25 replies to this topic

[Mr Twilight]

I guess I get some angry replys now but I don't think McClory was the black sheep of the Bond family. He had the ambition to make a serious Bondfilm. Yes, I agree that he tried to squeeze out all he could out of a few scripts and also take some credit for things not belonging to him. But still, his ambitions was good.

No, I would say that it is Charles Feldman who deserves the title. Ok, his ambitions was to make a serious film at first but then he was trying to ruin the Bond franchise by making a lousy comedy, or whatever his goal was.

McClory's atempt made me curious and to be honest I was secretly hoping that he succeded to bring out a alternative Bondfilm. That could have been a good thing for the Bond franchise cause that would have put pressure on EON to make a even better films, and also filled the gap 89-95.

No, the title belongs to Feldman.

[Royal Dalton]

McClory's atempt made me curious and to be honest I was secretly hoping that he succeded to bring out a alternative Bondfilm. That could have been a good thing for the Bond franchise cause that would have put pressure on EON to make a even better films, and also filled the gap 89-95.

I agree with you there. But I don't think of either of them as black sheep.

[TheLazenby]

Oh, I wouldn't say they were 'black sheeps' so much... I mean, let's compare to the Eon films. In both...

* Bond's boss is M
* M's secretary is Moneypenny
* There's plenty of sex, violence and gambling
* The secret service has a Quartermaster who provides comic relief
* Both star someone closely related to the 'official' character of James Bond (Sean Connery was obviously an official EON Bond, and Ian Fleming stated that he based Bond's character on David Niven)

Not to mention, some people consider NSNA to be a Bond movie, but not Casino Royale. They're actually very similar:

* Both employed a current English comedy star for comic relief (Peter Sellers and Rowan Atkinson)
* Both featured a previous Bond girl (Ursula Andress and Valerie Leon)
* Both lacked originality because they were just rehashes of previously made films (Thunderball and the 1954 Royale)
* Both portray James Bond as an old man not quite capable of his old tricks
* Both make a negative and apparently permanent change to Bond's character (Bond dies / Bond retires)
* Both negatively affected an official EON movie at the box office
* Both would later inspire a decision in the official series that bewildered fans (heavy reliability on rapid-fire gags, and inexplicably making Felix black)

My standpoint on those two movies is simply this - they're both based on Fleming novels (even more so than say, The Spy Who Loved Me), and they both have a Moneypenny, an M, a Q, and James Bond 007. Case closed. :-)

[LadySylvia]

Both would later inspire a decision in the official series that bewildered fans (heavy reliability on rapid-fire gags, and inexplicably making Felix black)

Why would a black Felix Leiter be considered bewildering? I have seen on other forums that whenever someone had complained about Jeffrey Wright portraying Felix, he or she would be told to shut it.

As for the rapid-fire gags and jokes . . . that has been a part of the Bond franchise since the Connery Era.

[stromberg]

* Both featured a previous Bond girl (Ursula Andress and Valerie Leon)

Just that Andress played the main girl twice and Leon (who - I think - was in CR as well) was "blink and you'll miss her".

* Both lacked originality because they were just rehashes of previously made films (Thunderball and the 1954 Royale)

CR67 lacked originality because of CR54? News to me.

* Both negatively affected an official EON movie at the box office

CR67 did? Really?

* Both would later inspire a decision in the official series that bewildered fans (heavy reliability on rapid-fire gags, and inexplicably making Felix black)

What LadySylvia said.


Feldmann may be a blacker sheep than McClory, but he was never really part of the "Bond family". He's more the "hunchback kinfolk" as we call it in German
McClory, on the other hand, was directly involved into the creation of the literary James Bond and the cinematical James Bond. He was a member of the family, of which he is now the Black Sheep

[Mister Asterix]

McClory was the Black Sheep. Feldman was more paisley.

[Loomis]

McClory, on the other hand, was directly involved into the creation of the literary James Bond and the cinematical James Bond.

As I understand it (and I admit that I don't understand it other than in the most passing and layman's terms), the second assertion is questionable, while the first.... well, I confess that I hadn't even heard it before - are you saying that, without McClory, Fleming would not have written CASINO ROYALE?

[doublenoughtspy]

As I understand it (and I admit that I don't understand it other than in the most passing and layman's terms), the second assertion is questionable, while the first.... well, I confess that I hadn't even heard it before - are you saying that, without McClory, Fleming would not have written CASINO ROYALE?

2nd assesrtation isn't questionable - no matter what side you are on you have to admit that McClory forced Eon to film Dr No rather than Thunderball - thus altering Bond cinematic history.

Heiko's first assertation, the literary point was that McClory ideas ended up in the novel of Thunderball - thus also affecting Bond history.

And this whole "black sheep" discussion is nonsense.

