31 replies to this topic

[Mr Twilight]

Maybe everyone have heard why Lazenby only made one Bond movie. I had it too but after reading this article some question marks had been straighten. It's an interesting article with some twists.

Scroll down about 1/3 of the page and you find the article -

Ever Wondered Why George Lazenby Only Made One James Bond Movie?

[doublenoughtspy]

That article (and this has been posted before) is full of lies and half truths.

Although it is not given an author - the person that wrote it has been kicked off of CBn and MI6 and god knows where else for making up all kinds of things.

I'll go through it point by point later...

[Mr Twilight]

Ok, thanks. I found it interesting but at the same time I wondered how come I never heard it before. Well, don't believe all you read... that old saying comes in mind.

I'll go through it point by point later...

I'll looking forward to that...

Edited by Mr Twilight, 05 September 2007 - 11:34 AM.

[LadySylvia]

That article (and this has been posted before) is full of lies and half truths.

Although it is not given an author - the person that wrote it has been kicked off of CBn and MI6 and god knows where else for making up all kinds of things.

I'll go through it point by point later...

How do you know exactly what is the truth and what isn't? For all you know, Lazenby might be telling the truth. Or EON Productions might be telling the truth. Or perhaps the real truth is a mixture of both claims.

But we really don't know, do we?

[doublenoughtspy]

How do you know exactly what is the truth and what isn't? For all you know, Lazenby might be telling the truth. Or EON Productions might be telling the truth.

I don't claim to be able to prove one side or the other's statements.

However, what this write up does is manufacture information without a single sourced interview, document reference, or any other way to verify the facts.

Let's examine the evidence.

1) The article has no author. That raises a red flag for me.

2) The article originates from a freewebs site that is no longer up. Hmmm.

3) The article claims that the information is from "(sources: The History of United Artists/David V. Picker/Harry Saltzman)" and "Trivia and the story behind Lazenby's contract negotiations were obtained from United Artists/Harry Saltzman interview archives/George Lazenby interview archives/Cubby Broccoli interview archives/and David V. Picker interview archives."

OK, there are no "Cubby Broccoli" or "David Picker" or "Harry Saltzman" or "George Lazenby" archives or "interview archives" - Not at the BFI, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences library, or any other library. I'm supposed to believe that this author was granted access to the personal papers of all of these individuals? Sure. Also - I've been through the archives of Ian Fleming, Richard Maibaum, and Peter Hunt (I own Hunt's entire production archive from OHMSS btw) - and here's the funny thing - there are only a few interviews with the subject in each of them. Why would interviews be in the subject's archives - usally they would be in the archives of the journalist or publication who did the interview.

Re: History of United Artists. There are 2 books on the history of United Artists - and neither have that title. One is The United Artists Story (mostly photos) and United Artists: The Company That Changed the Film Industry. Both mention OHMSS but neither have a single sentence about Lazenby's contract. The later book is excellent and has a decent amount of info about Bond's cinematic origins never published elsewhere, btw.

Now, on to the text itself.

1) Lots of mentions throughout of "Lazenby's manager" and "Lazenby's handlers" Surely if the author has access to this mountain of factual evidence, something simple like his manager's name, agent's name, or handler's name would be used. Curious that it isn't.

2) I won't go into how often the author changes the story from 7 film contract to 4 to 11 to 20 years to lifetime contract, or whatever. If any of this were true I'm surprised the film even got made because that sounds like an awful lot of time spent on a contract...

3) The author, and I use that term loosely, really tips their hand when they make the claim that Burton was among the final candidates with Lazenby. Every piece of evidence I have from 67 onwards, points to the fact that they were looking for a unknown. Burton's own diaries from 1969 mention absolutely nothing about being a Bond candidate. It didn't happen.

4) The author not only has supposed "insider" information which has never come light in 35 years, they are even able to magically get in the head and describe emotions of all of the major particpants "In Broccoli's mind...", "Saltzman felt...", "Lazenby felt..."

