47 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

It sure is frightening to have so many people rush at you, blocking your way. To remain friendly is only possible if you don´t feel threatened. Connery obviously was angry because he was mobbed here. I feel for him. No celebrity should fear their fans.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 12 September 2012 - 04:32 AM.

[tdalton]

As for the video, I thought it was scary there when Connery disappeared under a mountain of photos getting shoved at him, and I can only imagine what it feel like to be the object of that kind of stampede, especially at an advanced age. The only thing that shocks me about that video is that Connery's companions/handlers would abandon him to such a mobbing. As of right now, I resolve that in the unlikely event I ever cross paths with Sir Sean, I'll give him a respectful nod from a respectable distance and leave the man some space. At some point fans need to acknowledge that the best way to "pay tribute" to a star is to let them live their lives with more dignity than a caged animal in a zoo.

You know, Connery has had to put up with all the over-zealous fans shoving things in his face to sign and have photographers follow him everywhere he goes for 50 plus years, including into the men's room which is one reason why he quit Bond after YOLT, that I don't blame him for getting all cranky..and I don't need to watch this video to see it.. Let the man have his peace for godsake! I have NO qualms about him chosing NOT to participate in the 50th anniversary celebrations, though it would be cool if he issued some sort of statement which could be read at the anniversary dinner or whatever.. I seem to recall that when he politely declined the 40th anniversary and Die Another Day premiere, he made a brief statement.. Also, as to his bitterness towards the Bond series, it was just a few years ago that he was happily interviewed and complimented Daniel Craig after Casino Royale..so I'm inclined to not totally believe everything to the extend that National Enquirer wants us to.. Yes, I do think he does still remain upset at how Cubby and Harry could have cut him for a bigger slice of the Bond pie but I would hope anyways Sean has to be pleased that the franchise has survived half a century.

Well said, both of you. I couldn't agree more.

I certainly don't begrudge Connery at all for not wanting to appear. Given the hysteria that surrounds just about everything that has to do with him and Bond, not to mention the current paparazzi-driven media climate that surrounds anything that has to do with a celebrity, I'd stay away as well.

Edited by tdalton, 12 September 2012 - 04:37 AM.

[Odd Jobbies]

Well, sorry, but that certainly dampens any hope of a special 50th anniversary re-union between all 6 James Bond actors. Funny how someone of such iconic status in the industry can still be so bitter to the films that made him a superstar of global recognition and there is no evident passion to celebrate the character at least with fellow actors, friends and fans.

Who's to say the Bond franchise would've made it past the first movie without Sean's presence...?

I think he played far greater a role in it's longevity than a mere 'one-fiftieth'.

So, if big Sean doesn't fancy toasting the franchise of which he had a very active role in establishing, yet a very passive role in its profits, then that's his business and good for him - not many in the TV/Movie business have principals they're prepared to stand by..

I'm not slighting Eon, since in fairness i know nothing but the gossip, but just for argument's sake and to make a comparison, Sean famously donated all of his fee for DAF (the largest in history at the time) to charity... When was the last time Eon donated all of their profits (after wages were paid) to charity ? (this is where someone gives me a list of Eon's unerring benevolence and i scuttle off, corrected )

Just saying that if we were to judge on the very little we know, then we have more evidence of Sean's good character, in terms of economic ethics, than of those on the other side of the argument, so we shouldn't judge or begrudge Sean his moral stand.

But of course it is indeed a huge shame for the masses of his loyal fans who might've enjoyed the morsels of his participation we'd have beed thrown.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 12 September 2012 - 09:42 AM.

[David_M]

Well, I should say here that while I wouldn't be surprised if Connery skipped the event (it seems likely), I'm also not pre-disposed to accept the motivations offered by a rag like the Enquirer. I think they're reaching their own conclusions with the "motive" that will best drive circulation. "Bitter to the grave" sounds so much juicier than "happier watching television" or "has to be in bed by 7:30."

Unless I missed something, Connery's publicist never said "Sean ain't going because Eon is Evil," and I seriously doubt the Enquirer has an "insider" who knows any more about what Sir Sean is thinking than any of us do.

I'm in the "he won't be there but he will send a taped greeting" camp.

