121 replies to this topic

[Royal Dalton]

To step down and want no more to do with a role because it has violated your life is understandable. To then take on the role THREE MORE TIMES in order to take the money and run is disingenuous to say the least.

He was already under contract to make two of those films, and he used the money from the third to set up a charity to help underpriviliged children. Big crime.

[Zorin Industries]

To step down and want no more to do with a role because it has violated your life is understandable. To then take on the role THREE MORE TIMES in order to take the money and run is disingenuous to say the least.

He was already under contract to make two of those films, and he used the money from the third to set up a charity to help underpriviliged children. Big crime.

No, he left the role after YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, only to come back for the money for DIAMONDS (which, yes, he did start a charity with), then he said no more but was tempted by the dollar signs for NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN. For a third time he then said no more but was oddly lured back for a computer game that hardly paid him in jelly babies. Charity or no charity, the inconsistencies of this is telling enough to me.

[jaguar007]

And regarding Roger Moore, I don't count travelling the globe tirelessly in order to help the world's children as not doing anything of note.

double 0 ego did specify "in terms of acting"

[ACE]

He was already under contract to make two of those films, and he used the money from the third to set up a charity to help underpriviliged children...

Not to take anything away from Sean's generosity, but while it is true he used his $1.25 million salary from DAF for his own charity, Scottish International Educational Trust (still extant, BTW), he did hold on to his 12.5% of the gross, a siginificantly higher sum.

I personally think Sean Connery's relationship with the Broccolis, whilst interesting, is none of our business and we certainly don't have enough information to make judgments on. However, based on the information there is, I think Sean acted in a perfectly gentlemanly way.

Whatever the source of his grievances, Sean has always been private in his post-Bond dealings with the Broccolis. So, in death, he is being entirely consistent. That he contacted Dana Broccoli personally is enough in my book. (How many of us would pay condolences to the widow of a boss we didn't particularly like more than 25 years after we last worked with them?). However, IMO, Connery's actions and feelings towards Bond have been more than disingenuous and he returned to the trough an unseemly amount of times.

In any event, Connery's numerous companies are still involved with the Bond companies because he is a profit participant in a number of his Bond films. Connery effectively still does business with Danjaq (who, BTW, are profit participants in NSNA). They have to get on. It's a bit like the Beatles. In his autobiography, When The Snow Melts, Cubby is much harsher about Roger Moore than he is about Sean.

I certainly think that Dr No would have been successful whoever played Bond and that Cubby and Harry were perfectly within their rights who to make a partner in the Bond process. Had Connery become part of Danjaq, the series would have ended with him. A number of the key creative team took upfront salaries rather than a share of the profits. The producers took (take) the risk. Everyone is a creatively important but ultimately a hired hand. A producer "causes a film to be made".

[double o ego]

...as he states around the time of GF, when his private life/space becomes violated, one starts to llok at things from varying perspectives.

And from varying dollar bills.

To step down and want no more to do with a role because it has violated your life is understandable. To then take on the role THREE MORE TIMES in order to take the money and run is disingenuous to say the least.

And Sean Connery's book may have his mug on the cover, but it is not about him, but his outdated and frankly meddling views on a country he is quite happy to dictate to from his Marbella villa balcony.

And regarding Roger Moore, I don't count travelling the globe tirelessly in order to help the world's children as not doing anything of note.

Please, Connery of course just like many other actors or anyone else working in a job did it for the money, that's hardly to be accusatory about the man. How many times have you heard of people saying they hate their job yet day in day out they go back to it? Why? Because they're getting paid. As for Connery, it's not like he was hogging the money all to himself anyway. It's been well documented that he gives generously to charities and his entire pay cheque for DAF went towards establishing some sort of drama school in Scotland. Just because he now lives in the bahamas, it doesn't mean he can't have his say on the governing of his own country. Many people do what he does, it makes sense. Also, I suggest you re-read what I said about Moore's contributions...

[DamnCoffee]

Well, I never knew that about Sean and Cubby. You learn something new everyday.

[Piz Gloria 1969]

"Somehow it's hard for me to believe he spends every day beating his wife, cursing out shopkeepers and taking people to court"

Sounds like ingredients for a sitcom lol *calls Seinfeld*

It's not just diamonds that are forever....so is Connerys grudge lol

He should join up with Iron Sheik and together they would RULE the world by verbally humbling anyone in their paths lol

[MarkA]

Not to take anything away from Sean's generosity, but while it is true he used his $1.25 million salary from DAF for his own charity, Scottish International Educational Trust (still extant, BTW), he did hold on to his 12.5% of the gross, a siginificantly higher sum.

