121 replies to this topic

[DAN LIGHTER]

An interesting article from 96 about the memorial?

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

Edited by DAN LIGHTER, 06 March 2009 - 03:48 PM.

[Attempting Re-entry]

A wonderfully informative thread.

Could anyone recommend me a good biography of Connery?

[S K Y F A L L]

Here is another thread on the subject; Connery Vs. Cubby

I thought this was a very interesting point;

"The sad truth is that Connery and Broccoli, both strong-willed men in an industry where cut-throat razors are virtually handed out at the studio gates, fell out badly."

Kimberly Lasts website is still one of my favorite Bond websites since it was basically the only Bond site I remember finding in the late 90s.

[thecasinoroyale]

Reading a good biography on Connery, which I recommend for a good reading if anyone is interested, I was very shocked to learn how Connery felt about the Bond films and producers, which was pretty negative from as early as 'From Russia With Love' onwards.

The book is 'Arise Sir Sean Connery' and you can get it from Amazon.co.uk...

http://www.amazon.co...40894365&sr=8-1


... or Amazon.com...

http://www.amazon.co...ir Sean Connery

[DR76]

Cubby Broccoli's funeral was a day of former colleagues paying their respects in person and some (Robert Wagner, Prince Charles, John Barry etc) "being there" via the wonders of pre-recorded video or read-out letters. Connery could have done that. It would have been the decent thing to do.

Why castigate Connery for failing to show up at a former boss' funeral? If he didn't want to go, he didn't want to go. There was no law that stated he should have gone. If his relationship with Broccoli was that strained, despite the success he had gained as Bond, why should he be a hypocrite in order to make some fans and the media think highly of him? Connery's decision not to do or say anything publicly about Broccoli's death WAS HIS BUSINESS. Why do some people insist that celebrities act like paragons of perfection?

[S K Y F A L L]

Well said DR76.

[Terry]

Interesting thread and I feel that both sides have their faults. When the money grew to such large amounts, greed got in the way. I remember reading that Connery has continued with yearly contributions to the Scottish Trust, beyond the intital DAF check. Broccoli has always said United Artists was the culprit when it came to problems with Connery's money. I have been reading Dick Van Dyke's bio and note that while filming CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG, Van Dyke's wife became ill. He told Cubby he needed to be with her while she underwent some tests. Cubby told her he would do the same thing, put his arm around him and said, "Don't worry, we'll shoot around you.". When Van Dyke returned to the film set, his agent informed him that his paycheck had been docked $80 grand for missing work. He did not want to speak to Cubby after that. Both Connery and Van Dyke are experienced actors, knowing how the business works and they blamed Cubby for the money problems. Hmmm. It always seemed that Connery had the larger issue with Harry Saltzman, only agreeing to work on the Bonds if Saltzman stayed away from the set. Tom Mankiewicz mentions this in his bio. But I am not so sure this is true as I have seen photos of Connery on the DAF set with both Broccoli and Saltzman, at several differant locations. I guess it makes good reading but one would like the true story.

[Miles Miservy]

I don't understand how everyone is so shocked over the contemptable relationship between Sean Connery & Cubby Broccoli. The bad blood between them is infamous. The deal he made w/ Warner Bros. in 1983 to do the pissawful remake NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is a well known pervebial middle finger to EON Productions. It was released in the theaters shortly after the release of Octopussy quite deliberately; the battle of the Bonds & all that (the latter being quite the better of the two).

As far as funeral services go, well... let's just say that death does funny things to people. If his business relationships are all as toxic as those who have posted here claim that they are, it might be interesting to see who honors his memory upon his demise.

[David_M]

I imagine the funeral was a no-win situation for Connery. If he skipped it, the headlines would be "Connery Clings To Grudge Against Dead Man" and if he did go, it would be "Too Little, Too Late: Remorseful Connery Honors Deceased Producer He Denigrated In Life" (or even, knowing the tabloids, "Broccoli Funeral Shocker: Connery Shows Up To Gloat").