[Dustin]

Well, I should say here that while I wouldn't be surprised if Connery skipped the event (it seems likely), I'm also not pre-disposed to accept the motivations offered by a rag like the Enquirer. I think they're reaching their own conclusions with the "motive" that will best drive circulation. "Bitter to the grave" sounds so much juicier than "happier watching television" or "has to be in bed by 7:30."

Unless I missed something, Connery's publicist never said "Sean ain't going because Eon is Evil," and I seriously doubt the Enquirer has an "insider" who knows any more about what Sir Sean is thinking than any of us do.

I'm in the "he won't be there but he will send a taped greeting" camp.

Well said. At his age the man is entitled to spending his time the way he wants. If memory serves the hype around Bond used to be one of the points that drove Connery to pursue his career elsewhere. It's entirely understandable if he doesn't want to bow his head in the autumn of his life to the craze he never quite like about the role.

[doublenoughtspy]

I'm not slighting Eon, since in fairness i know nothing but the gossip, but just for argument's sake and to make a comparison, Sean famously donated all of his fee for DAF (the largest in history at the time) to charity... When was the last time Eon donated all of their profits (after wages were paid) to charity ? (this is where someone gives me a list of Eon's unerring benevolence and i scuttle off, corrected )

Ah this famous chestnut.

1) Yes, Sean donated his upfront fee to his charity. However, he made 4-5 times that amount on the back end in profit participation. You don't think he did DAF for free do you?
2) He put the upfront money for the charity in the bank he owned. More deposits mean a bank can lend more - and make more profits.

I'm not suggesting that Sean did anything unethical - just that you look at ultimately how he made a very smart tax and public relations move - that if you follow where it went, you'll see that he personally benefitted in other ways.

I don't have a laundry list of Eon's charity efforts, but I know that they donated some incredibly valuable pieces for the upcoming Oct 5 auction - and I would bet it will raise some serious money.

[jrcjohnny99]

I guess I shouldn't be...but I'm a little surprised by all the apologists here.
The idea that Connery has a problem with the hoopla surrounding Bond would only be acceptable if, when he quit after YOLT, he stayed out of the franchise.
The fact that he spent most of the 70's trying to get 'Warhead' off the ground would suggest that he had no problem at all with the frenzy around Bond, just that he didn't want to work for Eon; which at the end of the day was ALL about money.
Connery did a LOT of promotion for NSNA; hardly the actions of a man that wanted off the Bond carousel.
I admire Connery as an actor greatly, not only as Bond, but some of his work in the late 60s thru to the 80s was terrific (The Man Who Would Be King, The Hill, The Offence etc) but he has built a reputation within the industry and across the media as someone who is difficult to work with and puts money ahead of any other consideration (one of the main reasons he chose not to do some very iconic roles).
Connery has a reputation for fighting tooth and nail for salary demands and top billing credit; A famous example is 'The Hunt For Red October' where Connery's contract stipulated only his name could be above the title in all advertising despite Baldwin having the leading role...note, that's not just that Connery wanted his name first, his name had to be the ONLY one above the title.
When you insist and fight for that level of credit and recognition in this day and age, you have to accept the 'celebrity' that goes with it, and while I agree the paparazzi and overbearing fans are something that is extremely unpleasant to deal with, it is a part of the deal these days.
Had Connery shown a little more humility over the years I'd have a LOT more sympathy with him and I do feel that his attitude towards Eon (who took a chance on him and made him a star; regardless of anything else) and the official franchise is churlish to say the least.

[doublenoughtspy]

The fact that he spent most of the 70's trying to get 'Warhead' off the ground would suggest that he had no problem at all with the frenzy around Bond, just that he didn't want to work for Eon; which at the end of the day was ALL about money.
Connery did a LOT of promotion for NSNA; hardly the actions of a man that wanted off the Bond carousel.

Yes, it is about money. He had a big profit participation in NSNA. He got some serious cash for the FRWL video game. It is a pretty simple equation: you give Sean a piece of the pie, Bond or not, he shows up. If you don't, he won't.

While we as fans look at the 50th stuff as a celebration of the whole series, notice how these events revolve around Skyfall.

"Hey Sean, can you help us promote a movie you have nothing to do with, no profit participation at all. Please?"

Click.

"Hello? Sean are you there?"

Had Connery shown a little more humility over the years I'd have a LOT more sympathy with him and I do feel that his attitude towards Eon (who took a chance on him and made him a star; regardless of anything else) and the official franchise is churlish to say the least.

