late to halt publication? It was exactly what he wanted! Had the book not been published, McClory would have been left with the rights to a mediocre script that nobody wanted. McClory tried to pull the same trick three decades later when retroactively claiming he helped create the cinematic Bond. It's like saying Theodore Liebler cocreated Sherlock Holmes because he wrote the script to the first movie about an already published fictional character. He was a bloody speculator. With his share of the profits for TB, the most succesful Bond of all time, he could have died a rich man in tax heaven Bahamas, but he was so greedy he wanted more and more and I'm glad he died wanting since his greed killed Fleming. After suing him, he'd the nerve of using him in the trial against Eon.
Fleming didn't plagiarise McClory. McClory even appropriated SPECTRE, which he had originally rejected and appears nowhere in the scripts. He claimed coownership of Q, the Aston Martin as well. He even claimed exclusive use of Bahamas as a location. Are you going to tell me McClory created the Bahamas?
Bottomline is, are you Fleming fans or McClory fans? Fleming's books are among the fondest memories I keep from my teenage years. He gave nothing but pleasure to millions of fans. All McClory ever did was putting the lid on Fleming's coffin earlier than it should have been. IFP have all the right in not wanting more dirt thrown upon Fleming's grave.

[mccartney007]

I don't see why IFP should be "delighted" by the book. Throughout the case, McClory used the excuse of being a David against a Goliath in order to secure himself the support of the bleeding hearts, while in reality he was as much of a bastard as Fleming and, worst of all, a bloody freeloader. He didn't write any of the treatments/drafts himself (Fleming and Whittingham did). He didn't contribute any original ideas to the plot. He came up with "brilliant" ideas such as having third rate American stars such as Milton Berle and Ethel Merman make cameos in the movie and film it in widescreen, none of which count as plot points by any standard. The only "original" idea he contributed was the underwater treasure hunt which sounds suspiciously like the final act in Fleming's LALD, which the author suggested as one of his books suitable for adapting, to which McClory objected. The whole creating an original screenplay was a calculated move by McClory not to be removed from the project. It was McClory who blew the Hitchcock deal by insisting he was promised directing it. If such deal had been a film of LALD, McClory wouldn't have been able to falsely claim any authorship in the script. McClory knew himself to be a talentless phony who's only shot at success was to milk Bond for all it was worth. Why in the two decades between TB and NSNA didn't he come up with any other "brilliant" screenstory? Because he never wrote one.
Whittingham came to the project towards the end and didn't contribute any substantial changes with his rewrites. I suspect McClory brought him in order to legitimise his claim that Fleming didn't write everything. His only contribution was clarifying Domino's brother's relationship and Fleming didn't include that in the novel, so he didn't even plagiarise Whittingham! Whittingham went on to support McClory at the trial and how did McClory repay him? By not paying him his share of the rights. In later years, Whittingham came to realise he'd been fooled into believing McClory.
McClory even visited Fleming in Jamaica while he was writing the novel. Are we expected to believe he didn't realise about the existence of the book until the very last minute when it was too late to halt publication? It was exactly what he wanted! Had the book not been published, McClory would have been left with the rights to a mediocre script that nobody wanted. McClory tried to pull the same trick three decades later when retroactively claiming he helped create the cinematic Bond. It's like saying Theodore Liebler cocreated Sherlock Holmes because he wrote the script to the first movie about an already published fictional character. He was a bloody speculator. With his share of the profits for TB, the most succesful Bond of all time, he could have died a rich man in tax heaven Bahamas, but he was so greedy he wanted more and more and I'm glad he died wanting since his greed killed Fleming. After suing him, he'd the nerve of using him in the trial against Eon.
Fleming didn't plagiarise McClory. McClory even appropriated SPECTRE, which he had originally rejected and appears nowhere in the scripts. He claimed coownership of Q, the Aston Martin as well. He even claimed exclusive use of Bahamas as a location. Are you going to tell me McClory created the Bahamas?
Bottomline is, are you Fleming fans or McClory fans? Fleming's books are among the fondest memories I keep from my teenage years. He gave nothing but pleasure to millions of fans. All McClory ever did was putting the lid on Fleming's coffin earlier than it should have been. IFP have all the right in not wanting more dirt thrown upon Fleming's grave.

As Hitchcock famously said to Ingrid Bergman, "It's only a movie!" (and a book and about a million scripts)

[doublenoughtspy]

Bottomline is, are you Fleming fans or McClory fans? Fleming's books are among the fondest memories I keep from my teenage years. He gave nothing but pleasure to millions of fans. All McClory ever did was putting the lid on Fleming's coffin earlier than it should have been. IFP have all the right in not wanting more dirt thrown upon Fleming's grave.