All things considered, I don't blame him for staying home.

[glidrose]

Here is another thread on the subject; Connery Vs. Cubby

I thought this was a very interesting point;

"The sad truth is that Connery and Broccoli, both strong-willed men in an industry where cut-throat razors are virtually handed out at the studio gates, fell out badly."

Here's an interesting and eye-opening take. Connery, McClory & Deighton filed a lawsuit against Broccoli in 1976 claiming TSWLM plagiarized their own Warhead script. The judge dismissed Connery & co.'s claim. Let Christopher Wood “confess” all:

A surprise came when, with Cubby and Co., I subsequently bumped into Sean Connery in the MGM commissary at Los Angeles. Expecting all hell to break loose, I immediately looked around for a chair to wield but all was back-slapping and affability. In those days I knew less about how Hollywood worked. I did not realise that it was not uncommon to make a deal with someone you were suing concerning another deal. In Tinseltown, the point of litigation is not `to get even', but `to get even more'.

If you haven't read Wood's memoirs, do so. Now. It's often hilarious and a fast-paced read. Leaves you wanting more.

[Napoleon Solo]

I don't understand how everyone is so shocked over the contemptable relationship between Sean Connery & Cubby Broccoli. The bad blood between them is infamous. The deal he made w/ Warner Bros. in 1983 to do the pissawful remake NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is a well known pervebial middle finger to EON Productions. It was released in the theaters shortly after the release of Octopussy quite deliberately; the battle of the Bonds & all that (the latter being quite the better of the two).

As far as funeral services go, well... let's just say that death does funny things to people. If his business relationships are all as toxic as those who have posted here claim that they are, it might be interesting to see who honors his memory upon his demise.

At one point, NSNA was scheduled to be released *the week after* Octopussy. I remember seeing that in a list of summer releases published by USA Today in the late spring of 1983. But NSNA couldn't make that schedule and got delayed into the fall.

[S K Y F A L L]

Please wont somebody think of the children. : ) If only Connery didn't want so much and Chubby gave him a little more. If only their wasn't lawsuits from keeping the series going in the early 90s or Brosnan's wasn't held back from being Bond because of his Remington Steel contract etc etc. I don't know what that has to do with anything just ranting here.

[Blofelds Cat]

There's no doubt that Connery is generally a crabby old bastard who is a stereotypical Scot when it comes to the subject of money (being a Scot myself, I cannot be accused of the 'R' word on this point).

I'd have hoped that with the passing of time, Connery might have looked back on his days as 007 with a nostalgic sentimentality (just as Paul McCartney's attitude toward The Beatles 'thing' softened) but his determination to rain on the parade of the movie 007's fiftieth anniversary is, as far as this fan is concerned, simply the attitude of an inflexible and bitter old bugger who, at the very least, should have the good grace to acknowledge that playing James Bond gave his acting career the kind of kickstart for which many of his kith would have sold their Grannies into slavery.

Whether Connery cares to admit it or not, the association with 007 has kept his name in the mind's eye of audiences far longer than a good number of his contemporaries - the dramatic talents of many being far in excess of those of Sean Connery - and therefore far longer than he probably deserved. Any claims that Connery's popular resurgence in the latter years of his career would have happened in any event lies in the domain of the academic. The solitary and undisputed fact is that Connery was a popular and durable 007 and every venture in which Connery involved himself, following Bond, was as a direct consequence of the series of events which were his world-famous 007 years. It is plainly and simply pig-headed arrogance for claim that he owed nothing to 007, because Connery in fact owes EVERYTHING to 007.

I feel that Connery's skewed view on the 007 situation blinded him to one of the most ill-advised decisions of his career - turning-down the voicing of Finn McMissile in "Cars 2", a role that was clearly custom-made for Connery. New generations would have loved his voice as McMissile. What a you are, Mr Connery.

ahem....