As other Bond luminaries, including our own Mister Asterix, have pointed out in the past - McClory and Feldman had the cinematic rights to do their Bond films.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Calling them "Unofficial" or "Rogue" is totally incorrect.

These weren't bootleg or fan films or anything that "Unofficial" or "Rogue" or "Black Sheep" imply.

If for some wacky reason JK Rowling sold the rights to the final Harry Potter book to me and I made a film of it starring puppets - it wouldn't be "unofficial" just because it wasn't made by the same crew that had Daniel Radcliffe, et. al.

There I go, preaching against the Broccoli gospel again.

Blasphemy!

[Santa]

Everything DNS is right but I have to admit I find it hard to have sympathy for McClory and, while I enjoyed NSNA, I still don't quite consider it part of the family. I understand why McClory was a bit pee-ed off about the whole Thunderball thing, but why did he carry on as long as he did? I mean he got to do his version of Thunderball (NSNA) and while it was perfectly reasonable it didn't exactly set the world on fire or send the Broccoli clan running for the hills. It was average, and yet, as I understand it, he pretty much carried on trying to get yet another version of TB off the ground practically right up until his dying breath. How long can you carry on flogging a dead horse? I'm afraid I find that baffling and rather pathetic.

[triviachamp]

Calling them "Unofficial" or "Rogue" is totally incorrect.

I think the reason they are "unoffical" or "rogue" is that EON/Danjaq owns the right to the character.

As for CR'67 affecting YOLT's twice's boxoffice, well Broccoli said that many people thought that CR'67 was the "real" Bond movie as it was released two months before YOLT. Considering the fact that YOLT had a big dropoff from Thunderball and CR was the third biggest hit of the year (YOLT was the second) I don't find it hard to believe.

Feldman also produced A Streetcar Named Desire and The Seven Year Itch, whereas McClory produced...the Boy and the Bridge. And nothing else. Why didn't McClory try to make another movie besides trying to remake Thunderball again? He did have ten years.

[Royal Dalton]

And this whole "black sheep" discussion is nonsense.

As other Bond luminaries, including our own Mister Asterix, have pointed out in the past - McClory and Feldman had the cinematic rights to do their Bond films.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Calling them "Unofficial" or "Rogue" is totally incorrect.

These weren't bootleg or fan films or anything that "Unofficial" or "Rogue" or "Black Sheep" imply.

If for some wacky reason JK Rowling sold the rights to the final Harry Potter book to me and I made a film of it starring puppets - it wouldn't be "unofficial" just because it wasn't made by the same crew that had Daniel Radcliffe, et. al.

Too true.

[LadySylvia]

As for CR'67 affecting YOLT's twice's boxoffice, well Broccoli said that many people thought that CR'67 was the "real" Bond movie as it was released two months before YOLT. Considering the fact that YOLT had a big dropoff from Thunderball and CR was the third biggest hit of the year (YOLT was the second) I don't find it hard to believe.

CASINO ROYALE 67's worldwide box office was somewhere between $41 million and $42 million dollars.

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE's worldwide box office was somewhere between $111 million and $112 million dollars.


At least as far as I know.

[triviachamp]

As for CR'67 affecting YOLT's twice's boxoffice, well Broccoli said that many people thought that CR'67 was the "real" Bond movie as it was released two months before YOLT. Considering the fact that YOLT had a big dropoff from Thunderball and CR was the third biggest hit of the year (YOLT was the second) I don't find it hard to believe.

CASINO ROYALE 67's worldwide box office was somewhere between $41 million and $42 million dollars.

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE's worldwide box office was somewhere between $111 million and $112 million dollars.


At least as far as I know.

I meant US boxoffice. Plus YOLT was probably reissued while CR wasn't.

[LadySylvia]

As for CR'67 affecting YOLT's twice's boxoffice, well Broccoli said that many people thought that CR'67 was the "real" Bond movie as it was released two months before YOLT. Considering the fact that YOLT had a big dropoff from Thunderball and CR was the third biggest hit of the year (YOLT was the second) I don't find it hard to believe.

CASINO ROYALE 67's worldwide box office was somewhere between $41 million and $42 million dollars.

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE's worldwide box office was somewhere between $111 million and $112 million dollars.


At least as far as I know.

I meant US boxoffice. Plus YOLT was probably reissued while CR wasn't.

YOLT's US box office was almost doubled that of CR67's box office.

And since when did only US box office results mattered when it came to a Bond film?

[Loomis]

As I understand it (and I admit that I don't understand it other than in the most passing and layman's terms), the second assertion is questionable, while the first.... well, I confess that I hadn't even heard it before - are you saying that, without McClory, Fleming would not have written CASINO ROYALE?

2nd assesrtation isn't questionable - no matter what side you are on you have to admit that McClory forced Eon to film Dr No rather than Thunderball - thus altering Bond cinematic history.