I was friends with Peter Hunt and when we discussed Lazenby's quitting Bond and the contract issues - none of what this person described jives with what Peter told me.

I wrote the authorized biography comic of Lazenby and have talked with him at various times on multiple contitents - and again this bizarre story isn't anything like what he told me.

I've been involved in projects for the literary and cinematic James Bond copyright holders because I don't make up crap - I research, analayze, verify and confirm before I make blanket assertations. I also know that when something is said, in what context, and to whom, is sometimes just as important as what IS said. And the "author" of this piece isn't giving us the ability to contextualize or source the information for some reason...

[RazorBlade]

Well, guys and Lady S in particular, it can be difficult to know the truth- sometimes. But when you have the details as doublenoughtspy seems to, then the truth becomes apparent. The history of the author of the article is the clincher for me. I wounldn't put any cred in this story.

[Mr Twilight]

As I feared it sounded to good to be true finding a story like that after 38 years that says it all. A friend of mine use to say "if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is". And as you point out, there are some info that are a little doubtful and too much uncertain fact. Thanks for the explanations

[Judo chop]

I wouldn

[dodge]

From the reading I've done since first watching this film, and what I've picked from pros like DoubleNought, I've settled pretty comfortably on a small handful of facts.
1) Laz was an incredibly talented newbie who let success go to his head.
2) He gave back as good as he got from competitive, combative pros.
3) Eon, nonetheless, was willing to bank on our beloved Aussie and did want him lock him in to Bond for years to come. (7 films? Ten films? Who the devil knows?)
4) Though he was wonderfully well paid, and to be famous overnight, Laz--as a new actor--found the grueling schedule almost unbearably punishing. In one interview, he referred to (I think)18-hour days. During these he was forced to go from hours spent doing his own stunts into endless takes of dramatic scenes. As a young buck in the wild Sixties, he must've asked himself, over and over: Do I really wanna commit to this for fifteen, twenty years?
5) Laz himself takes full responsibility for listening to his manager's advice: the Bond series was doomed. Because of his willingness to shoulder the blame, I trust his version of events.
5) I've read a nasty letter from Diana Rigg which--if authentic--might have helped to sink George in his future endeavours. Reportedly, it was read round the world, portraying Laz as a vile prima donna, impossible to work with. (DNS: your take on this?)
6) Laz still might have resurrected his sinking career...if the planned trio (or quartet) of films with Bruce Lee hadn't been done in by Lee's death. Laz was obligated to make the films, regardless--and those I've seen were total trash.
6-1/2) His intended comeback film, The Universal Soldier, was a complete disaster, and views as if everyone involved--including Laz--was stoned.
7) His seriously imperiled reputation was probably finished by his starring in a half-dozen soft-p

[doublenoughtspy]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='769521' date='5 September 2007 - 16:07']A question I

[Judo chop]

[quote name='doublenoughtspy' post='769547' date='5 September 2007 - 16:44'][quote name='Judo chop' post='769521' date='5 September 2007 - 16:07']A question I

[0024]

Absolutely, Judo. And damn good work to you, doublenoughtspy. I love Moore's films, but it would have been nice to have seen his Bond closer to how seriously Hunt took it. On Tuesday I went to see 'OHMSS' at The World of 007 here in New York, and the gentleman who introduced the film talked about how Lazenby's friends all told him Bond was dead and that the producers couldn't sell the movie around him because he was only going to be around for one picture. It is a shame that he couldn't have carried on. It would've been endlessly interesting to see where his characterization went in a film after Tracy's death.

Dalton and Hunt would've gotten along swimmingly.

Edited by 24, 25 October 2007 - 07:22 PM.

[shadrack]

Hello. New forum member here. Great site.

I'm trying to pin down with some better authority, which facts can be verified in the story of George Lazenby and the making of OHMSS.