[graric]

^I don't think Sean even gave a second thought to a role in Cars 2, or even heard about, given the simple fact that he had retired from acting for nearly a decade by that point in time!

As for Connery owing everything to Bond, the same could be said about Bond owing everything to Sean Connery! If some one like David Niven had got the part would the series have lasted for more than 2 films? (if it even got that far) And given the way Sean was actively taken part in interviews about his time on Bond since the late 80's, something he would have never done in the mid 70's, I would say his attitude has softened. (He has returned to the part 3 times! Twice in film and once in a Video Game, and these were hardly cynical attempts by him to get more money as his Diamonds pay cheque went towards making a charity!)

He has every right not to attend the Bond 50th events (which it has not been confirmed he won't) seeing as he retired from official public appearance's a few years ago! (And how big a deal would it really be, if Skyfall ends up being a masterpiece surely that is a much better way to celebrate the 50th?)

(PS: as for Paul McCartney and The Beatles, his attitude only 'softened' after John's death...and even more so after George's death when the only one around who could challenge McCarteny's attempts to re-colour aspects of the Beatle's history is Ringo. Back in the day every second interview would be John or Paul firing shots at one another, these days Paul insits they were constantly good mates who broke up the band because it felt like the right time to finish it)

[elizabeth]

Interesting thread. As for the funeral, people are gonna do what people are gonna do. Me, as a religious person, even though I might not like whoever died, wouldn't wish death on anyone and would show up. Sir Sean, however, isn't me. It's his own choice whether he wanted to show up or not.

[Mortenbond]

A word on Sean: My parents have some friends who are friends with Connery and his wife. They say that Sean Connery is a gruff old man with a grudge against most people. He does not give interviews, he does not give his autograph, he does not make movies, because he never gets along with the others making them. They even say he is not that bright and that he has - for some time now - had trouble remembering his lines. And from most news stories I read he does not come across as a very friendly person. Even Michael Caine shakes his head at Seans persistence not to sign autographs ("`cause he does not like people to sell them on ebay")

A word on Cubby: He is presented as this saintly person. It`s tha EON mythmakers working to make him a Walt Disney-like icon. He was a business man - shrewd, stingy and smart. It`s baffling to read his biography and all the stories in there about his cousin, Pat DeCiccio. DeCiccio seems to be Cubby idol. But nowhere in the book is anything written to suggest the real story about DeCiccio as a mafia hoodloom with blood on his hands. There`s even a story about a killing that involves Cubby himself. DeCiccio is the alleged culprit, but Cubby was with him when it happened. Google Pat DeCiccio and you can read all about it. In the early Hollywood years Cubby was almost certainly connected with the mob - through his cousin.

Broccoli writes in his biography that he was hurt that Sean felt he had been underpaid since he was paid what was in the contract. Well, no one expected the Bonds to be the success it became. And the contracts where not tuned to that, only paying Connery Dr. No rates, when the producers where getting Thunerball rates. He was locked in a contract where they could exploit the Connery asset, without the man being able to do the same. It would not have cost them to pay a bonus. As Barbs and Michale G. Wilson did towards Craig after the success of CS. They learn, those Broccolis.

So, I think this is the story of two very strong characters clashing. Both to blame.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

^I don't think Sean even gave a second thought to a role in Cars 2, or even heard about, given the simple fact that he had retired from acting for nearly a decade by that point in time!

As for Connery owing everything to Bond, the same could be said about Bond owing everything to Sean Connery! If some one like David Niven had got the part would the series have lasted for more than 2 films? (if it even got that far) And given the way Sean was actively taken part in interviews about his time on Bond since the late 80's, something he would have never done in the mid 70's, I would say his attitude has softened. (He has returned to the part 3 times! Twice in film and once in a Video Game, and these were hardly cynical attempts by him to get more money as his Diamonds pay cheque went towards making a charity!)