It would be a very different story had Eon made Sean more of a partner, as multiple Eon directors told them they should.

Connery felt he should have gotten a bigger piece of the pie, but Eon felt he was adequately compensated.

Eon, as the producers, took all the financial risks. Sean was simply the employee.

He just showed up, did his work, and got paid. Had the films not done well he certainly wouldn't have taken a hit like the producers would have.

But Sean's anger was compounded by the fact that as the Bond film schedules kept lengthening, he couldn't do more than 1 non-Eon a film a year.

Neither side is lily white.

And I can bet that if Eon threw a lot of money at Sean or a charity of his choice, he would probably show up.

[Odd Jobbies]

I'm not slighting Eon, since in fairness i know nothing but the gossip, but just for argument's sake and to make a comparison, Sean famously donated all of his fee for DAF (the largest in history at the time) to charity... When was the last time Eon donated all of their profits (after wages were paid) to charity ? (this is where someone gives me a list of Eon's unerring benevolence and i scuttle off, corrected )

Ah this famous chestnut.

1) Yes, Sean donated his upfront fee to his charity. However, he made 4-5 times that amount on the back end in profit participation. You don't think he did DAF for free do you?
2) He put the upfront money for the charity in the bank he owned. More deposits mean a bank can lend more - and make more profits.

I'm not suggesting that Sean did anything unethical - just that you look at ultimately how he made a very smart tax and public relations move - that if you follow where it went, you'll see that he personally benefitted in other ways.

I don't have a laundry list of Eon's charity efforts, but I know that they donated some incredibly valuable pieces for the upcoming Oct 5 auction - and I would bet it will raise some serious money.

Sean's donation formed the Scottish International Education Trust - a very worthy creation IMO - showing his willingness to put his money where his mouth was and manifest something to enforce the belief's he espoused.

As for Eon's auction donations, i wonder how they would compare to Sean's donation, which was £1.25million - £20million in today money.

[jrcjohnny99]

The fact that he spent most of the 70's trying to get 'Warhead' off the ground would suggest that he had no problem at all with the frenzy around Bond, just that he didn't want to work for Eon; which at the end of the day was ALL about money.
Connery did a LOT of promotion for NSNA; hardly the actions of a man that wanted off the Bond carousel.

Yes, it is about money. He had a big profit participation in NSNA. He got some serious cash for the FRWL video game. It is a pretty simple equation: you give Sean a piece of the pie, Bond or not, he shows up. If you don't, he won't.

While we as fans look at the 50th stuff as a celebration of the whole series, notice how these events revolve around Skyfall.

"Hey Sean, can you help us promote a movie you have nothing to do with, no profit participation at all. Please?"

Click.

"Hello? Sean are you there?"

Had Connery shown a little more humility over the years I'd have a LOT more sympathy with him and I do feel that his attitude towards Eon (who took a chance on him and made him a star; regardless of anything else) and the official franchise is churlish to say the least.

It would be a very different story had Eon made Sean more of a partner, as multiple Eon directors told them they should.

Connery felt he should have gotten a bigger piece of the pie, but Eon felt he was adequately compensated.

Eon, as the producers, took all the financial risks. Sean was simply the employee.

He just showed up, did his work, and got paid. Had the films not done well he certainly wouldn't have taken a hit like the producers would have.

But Sean's anger was compounded by the fact that as the Bond film schedules kept lengthening, he couldn't do more than 1 non-Eon a film a year.

Neither side is lily white.

And I can bet that if Eon threw a lot of money at Sean or a charity of his choice, he would probably show up.

we both agree that it all comes down to money; but i'm not sure what Eon did wrong. They took a guy from obscurity to superstardom and wanted to cash in (just as Connery cashed in on his new found fame with huge salaries for Shalako, Anderson Tapes etc). The idea that Connery was in some way badly treated by Eon is ludicrous; if only the rest of us could be so badly treated by our bosses.

[doublenoughtspy]

we both agree that it all comes down to money; but i'm not sure what Eon did wrong. They took a guy from obscurity to superstardom and wanted to cash in (just as Connery cashed in on his new found fame with huge salaries for Shalako, Anderson Tapes etc). The idea that Connery was in some way badly treated by Eon is ludicrous; if only the rest of us could be so badly treated by our bosses.