I personally think Sean Connery's relationship with the Broccolis, whilst interesting, is none of our business and we certainly don't have enough information to make judgments on. However, based on the information there is, I think Sean acted in a perfectly gentlemanly way.

Whatever the source of his grievances, Sean has always been private in his post-Bond dealings with the Broccolis. So, in death, he is being entirely consistent. That he contacted Dana Broccoli personally is enough in my book. (How many of us would pay condolences to the widow of a boss we didn't particularly like more than 25 years after we last worked with them?). However, IMO, Connery's actions and feelings towards Bond have been more than disingenuous and he returned to the trough an unseemly amount of times.

In any event, Connery's numerous companies are still involved with the Bond companies because he is a profit participant in a number of his Bond films. Connery effectively still does business with Danjaq (who, BTW, are profit participants in NSNA). They have to get on. It's a bit like the Beatles. In his autobiography, When The Snow Melts, Cubby is much harsher about Roger Moore than he is about Sean.

I certainly think that Dr No would have been successful whoever played Bond and that Cubby and Harry were perfectly within their rights who to make a partner in the Bond process. Had Connery become part of Danjaq, the series would have ended with him. A number of the key creative team took upfront salaries rather than a share of the profits. The producers took (take) the risk. Everyone is a creatively important but ultimately a hired hand. A producer "causes a film to be made".

Well put. There is far too much speculation going on here from people who simply don't know.

[Napoleon Solo]

Catching up on this thread. Just a few pieces of background that were referenced in passing.

Irving Allen, Broccoli's former partner and the producer of the Matt Helm movies, got Dean Martin to star. But Allen had to make Martin a partner. The credits of the four movies say "A Meadway-Claude Production," and Claude was Martin's production company. The copyright notices also refer to "Meadway-Claude."

For the first film, The Silencers, Martin got 10 percent of the gross, and that meant $1.2 million. Connery was paid something like $500,000 for Thunderball -- at least that's the figure I recall reading. Anyone who has a specific reference or better figure feel free to cite it. In any event, there was a big gap. And that was at least a big part of the dispute between Connery and Eon.

The Silencers also is odd because of other would of/could of 007 connections -- Allen as producer (having split with Broccoli about 007 as a film subject), Victor Buono (Richard Maibuam's recommendation to play Goldfinger) and director Phil Karlson (United Artists' first choice to direct Dr. No). (The Buono and Karlson items disclosed in film historian Adrian Turner's 1998 book on Goldfinger.)

[DR76]

Wow! I don't understand the stick that Connery gets around here. People seem to forget that Connery is human, a proud man who was doubted, ridiculed and rose above it all, to teach himself shakesperian acting and then of course to spit in the faces of his detractors by putting on performances that established him as the most famouse character in the world. Sure, EON helped Connery BUT Connery also helped EON. Why should Connery feel he himself has to be forever owing to EON for the rest of his life? He doesn't. Believe me, Connery is greatful for what Bond has done for him but he doesn't want Bond to be his life. Connery wanted to and has established a legacy outside of Bond. Look at Roger Moore, his autobiography is titled, my word is my Bond. With a title like that, of course the book will sell. Moore hasn't done anything of notable value in terms of acting since his days as Bond and is thus, clinging on to a bygone era of notable status. Even the picture on the book is of him in his younger years on the set of a Bond film. Now, Compare that to Connery's book who mentioned very little about Bond and has a pic of him on the front cover as he is now.
Like all humans, Connery is fickle and has often proved on many occasions he contradicts himself but if we all know his relationship with Cubby hit the rocks and din't show up to his memorial or whatever, at least he had the decency to stand by what ever convictions he had and wasn't bing fake. Besides, Connery's a smart man, it would have just become a media circus. It's a well known fact that he expressed his condolences to Dana, that's all he needed to do and he did it. He didn't have to do anything else.
As for Saltzman, many people hated the guy, even Barry couldn't stand him. Just because you work with people for years on end, it doesn't mean a personal relationship has to develop. Just like any other business, making Bond movies was a business, many things were kept on a proffessional level and it's quite clear that Connery over the years has been a bit more lax with Bond but as he states around the time of GF, when his private life/space becomes violated, one starts to llok at things from vaying perspectives.
Give the guy a break.