Obviously the whole Lazenby episode is always going to be 'Roshomon'-like. It's very difficult to sort out precisely what happened. All the sources of information seem to be of the same order; no one single source seems much more trustworthy than the others.

Frankly, even when the major participants (Hunt, Lazenby, Rigg, etc) issue statements about how events played out, I'm not inclined to trust them. Not just because stories have a way of being embroidered or distorted over time; but because they're movie people and movie-people are prone to ego issues. Self-deception is not exactly unknown to them.

Anyway, at the moment I am not primarily interested in the reasons why Lazenby only made one movie (although I would like to learn more about that sometime, and I hope you'll oblige me and be patient with my questions).


I'm much more keenly interested in the finances and the budget of the movie itself. Having already done some digging of my own, I've discovered even this simple matter --OHMSS budget-- is pretty murky, even for EON.


Now, I notice mention in this thread of that derelict 'Moonraker Station' website. I agree one ought not to give anything there credence outright; (especially in his narrative dealing with Lazenby's exit). However, like most websites on the topic of the Bond franchise I see it as a mix of both reliable and unreliable data.


I feel that the mysterious web-author nevertheless has provided so *much* data on those pages that some of it must yield itself to cross-checking. My background is in research of this type; and I have made all of this a pet project of mine.

What I want to ask you all is this: bearing in mind that his site is flawed, is the *financial data* for the Bond movies he provided, still valid?
The data tables , that is--not the prose. How valid is all that budget info?

Thanks for any replies in advance. I really appreciate this website and the chance to pick your brains.


--Shadrack

Edited by shadrack, 07 February 2008 - 05:06 PM.

[doublenoughtspy]

Hello. New forum member here. Great site.

Thanks - and welcome!

I'm trying to pin down with some better authority, which facts can be verified in the story of George Lazenby and the making of OHMSS.

You've come to the right place

Obviously the whole Lazenby episode is always going to be 'Roshomon'-like. It's very difficult to sort out precisely what happened. All the sources of information seem to be of the same order; no one single source seems much more trustworthy than the others.

Frankly, even when the major participants (Hunt, Lazenby, Rigg, etc) issue statements about how events played out, I'm not inclined to trust them. Not just because stories have a way of being embroidered or distorted over time; but because they're movie people and movie-people are prone to ego issues. Self-deception is not exactly unknown to them.

Agreed. Lazenby changes his story depending on his mood. 35 year old recollections aren't the best source if one is looking for the truth.

I usually favor statements and documents from the time - rather than things coming long after the fact.

For instance, just yesterday I got a UK movie trade publication from Dec 1969 that towards the end of the OHMSS review, mentions that Lazenby won't be doing any more Bond films. I've got probably 30+ reviews from various newspapers and magazines, but it's nice to finally have one that provides proof that at least some movie goers, or at least people in the industry, knew that it was going to be his only film.

Anyway, at the moment I am not primarily interested in the reasons why Lazenby only made one movie (although I would like to learn more about that sometime, and I hope you'll oblige me and be patient with my questions).

I'm much more keenly interested in the finances and the budget of the movie itself. Having already done some digging of my own, I've discovered even this simple matter --OHMSS budget-- is pretty murky, even for EON.

Budget sizes I've heard tossed about range from $7 million to $9 million or so - but I think the key point is that it was less than the previous couple Bond films (Tball, YOLT) or even CR 67, or even Broccoli & Saltzman's solo projects from the time (Chitty, Battle of Britain).

I have a letter that Hunt sent to a friend in 69 regarding the fact that it was not the most expensive Bond movie ever made (the friend implied that it was - or at least looked it).

If you are trying to do financial archeology on the Bond films then you have an an incredibly difficult task ahead of you.

Are you trying to spot trends or see which film was the most profitable or ?

Now, I notice mention in this thread of that derelict 'Moonraker Station' website. I agree one ought not to give anything there credence outright; (especially in his narrative dealing with Lazenby's exit). However, like most websites on the topic of the Bond franchise I see it as a mix of both reliable and unreliable data.