He has every right not to attend the Bond 50th events (which it has not been confirmed he won't) seeing as he retired from official public appearance's a few years ago! (And how big a deal would it really be, if Skyfall ends up being a masterpiece surely that is a much better way to celebrate the 50th?)

My thoughts exactly. I think that Terence Young was 100% spot-on when he said that the 3 elements which made Dr. No work were Sean Connery, Sean Connery and Sean Connery. Sir Sean most probably isn't as nice person as Sir Roger and I understand if he does want to take part in 50th Anniversary hulabaloo - he certainly would be center of attention and he doesn't want that. And when it comes to Cubby's funeral - he did give his sympathies to Dana, the one whom it mattered the most. The fact is that Sir Sean made Bond as much as Bond made Sir Sean.

Edited by AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän, 26 September 2012 - 07:42 AM.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

I just watched Everything Or Nothing-documentary, and I have to say that Barbara's story of Sean calling Cubby strangled my throat. I am happy that in the end they made peace.

[Panavision]

This sort of thing happens in everyday life, but in film it's exaggerated. Of course this is to do with money, but I don't think Sean was being greedy, as we know, he donated his DAF fee to a drama school! Watch his 1971 interview on YouTube conducted by the BBC where he talks about knowing how it felt to be without money. Perhaps he wanted more money to fund his personal endeavours? The business is between Sean and EON. We don't know the full story, never will.

 

Writing as a fan, it's disappointing that Sean didn't come out and talk shop about Bond this year. He's very much interested in the series, he's probably one of the first to watch the latest entry. In some ways, I actually prefer watching Sean in his non-Bond roles, they are more fascinating and interesting.

 

I love Roger Moore, awesome in interviews and generally nice to his fans, but let's not forget that he played hardball when negotiating with Cubby after Moonraker. The difference was that Cubby/UA paid Moore's increasing fees and probably got a nice backend deal too. You got to ask yourself, why Moore is so involved with the 50th anniversary? He got paid well and eternally grateful.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Moore and Connery are two very different people. If you are insinuating money is the only reason for their differing attitudes to the Bond franchise, you are mistaken.

[Panavision]

Unless you are an insider, it's perhaps best not to write "you are mistaken."

 

I think money is one of the reasons, but perhaps not the defining one.

With Moore, he got a better deal, he learned a lot from the way Sean was dealt with by UA. 

I agree that they different people, but when it comes to money, it tends to bring out the ugly side of the human psyche. 

[plankattack]

Writing as a fan, it's disappointing that Sean didn't come out and talk shop about Bond this year. He's very much interested in the series, he's probably one of the first to watch the latest entry. In some ways, I actually prefer watching Sean in his non-Bond roles, they are more fascinating and interesting.
 

But SC has in the past, talked a bit of shop. Go to Youtube and search for "South Bank Show - James Bond special" - it's a special edition of the show and SC does talk extensively (by his standards!) about Bond.

I read back through this thread and found I've always been quite defensive about SC's position in regards to EON/Cubby?Harry etc. SC, rightly or wrongly, believes that he was as responsible as Young/EON/UA for Bond's original on-screen success (and IMHO I agree that after Fleming himself, there was no one party that can claim sole credit for Bond's cinematic standing). I don't blame SC for not being so effusive during the 50-year celebration - he sees a franchise that has vacuumed up profits which inside he feels are partly his.

The rumours about the Kincade part are fascinating - who it was written for, who was considered for the part etc, but I don't for a moment think that SC would have accepted it. Unless he was offered a share of EON!

I think it's fan emotion that has us wanting everyone to get along and love being part of Bond etc, but for SC, he sees himself as a worker who was never appreciated by his boss. Surely we all know that feeling, no?

[Panavision]

Yeah, forgotten about that. Wonder if he is friends with Melvyn Bragg? 