I understand that you want to defend Connery's decisions regarding Broccoli's funeral. But did you have to insult Roger Moore to achieve this? Does it really matter whether Connery wants to put Bond behind him or if Moore doesn't mind being identified with the Bond franchise? Each actor is entitled to his choice.

[staveoffzombies]

Not to mention Rogers extensive work with UNICEF. I'd rather see him doing something good for the world rather then star in a few more pictures.

[RJJB]

Most actor biographies feature coevr art that portays the subject at their most recognizable. Moore's biography follows suit, no big deal. But saying that Moore's movie career post EON isn't much is certainly the truth. I'm sure that Moore, being suhc a wonderfully self-effacing and humble almost-member-of-the-Holy-Trinity, would be the first to agree. Except for the classics such as Spice World and Boat Trip, there wasn't much.

[David_M]

Yes, but Connery left the role (the first time, anyway) when he was just 37 years old, plenty young enough to take on lots of leading (and later, supporting) roles. And when his career was on the ropes, he could still whip himself into good enough shape to come back in his 50s with NSNA and create new momentum for a very successful run including blockbusters and an Oscar.

Roger on the other hand was 57 when he left Bond, which very much limited his career possibilities in the youth-obsessed movie industry, I should think.

Also it seems to me that Connery's casting in a lot of later roles owes a great deal to his status as a former Bond, including The Last Crusade, The Rock and to some extent Entrapment and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Over and over, he's cast in roles that features echoes of Bond, roles obviously written for an ex-Bond, and which play on audience memories of vintage Bond. (Look, it's James Bond in Alcatraz...it's James Bond as a thief...it's the 19th Century James Bond...well, of course James Bond would be Indy's father...) Yes, Connery had a bigger career post-Bond, but I'd argue it wouldn't have been nearly as big if he didn't have Bond to draw on. Roger may be more willing to remind people he was once 007, but in the long run Sean has gotten a lot more mileage out of the association.

[jaguar007]

You do make some good points David M, but to play devils advocate, many of Connery's greatest roles came after he was 57. In fact he was 57 when he did his Oscar winning role in the Untouchables. Yes, his character in The Rock was sort of a wink to his past role as Bond, but certainly not the case in roles as The Untouchables, Highlander, The Man Who Would Be King, Robin and Marion, Hunt for Red October, Finding Forrester etc. Even the roles you mentioned such as Entrapment (a thief), Last Crusade (hardly a Bond type role) and LoEG (where he played a character who was created in 1885, long before the creation of Bond).

Of course my post is in no way meant to diss Moore's post Bond career. His decision to devote much of his time to UNICEF is a very worthy cause.

[David_M]

Yes, Henry Jones was different from Bond, but look how much was made of the fact that "Bond is the spiritual father of Indy, thus Sean is playing Dad to Harrison." You heard this constantly from the filmmakers and the press when the film was shooting and released. There may not be a lot of Bond in Henry, but Spielberg and Lucas obviously thought the connection was important enough to cast Connery based on it, and point it out in interviews for anyone who didn't figure it out themselves. Alan Quartermain again I see as a 19th century allegory for Bond; the legendary hero who came to represent Britain in the eyes of the world, now at the end of his career. And for me it's a short jump from the high-tech "infiltrate and liquidate" missions of a double-0 to the high-tech "infiltrate and liberate" escapades of the "Phantom"-esque thief in Entrapment.

I agree Connery did some outstanding work in his early post-Bond years. Robin and Marian and The Man Who Would Be King in particular I'd rate as some of his best work ever, and The Great Train Robbery was a blast. But then there were some misfires, and NSNA seems to represent something of a turning point as he moved from creatively daring projects to more commercial fare. Personally, while I liked The Untouchables, in no way do I consider it Connery's best work, and I still think the Academy gave him the Oscar in part to make up for all the earlier, better work they snubbed.

As to Roger, I think it's tremendous what he does for UNICEF, but I get the distinct impression from his memoirs that he wishes he'd had more of a career to speak of, post-Bond. Sean's genius, really, is that he found a way to make the transition to "mentor" roles that allowed him to stay every bit as "cool" while letting younger men take center stage. He's a "supporting actor" who fills as many seats as the "star." The only other working actor I can think of who's done that is Micheal Caine (and maybe Gene Hackman, though he was never the "leading man" on the scale the others were, so it's not so dramatic a makeover).