I feel that the mysterious web-author nevertheless has provided so *much* data on those pages that some of it must yield itself to cross-checking. My background is in research of this type; and I have made all of this a pet project of mine.

What I want to ask you all is this: bearing in mind that his site is flawed, is the *financial data* for the Bond movies he provided, still valid?
The data tables , that is--not the prose. How valid is all that budget info?

The budget data comes from a post here by ACE that came from some Sony document that was produced around the time of the takeover. I've never seen the document myself - but it seems accurate.

How much the Moonraker site futzed with the data I don't know.

One thing the Moonraker site is obsessed with is adjusted totals - trying to put it in today's numbers. Which is an excercise in futility for so many reasons. One thing the author loved to do to, is just look at ticket prices then and now and do the multiplication. Which is ridiculous because not every ticket sold goes for full price (ever heard of matinees, 2nd run theatres, group discounts, senior & student discounts, etc. etc.)

Thanks for any replies in advance. I really appreciate this website and the chance to pick your brains.

--Shadrack

For the base box office info I'd look at Kimberly Last's site:

http://www.klast.net/bond/boxoff.html

And of course, the book The James Bond Legacy.

[shadrack]

Hi--pleased to make your acquaintance


a) I am very much aware of the KLAST site. The problem is that she doesn't cite *her* source other than a very tiny mention of the 'James Bond Legacy' book which I have heard is interesting/enjoyable reading, but not particularly robust for this type of inquiry.

Here's what I think the OHMSS budget was, but I need better confirmation than what I have

$7m - direct production cost
$1m - finding/signing a new star (Lazenby)
$2.5m - U.S. marketing (but this conflicts with other sources which say only $1m or $1.5m, U.S.)
$5m - worldwide marketing

Question: would you say that the distribution costs are falling under the term 'marketing' here? Just a difference in terminology? Some of this I got from that Moonraker Station site, so I am naturally treating it very cautiously.

Question: can anyone confirm where I can verify that the overseas marketing was $5m?

Question: would you agree the film cost between $13m and $15m to make? Why or why not?

I am pretty sure the minimum the movie cost was $9.5m. Does anyone have any insight to shed on this? I realize its a pretty dry topic, sorry! ;^\

Thanks for your help so far, and for being kindly to a new guest of the forum!

--Shad

[shadrack]

p.s. my motives are pretty bland: it just seems to me that this movie really is a unique episode in the franchise, but that it's also the least understood of the Bond films. For being such an aesthetic high-point in the series, it has an incredibly inscrutable history.

It's maybe the most controversial film of the franchise--yet some of the key details which might dissipate widespread confusion about it, are apparently not available.

That puzzles me, and motivates me to do some digging. I was already interested in 1969, it's a fascinating year in cinema. So, as part of my curiosity about that era, I'd like to get to the truth about the history of this film.

Thanks again.

[doublenoughtspy]

Where are you getting these figures?

Take a look at:

http://debrief.comma...p...993&hl=Sony

Which lists a $1 million total for the marketing budget for OHMSS. That might even be the famous "prints and advertising" - so that might include the cost of duplicating the film.

If you look at the pressbooks for OHMSS (I've got them from the US, UK, Europe, Asia, Australia, etc.) - there weren't lavish marketing campaigns. Just the standard print, radio, and some promotional tie-ins and contests.

They didn't pay for Lazenby for do any publicitiy - just short US & European tours for Rigg.

Once Eon delivered the film it was United Artist's job to do the publicity - and they weren't about to sink a ton of money promoting a man who wouldn't be playing Bond again.

Re: $1 million for the Bond search.

Laughable. Dyson Lovell and Hunt were already being paid their OHMSS salaries - looking through headshots, making phone calls, screening movies and setting up interviews, and then finally screen testing 5 guys doesn't cost a million dollars.

That money would have been coming out of Eon's pockets - not UAs. And had they had a million to play with they would have thrown it at Connery and he would have stayed.