Heiko's first assertation, the literary point was that McClory ideas ended up in the novel of Thunderball - thus also affecting Bond history.

Sorry, I just took "McClory, on the other hand, was directly involved into the creation of the literary James Bond" (italics mine) to mean that McClory somehow influenced Fleming's first attempts to write about the character. THUNDERBALL was, of course, the ninth published Bond book. I put undue emphasis on the word "creation" and took what Heiko wrote to mean that McClory was in some way there at the beginning when Fleming first put pen to paper.

I agree that it's absurd to call CASINO ROYALE (1967) and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN "rogue" or "unofficial" Bond films. I haven't seen the former, although I enjoy the latter very much as a riproaring 007 adventure, without feeling the need to shoehorn it into the Eon series or to justify its existence.

[triviachamp]

And since when did only US box office results mattered when it came to a Bond film?

Because I comparing the US boxoffice stats? It seems the Dirty Dozen was number one. As for the big difference between the grosses, well I am not sure. B.O. gross for older films is a bit difficult. And before doublenought comes in I know that making a profit is more than subtracting the budget from the gross.

[Mister Asterix]

Calling them "Unofficial" or "Rogue" is totally incorrect.

I think the reason they are "unoffical" or "rogue" is that EON/Danjaq owns the right to the character.

Yes, but so did McClory and Feldman, though their rights were limited to one story each. That hardly makes them unofficial. They did ‘officially’ have the rights to make their films didn’t they?

Okay, maybe McClory was a black sheep. But he was a sheep.

[triviachamp]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='769368' date='5 September 2007 - 09:50'][quote name='triviachamp' post='769152' date='4 September 2007 - 18:20'][quote]Calling them "Unofficial" or "Rogue" is totally incorrect.[/quote]

I think the reason they are "unoffical" or "rogue" is that EON/Danjaq owns the right to the character.
[/quote]

[mra]Yes, but so did McClory and Feldman, though their rights were limited to one story each. That hardly makes them unofficial. They did

[TheLazenby]

I think what should be considered official is whatever EON currently has the rights to, which at the moment is Dr. No through Casino Royale, the other Casino Royales, and NSNA. Notice that since they obtained the rights to the 'other three' Bond movies, the posters for CR67 and NSNA appeared in the official "Movie Poster Book".

[RazorBlade]

I think McClory was the black sheep of his life. I still don't know why someone with his imagination and talent would have been so focused on 1 project.

[Mister Asterix]

I think what should be considered official is whatever EON currently has the rights to, which at the moment is Dr. No through Casino Royale, the other Casino Royales, and NSNA. Notice that since they obtained the rights to the 'other three' Bond movies, the posters for CR67 and NSNA appeared in the official "Movie Poster Book".

[mra]Eon doesn

[triviachamp]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='769900' date='6 September 2007 - 14:10'][mra]It is IFP/Glidrose

[Odd Job]

Everything DNS is right but I have to admit I find it hard to have sympathy for McClory and, while I enjoyed NSNA, I still don't quite consider it part of the family. I understand why McClory was a bit pee-ed off about the whole Thunderball thing, but why did he carry on as long as he did? I mean he got to do his version of Thunderball (NSNA) and while it was perfectly reasonable it didn't exactly set the world on fire or send the Broccoli clan running for the hills. It was average, and yet, as I understand it, he pretty much carried on trying to get yet another version of TB off the ground practically right up until his dying breath. How long can you carry on flogging a dead horse? I'm afraid I find that baffling and rather pathetic.

Well said! I could not agree with you more.

[Mister Asterix]

[quote name='triviachamp' post='769995' date='6 September 2007 - 18:44'][quote name='Mister Asterix' post='769900' date='6 September 2007 - 14:10'][mra]It is IFP/Glidrose

[Zorin Industries]

I guess I get some angry replys now but I don't think McClory was the black sheep of the Bond family. He had the ambition to make a serious Bondfilm. Yes, I agree that he tried to squeeze out all he could out of a few scripts and also take some credit for things not belonging to him. But still, his ambitions was good.

No, I would say that it is Charles Feldman who deserves the title. Ok, his ambitions was to make a serious film at first but then he was trying to ruin the Bond franchise by making a lousy comedy, or whatever his goal was.

McClory's atempt made me curious and to be honest I was secretly hoping that he succeded to bring out a alternative Bondfilm. That could have been a good thing for the Bond franchise cause that would have put pressure on EON to make a even better films, and also filled the gap 89-95.

No, the title belongs to Feldman.

Whether he was a black sheep or not is a redundant thread. He was never in the Bond "family".

[Mister Asterix]

Whether he was a black sheep or not is a redundant thread. He was never in the Bond "family".

How can you say that? He was the producer of Thunderball.