 

Sean has done so much outside of Bond, I would love to hear his thoughts on Highlander and Man Who Would Be King etc. I always enjoyed his performances in other films. 

[graric]

Yeah, forgotten about that. Wonder if he is friends with Melvyn Bragg? 

 

Sean has done so much outside of Bond, I would love to hear his thoughts on Highlander and Man Who Would Be King etc. I always enjoyed his performances in other films. 

Never seen anything to suggest he is friends with Melvyn Bragg...and that interview is not incredibly out of the ordinary (more extensive than most he does, but hardly the only time he talks about Bond):
He did a very extensive interview for the Bond 30th Anniversary Documentary (most of the clips for the DVD documentaries of each Connery film come from this interview session.)
Just looking up 'Sean Connery talks James Bond' you see him talking with people like Jimmy Carter and Dame Edna!

 Also there is an interview with him at the 2006 Edinburgh International Film Festival talking about Bond and his opinion on Craig.

In all these interviews he does not appear anything close to a man holding a grudge...suggesting the most likely reason he did not take part in any 50th Anniversary Bond activity remains the fact that he has retired from all types of public appearances!

I cannot remember seeing any interviews where he talks in depth about Highlander, but there are several around where he talks about Man Who Would Be King (and it seems to be one of his personal favourite films he has made.)
 

[Mallory]

Didn't Connery call Cubby just weeks before he died and they had a nice chat?

 

I sense he was bitter towards Cubby for a long time but they seem to have made up just in time. 

[Piz Gloria 1969]

Most celebs are aware of ebay , a person who has 2-3 items he/she wants to get signed isn't nessesarily a dealer. Dealers usually comes with a stack of 8x10s they want signed.......

 

It's the same thing with Colonel Parker and GHs Raymond Chow , they were also shrewd biz men (Golden Harvest was rumored to be financed by Triads as well and Chow prolly had 2 seperate account books)

 

I dunno.....500k for TB in '65 sounds like a pretty good payday to me , not exactly small potatoes  

Edited by Piz Gloria 1969, 28 December 2012 - 07:26 PM.

[FlemingBond]

yes, but as far as Moore being paid well, Connery was paid very well for DAF. If he had wanted to go back for more after that surely he would have gotten a nice contract, so why he complained later about being unfairly paid i don't know.

[Turn]

I know one of Connery's complaints about money was his image being used to sell endless merchandise at the height of Bondmania. That was back before artists got any part of those profits as they do now. The Beatles had the same sort of thing when their manager signed away their rights with little to show in return. I can't say I blame him there, but you can't go back and change it.

 

He'd often said growing up in poverty in Scotland led to his wanting to get every penny he thought due to him, which was debatable as to what is considered fair. Michael Caine has said the same thing as far as his work ethic stemming from his background, but not nearly as prone to sue somebody or slam them publically, but continuing to work, whether that means starring in bad pictures or not. The funny thing is I can name more prestige pictures Caine has been in and fewer that Connery has been in.

 

That's where Connery is controversial. Was it about money or fairness or what? He broke away from Bond to be artistically fulfilled and avoid the lengthy shooting schedules and intrusion on his privacy. But money was important as well, so why not continue in that vein, or even negotiate a deal with Charlie Feldman to play Bond in Casino Royale '67? It could've been a huge payday and a slap at Eon.

[FlemingBond]

well from what i read he did tell Feldman he would do it for $1,000,000, and Feldman decided against it.

[Turn]

well from what i read he did tell Feldman he would do it for $1,000,000, and Feldman decided against it.

Yeah, strange, isn't it? The comment I've seen is "they could never afford me." So Feldman supposedly turned Connery's offer down but threw untold other millions into the mess that was that film. Makes you wonder what type of pressure Eon may have been applying at the time to both Connery and Feldman. If they went after the producers of The Man From UNCLE for using the name of a minor character in Goldfinger for their lead character it would have had to be bigger here, although Feldman clearly owned the rights to CR.