The Moonraker site is making stuff up - yes it's a lot of data but it's utter crap data.

[shadrack]

Right. Glad to see that link. If that data you pointed me to is from Sony, can it be considered a gold standard for this topic?

"Where am I getting these figures?"

Well, before I had seen the Moonraker Station site, I had also placed the marketing for the U.S. conservatively at $1m. That was in line with other sources who stated $9.5 budget total.

Several sources remark on this mere $1m marketing, (I can provide if need be). And they attribute it exactly to what you just did: UA and EON, knowing that Lazenby was on his way out the door, were not going gangbusters with promo. Agreed.

So. . .
7m = direct production. . seems fairly agreed upon, everywhere
1m = U.S. marketing (still valid assumption)

Does this stand up?

Taking the ballast out of the "Bond search" figure and lowering the U.S. Distro figures, still leave us with at least an $8m film budget.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that the MRS (Moonraker-Station site) guy has botched the calculation that the 'search for a new Bond' cost $1m. I have other sources which hopefully will likely confirm his mistake. For now, I'm removing it from my budget estimates.

(I'd really like to understand why he provides so much inaccurate detail with regard to Lazenby. One has to wonder, did he sit down and write all that out himself? Did he copy it from somewhere? And why the inaccurate book reference? Why is he so firm about Lazenby's "two-picture" deal?)


But I am glad to hear that his tabular data pages have not raised flags with you. U.S. rentals, overseas rentals, U.S. ticket sales, overseas ticket sales, are all of keen interest to me. I actually have a contact who was an executive at UA in the 70's; and I am going to pick his brains soon. UA is actually more at the heart of my inquiry than EON is.


In the meantime, what parts of my earlier 'shorthand' budget do you agree with?
7 + 1= at least an $8m or $8.5m film? Yes?

Now: is there any way to confirm UA's costs for sending it overseas?
I'm trying to match up two conflicting sources here.


By the way, although I realize some of these ideas I'm advancing may sound ludicrous to someone who has worked in the industry, but let me repeat that all my inquiries so far, are extremely tentative. I am not committed to anything I've discovered yet. I'm still in the process of fact-finding. In some of these areas I'm definitely needing someone to light my way. Thanks!

--Shad

[doublenoughtspy]

Right. Glad to see that link. If that data you pointed me to is from Sony, can it be considered a gold standard for this topic?

Most likely. But as Ace cautioned me when I asked him about it - it was a document produced by Sony to possibly justify their investment. Creative accounting in the movie business is the norm.

So. . .
7m = direct production. . seems fairly agreed upon, everywhere
1m = U.S. marketing (still valid assumption)

Does this stand up?

Taking the ballast out of the "Bond search" figure and lowering the U.S. Distro figures, still leave us with at least an $8m film budget.

I hate to split hairs here - but the budget was $7 mil or so - that was what Eon had to work with. If you then say that the $1 million for marketing was also part of the "budget" you would not be correct. The numbers are seperated for a reason.

Did the studio invest $8 million into OHMSS? Yes.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that the MRS (Moonraker-Station site) guy has botched the calculation that the 'search for a new Bond' cost $1m. I have other sources which hopefully will likely confirm his mistake. For now, I'm removing it from my budget estimates.

(I'd really like to understand why he provides so much inaccurate detail with regard to Lazenby. One has to wonder, did he sit down and write all that out himself? Did he copy it from somewhere? And why the inaccurate book reference? Why is he so firm about Lazenby's "two-picture" deal?)

I have no idea what sort of highly addictive form of crack the person is on.

Getting your jollies by making up stuff about Lazenby? I'm Lazenby's biggest fan and I don't need to justify that by making stuff up about non-existant contracts and bizarre far fletched scenarios that didn't happen.