I don't recall anyone saying in this thread that McClory was the most wonderful human being, and Sellers' book certainly does NOT give that impression either.

The objection here is that someone who has tried to tell the story, using FACTUAL DOCUMENTS instead of opinions (cough, cough) is getting his hand slapped for it.

Have you read the book? The letters don't paint Fleming in a horrible light, nor are they "throwing dirt on his grave."

My understanding is that it wasn't the specific content in the letters that was objected to - it's that they were printed without permission. The fact that the book will be printed again, with the letters summarized proves that point.

Painting Fleming as a saint and McClory as the bogeyman that killed him is pretty ridiculous. Fleming had multiple heart attacks, drank like a fish, smoked like a chimney, and had a vicious love/hate relationship with his wife. McClory can't be blamed for all of those factors.

So whose side am I on? Neither. I'm on the side of the truth. That's more important to me.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Bottomline is, are you Fleming fans or McClory fans? Fleming's books are among the fondest memories I keep from my teenage years. He gave nothing but pleasure to millions of fans. All McClory ever did was putting the lid on Fleming's coffin earlier than it should have been. IFP have all the right in not wanting more dirt thrown upon Fleming's grave.

I don't recall anyone saying in this thread that McClory was the most wonderful human being, and Sellers' book certainly does NOT give that impression either.

The objection here is that someone who has tried to tell the story, using FACTUAL DOCUMENTS instead of opinions (cough, cough) is getting his hand slapped for it.

Have you read the book? The letters don't paint Fleming in a horrible light, nor are they "throwing dirt on his grave."

My understanding is that it wasn't the specific content in the letters that was objected to - it's that they were printed without permission. The fact that the book will be printed again, with the letters summarized proves that point.

Painting Fleming as a saint and McClory as the bogeyman that killed him is pretty ridiculous. Fleming had multiple heart attacks, drank like a fish, smoked like a chimney, and had a vicious love/hate relationship with his wife. McClory can't be blamed for all of those factors.

So whose side am I on? Neither. I'm on the side of the truth. That's more important to me.

No, nobody's said McClory was a wonderful human being, etc but there's an underlying tendency to treat him as "the victim". If you read carefully, no criticism is intended at Sellers' book, what I've enough of is people going on and on and on about Fleming being a plagiarist, etc. If you read carefully, I characterise Fleming as a "bastard". I'm sure he was but that's beside the point. If you're going to appreciate artists by their humanity, nobody in the entire world would read any books, or go to museums,etc because artists are generally rotten apples with one redeeming quality, their artistic output. Fleming was an artist. I raised a few eyebrows back in my college days by doing my thesis on Fleming rather than choosing Oscar Wilde or CS Lewis to please my examiners and get an easier examination and one thing I learnt is that in order to analyse a work of fiction, you have to base all your arguments on the text, not on your knowledge of the author's life, private or otherwise.
I read an excellent article by John Cork, I think, analysing the plagiarism issue based solely on the existing drafts of the script and it supports my point that Fleming wrote his own story. Whittingham's draft is characterised as a polish and one as confusing as Fleming's and the sole contribution (change) is one name (Gaby) and the clarification of the Petacchi siblings' connection. Both changes were not included in Fleming's novels as they weren't his ideas and, most likely, he didn't like them. Fleming acknowledged Ernest Cuneo's contribution by dedicating the book to him. Interesting how the person who had the most right to sue Fleming for using his ideas without permission didn't.
So, if Fleming was tried for using "other people's materials" without permission, I find it only fair that IFP denies use of his letters without permission.

[Mr. Blofeld]

There's only two copies of the book left now on Amazon, and neither of them are stocked.

[stamper]

I object to the way they did... they should have just waited until the current printing is gone, and then ask politely for the second printing to be as it's going to be, without looking like stupid prima donnas on a day of fit out to smash the small bug who dares having interest in their subject matter and wanting to share it.

If it was my company, I would have heads rolling by now. I would not have that happened this way. It's bad for the public image. I can understand protection of copyright, some people for example use on a DVD music that I own : I don't call my lawyer, I just call them / write them asking for a contract to be done with retroactive effect, get ok on the terms, and get on with it. It may take a year, but all parties are civilised and it's a small thing, so why take out a tank when all you have to do is take a cup of coffee from the counter of the bar ?