[double o ego]

Wow! I don't understand the stick that Connery gets around here. People seem to forget that Connery is human, a proud man who was doubted, ridiculed and rose above it all, to teach himself shakesperian acting and then of course to spit in the faces of his detractors by putting on performances that established him as the most famouse character in the world. Sure, EON helped Connery BUT Connery also helped EON. Why should Connery feel he himself has to be forever owing to EON for the rest of his life? He doesn't. Believe me, Connery is greatful for what Bond has done for him but he doesn't want Bond to be his life. Connery wanted to and has established a legacy outside of Bond. Look at Roger Moore, his autobiography is titled, my word is my Bond. With a title like that, of course the book will sell. Moore hasn't done anything of notable value in terms of acting since his days as Bond and is thus, clinging on to a bygone era of notable status. Even the picture on the book is of him in his younger years on the set of a Bond film. Now, Compare that to Connery's book who mentioned very little about Bond and has a pic of him on the front cover as he is now.
Like all humans, Connery is fickle and has often proved on many occasions he contradicts himself but if we all know his relationship with Cubby hit the rocks and din't show up to his memorial or whatever, at least he had the decency to stand by what ever convictions he had and wasn't bing fake. Besides, Connery's a smart man, it would have just become a media circus. It's a well known fact that he expressed his condolences to Dana, that's all he needed to do and he did it. He didn't have to do anything else.
As for Saltzman, many people hated the guy, even Barry couldn't stand him. Just because you work with people for years on end, it doesn't mean a personal relationship has to develop. Just like any other business, making Bond movies was a business, many things were kept on a proffessional level and it's quite clear that Connery over the years has been a bit more lax with Bond but as he states around the time of GF, when his private life/space becomes violated, one starts to llok at things from vaying perspectives.
Give the guy a break.

I understand that you want to defend Connery's decisions regarding Broccoli's funeral. But did you have to insult Roger Moore to achieve this? Does it really matter whether Connery wants to put Bond behind him or if Moore doesn't mind being identified with the Bond franchise? Each actor is entitled to his choice.

I wasn't trying to insult Moore, I was merely making an observation by comparing Coonery and Moore with their respective legacies to film. I'm trying to stress that, Connery is being labeled the bad guy because many people here some how believe he is bound by some endless gratitude to EON. Connery clearly had his issues with EON and no longer wanted to be a part of what they were doing. Just because he is the first and most recognised of the Bonds it doesn't mean he has to fulfil various expectations of various people regarding Bond/EON. Connery has always wanted to establish an acting legacy and there's no way he wants to be just remembered as James Bond.
Moore however, is a different story. Sure he's done lots of other work pre Bond but most people will remember him as Bond and although he maybe fine with that, not that he has much choice anyway, Connery wouldn't want to share the same fate. However, as someone else stated, Moore was pushing 60 when he gave up the role but simultaneously, Co9nnery was also roughly the same age when his career really sort of kicked off post Bond. Like I said before, I think Conners deserves a break.

[Santa]

I'm trying to stress that, Connery is being labeled the bad guy because many people here some how believe he is bound by some endless gratitude to EON.

I'm not sure that is what people are saying. Isn't it more that Connery shouldn't have such endless disdain or even loathing for Eon? He has done a fair amount of slagging them off and litigating against them that shows him in a pretty unedifying light. I would say the success of Bond is equally down to both sides and neither owe each other anything. Connery seems to disagree.

[Judo chop]

I have just finished reading Roger Moores My Word Is My Bond and was surprised to lean that Sean and Cubby were not on good terms. Sean didn’t attend Cubby’s memorial service etc

Could anyone tell us the History to the falling out?

It also seems Sean and Roger were not as close friends as I always believed there were? More acquaintances?

I say this, as a fan, straight from the heart, and with no intent to offend anyone:

I don’t care.

[DAN LIGHTER]

I do care and have found the posts to be very intresting.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I do aswell. The internal events are often more interesting than the finished film I think, so let's keep this discussion going.

[double o ego]

I'm trying to stress that, Connery is being labeled the bad guy because many people here some how believe he is bound by some endless gratitude to EON.

I'm not sure that is what people are saying. Isn't it more that Connery shouldn't have such endless disdain or even loathing for Eon? He has done a fair amount of slagging them off and litigating against them that shows him in a pretty unedifying light. I would say the success of Bond is equally down to both sides and neither owe each other anything. Connery seems to disagree.