The person who created the Moonraker site has a number of aliases, and under one of his guises, Connery_moore_gods, he further made up a bunch of "facts" that Ace and I dismantled in this thread:

http://debrief.comma...p...=25222&st=0

But I am glad to hear that his tabular data pages have not raised flags with you. U.S. rentals, overseas rentals, U.S. ticket sales, overseas ticket sales, are all of keen interest to me. I actually have a contact who was an executive at UA in the 70's; and I am going to pick his brains soon. UA is actually more at the heart of my inquiry than EON is.

I'm glad to hear that. UA was a publicly held business and while their numbers were probably creatively accounted, they had share holders to answer to and so more records might exist. Eon is privately held, so trying to determine what they spent where would be a lot more difficult.

In the meantime, what parts of my earlier 'shorthand' budget do you agree with?
7 + 1= at least an $8m or $8.5m film? Yes?

Now: is there any way to confirm UA's costs for sending it overseas?
I'm trying to match up two conflicting sources here.

$8 or 8.5 million seems to jive with what I've heard and read.

Regarding costs for overseas prints and advertising - the fact that the Sony numbers don't break it down into foreign and domestic leads me to believe that it came out of that $1 million figure. Hopefully your executive contact might be able to shed some light.

By the way, although I realize some of these ideas I'm advancing may sound ludicrous to someone who has worked in the industry, but let me repeat that all my inquiries so far, are extremely tentative. I am not committed to anything I've discovered yet. I'm still in the process of fact-finding. In some of these areas I'm definitely needing someone to light my way. Thanks!

No problem. Be sure to keep us informed of what you learn.

[dodge]

Thanks, DoubleNought, for your neverending efforts to keep the facts straight on this fabulous film.

One minor quibble: you say that you're the film's biggest fan? Do you watch it twice before bed every night as I do?

[doublenoughtspy]

Thanks, DoubleNought, for your neverending efforts to keep the facts straight on this fabulous film.

One minor quibble: you say that you're the film's biggest fan? Do you watch it twice before bed every night as I do?

Just twice? Amatuer.

[agentjamesbond007]

The say that he had many disagreements with the producers and cast

says here:

http://www.ocd007.co...ier/Lazenby.htm

(click on the movie called: On Her Majesty's Secret Service)

[Clarence Leiter]

Laz only did one because he moved on to bigger and better things.

[Harry Fawkes]

Lazenby's agent gave him some bad advice. Told him that the Bond 'thing' wouldn't last and that he'd be better off just doing one. Obviously he was wrong . Poor Lazenby.

[shadrack]

Will do.

I am going to further compare the numbers from the MRS site to the Sony numbers. One way or another, I want to find out precisely what costs came after that first $7m from EON. I think that's crucial.

Question: I have read that EON and UA 'pre-sold' the revenues from DAF back to their investors. Is it corroborated anywhere that this also occurred on other Bond films such as OHMSS?

And I'm going to assemble a set of questions for my UA guy.

But you are also a real 'find' as far as a source--may I ask, can you tell me what your role in production was, or what your relationship to EON was, in 1970? Even in bland terms? I may want to cite you directly if you don't mind. You're obviously not just an anonymous poster on a Bond fansite. . .


--Shad

[shadrack]

p.s. I guess my curiosity can be summed up in this way:

Everyone knows that the Bond franchise was one of the top money-making franchises ever. $3, $4 BILLION total. (I think it's only recently that it has been eclipsed by Harry Potter).

The series started out in a certain dynamic manner, it made a splash/became a hit. . . every Bond film had its own fluidity and uniqueness. And then, the movies started to congeal into a 'formula' that started to strangle the series.

Then in 1969/70, the very complex episode of OHMSS intervenes. This was a juncture at which the franchise could have taken off in an entirely new direction.

OHMSS, which many long-standing Bond fans regard as the aesthetic high-point of all the Bond movies, seems to have been an experiment which EON and UA pulled back from, immediately afterwards. Why?

I realize that Lazenby forced their hand--he gave them an impossible situation and they reluctantly had to let him go. Naturally, the last thing they wanted to do, was engage in yet another round of "Find us a Bond star, please!"

But what happened with OHMSS seems to have determined the way the Bond movies turned out, for many years, right up until the new Casino Royale. Why didn't they try to do more movies like OHMSS? EON and UA went back to that same old action formula, where everything Bond does is repeated ad infinatum and it's all pretty stale and superficial. Yet the formula-Bonds continued to be big money-makers and popular with the public, as if OHMSS had not shown us that a Bond film could be something really different.

So I think anyone wanting to understand why the Bond series is so successful needs to understand what happened with OHMSS.

Just letting you know you where I'm coming from.

--Shad

Edited by shadrack, 11 February 2008 - 05:59 PM.

[shadrack]

"Regarding costs for overseas prints and advertising - the fact that the Sony numbers don't break it down into foreign and domestic leads me to believe that it came out of that $1 million figure."

Interesting! Me, I'm inclined to assume it is the other way, that this figure is low-balled--or even completely omitting mention of the actual overseas costs. I'm used to seeing budgets from EON with important items routinely condensed and simplified. . .

--Shad

[doublenoughtspy]

You may be right - but in my extensive collection of OHMSS marketing material from over 30 countries - I haven't come across anything that would indicate that they spent Thunderball/TSWLM/Goldeneye/insert big marketed Bond film here/ money.

Bond was established at that point - and there was a new star who wasn't going to make another one. Throwing major marketing money into it wasn't going to reach people who weren't already aware that a new Bond flick was out, or that they needed to see the debut of the next generation Bond.

So are you assuming that a great deal was spent on print advertising (newspapers, magazines) TV, and radio? Or just that the figures are under reported?

[shadrack]

Hi

I'm only assuming that the figures are so far, not explicited fully in any of the sources I have yet discovered. It just doesn't seem to be information that anyone has made a point of publishing on the net. I myself do not have a lot of Bond books, (I own a lot more works on the film industry in general) so I haven't been able to do proper research.

However, I agree with you that they didn't go all out with marketing in the U.S. and . . overseas as well. But how much they spent on distribution, in each sphere, is what I am curious about.

How much was the norm? Did they spend more or less than the norm? How exactly did they report it? As you said earlier, it's very challenging but if I even get a few key questions resolved I will be happy.

I want to know what the specific details of the lend/share deal between EON and UA was; I want to know what the film's true cost was(in context); I want to know if the profits were already dedicated to somewhere else; and I want to know exactly what each company walked away with in their pockets. It's a tall order! But it's also fascinating and instructive as far as learning more about the industry itself.

That's why my UA contact has to be handled just right. . I am trying to figure out the mindset of UA during that whole episode. He is probably the closest I can come to a direct interview, or hopefully he can put me in contact with someone even closer to the original dealmakers.


By the way, if you're a collector, there's a poster store in NYC (my location) that has gigantic original theatre posters for OHMSS in several languages. In case you're interested--though it would probably cost a few C's, each

--Shad

p.s. hey how do I get one of those cool signs in my posts??? lol

You may be right - but in my extensive collection of OHMSS marketing material from over 30 countries - I haven't come across anything that would indicate that they spent Thunderball/TSWLM/Goldeneye/insert big marketed Bond film here/ money.

Bond was established at that point - and there was a new star who wasn't going to make another one. Throwing major marketing money into it wasn't going to reach people who weren't already aware that a new Bond flick was out, or that they needed to see the debut of the next generation Bond.

So are you assuming that a great deal was spent on print advertising (newspapers, magazines) TV, and radio? Or just that the figures are under reported?

Edited by shadrack, 15 February 2008 - 01:20 AM.

[RazorBlade]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='769553' date='5 September 2007 - 22:05'][quote name='doublenoughtspy' post='769547' date='5 September 2007 - 16:44'][quote name='Judo chop' post='769521' date='5 September 2007 - 16:07']A question I