I dunno about that. I have read accounts and seen interviews where Connery has given plenty of praise to certain figure heads involved with establishing the series. However, I do agree with you that, Bond's success is most certainly down to ultimately all those involved but let's face facts here, Connery was the face of EON's Bond movies. Hell, even after Connery left, for many years production drawings always had Bond looking like Connery. Maybe because Connery's actions against EON don't shade him in the nices light but lets not ignore or understate just how important, crucial and how much of an impact he made in the role. I personaly think that, Connery did deserve a lot of what he asked for and more of an effort to resolving his issues should have been resolved without taking "damaging" legal action but I guess someone has to be held accountable and maybe Conners did go after the wrong people or maybe he didn't but when it's all said and done, I for one am thankful that Connery's relationship with EON is much better than what it was.

[Judo chop]

I do aswell. The internal events are often more interesting than the finished film I think, so let's keep this discussion going.

Internal events that lead directly to the films, I find interesting (though never as interesting as the films themselves). The 'makings of', are fascinating to me. But the personality conflicts and the drama that went on behind the scenes (all of which we can really only hypothesize and speculate anyway) do not interest me at all.

But, sincerely, to each his own. I'm not saying the thread shouldn't exist. I was just weighing in with my honest opinion: I really don't care. That is not to say that others should follow suit.

And with that, I take my leave.

[dogmanstar]

Why this thread might be important: it's not Connery's obligation to do this for anyone but I feel a better, less snarky relationship between SC and EON would have been nice for all of us. Example: Rog is still out there providing commentary for the UE's--every one of his Bond films! It's too bad that we don't get Connery's impression of his era. His absence is especially glaring in light of how hard Moore worked and works with EON. Connery's absence speaks volumes. Again, he's not obligated--but one can wish, no?

[Mister Asterix]

Sean Connery wouldn't be a known name or a bankable commodity without Eon and the Bond films. And as he appears to be someone who prizes his money particularly highly, he should remember what a milk man in Edinburgh gets for a week's work as opposed to a world famous movie star.

I agree that he shouldn't be obliged to his bosses for ever more. But a little more decency, respect and loyalty would not go amiss in the movie world let alone everywhere else.

Who’s to say Connery wouldn’t have done as well or better without Cubby, Eon, and Bond. Connery had already turned down the role of Tarzan. Surely there’s a good chance other opportunities would arise for a man of Connery’s talent and presence.

I'm not trying to deliberately pick holes in your stance here, but what TARZAN movie? Which landmark TARZAN film that the filmic history books always cite above all others was Sean Connery foolish to turn down?

For the record Connery turned down Tarzan, the Ape Man (1959). Also for the record, I did not come near to claim it a landmark film, nor even any good. And I didn’t say Connery was foolish to turn it down. (Denny Miller ain’t a household name is he?) My only point was that Connery had other offers and would most likely have had more.

[Royal Dalton]

"Me, Tarshan. You, Jane."

Of course, he did appear in John Guillermin's 'Tarzan's Greatest Adventure' that year. Which was a rather good film, I thought.

[Peckinpah1976]

To simply cast Connery as Bond doesn't make a good Bondfilm. Look at NSNA.

No, but his presence is enough to make a mediocre film worth watching; the same cannot be said for Moore or Brosnan.

[Colossus]

Hey i like NSNA!

[Mr Teddy Bear]

To simply cast Connery as Bond doesn't make a good Bondfilm. Look at NSNA.

No, but his presence is enough to make a mediocre film worth watching; the same cannot be said for Moore or Brosnan.

Well that's one opinion. NSNA isn't worth watching in mine.

[David_M]

Maybe he's saying that since Roger and Pierce don't show up in NSNA, they're no help at all.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Quite an informative post, with some strong opinions.

Personally, I would not read anything into relationships with Cubby based on what the actors did for the series after they stopped playing Bond. Look at Dalton. Much respect for Cubby, but never turns up in any interviews or commentaries.
I think Sean is much more private and reserved, whereas Roger is more outspoken.

When Connery was Bond, it was a very different scenario to when Roger was playing the role. Connery was (arguably) the first movie star in a brand new genre of film-making. The exposure he endured must have been massive.
By the time Moore was leaving, behind his shoulder were other successful action heroes. He did not have the spotlight like Connery did in the sixties. IMO this alone could explain Connery's distancing from the series, notwithstanding any alleged dispute with a producer. But then saying that Connery was willing to return for NSNA, so who knows!