I am not making the argument that Connery was badly treated.

He felt he wasn't paid well enough. You can agree or not agree.

But when you look at other stars of the time, like say Dean Martin and the Bond knock off Matt Helm films - he made 10 times what Connery did even at the height of his Bond salary days.

Don't you think it is a bit out of whack when the knock off makes 10 times what the original does?

And while films going over schedule are hardly unheard of, it made Connery's life (both personal and professional) more difficult.

OHMSS went 3 months over schedule - how on earth could Lazenby do a 2nd film in a year when he was filming OHMSS for 9 1/2 months? He couldn't and it was one of the reasons he wanted out.

Can Eon do no wrong in your eyes?

Would you call their treatment of Brosnan in 1986 and 2004 totally above reproach? Sure, Eon resurrected his career and paid him millions of dollars. But there were also 2 films they pulled out from under him.

[S K Y F A L L]

we both agree that it all comes down to money; but i'm not sure what Eon did wrong. They took a guy from obscurity to superstardom and wanted to cash in (just as Connery cashed in on his new found fame with huge salaries for Shalako, Anderson Tapes etc). The idea that Connery was in some way badly treated by Eon is ludicrous; if only the rest of us could be so badly treated by our bosses.

I am not making the argument that Connery was badly treated.

He felt he wasn't paid well enough. You can agree or not agree.

But when you look at other stars of the time, like say Dean Martin and the Bond knock off Matt Helm films - he made 10 times what Connery did even at the height of his Bond salary days.

Don't you think it is a bit out of whack when the knock off makes 10 times what the original does?

And while films going over schedule are hardly unheard of, it made Connery's life (both personal and professional) more difficult.

OHMSS went 3 months over schedule - how on earth could Lazenby do a 2nd film in a year when he was filming OHMSS for 9 1/2 months? He couldn't and it was one of the reasons he wanted out.

Can Eon do no wrong in your eyes?

Would you call their treatment of Brosnan in 1986 and 2004 totally above reproach? Sure, Eon resurrected his career and paid him millions of dollars. But there were also 2 films they pulled out from under him.

What happened in 1986? I know he was offered the role but couldn't take it because of Remington Steel but that's it and in 2004 they said he would be back for a 5th but didn't.

[Dustin]

we both agree that it all comes down to money; but i'm not sure what Eon did wrong. They took a guy from obscurity to superstardom and wanted to cash in (just as Connery cashed in on his new found fame with huge salaries for Shalako, Anderson Tapes etc). The idea that Connery was in some way badly treated by Eon is ludicrous; if only the rest of us could be so badly treated by our bosses.

I am not making the argument that Connery was badly treated.

He felt he wasn't paid well enough. You can agree or not agree.

But when you look at other stars of the time, like say Dean Martin and the Bond knock off Matt Helm films - he made 10 times what Connery did even at the height of his Bond salary days.

Don't you think it is a bit out of whack when the knock off makes 10 times what the original does?

And while films going over schedule are hardly unheard of, it made Connery's life (both personal and professional) more difficult.

OHMSS went 3 months over schedule - how on earth could Lazenby do a 2nd film in a year when he was filming OHMSS for 9 1/2 months? He couldn't and it was one of the reasons he wanted out.

Can Eon do no wrong in your eyes?

Would you call their treatment of Brosnan in 1986 and 2004 totally above reproach? Sure, Eon resurrected his career and paid him millions of dollars. But there were also 2 films they pulled out from under him.

All that is doubtlessly right. But is it really pivotal for Connery's decision? I really suppose the man just wants to spend his days as he likes, not as somebody else thinks he should.

[Invincible1958]

Would you call their treatment of Brosnan in 1986 and 2004 totally above reproach? Sure, Eon resurrected his career and paid him millions of dollars. But there were also 2 films they pulled out from under him.

There was no contract for a fifths film, so EON did nothing to Brosnan.
And in 1986 Brosnan had to do Remington Steel, and that had nothing to do with EON.

[doublenoughtspy]

All that is doubtlessly right. But is it really pivotal for Connery's decision? I really suppose the man just wants to spend his days as he likes, not as somebody else thinks he should.

Oh I agree. I doubt Sean harbors a monumental grudge. He probably just isn't interested.

It's the same with Dalton. People bring up Bond, and he says "Yes I did it. But that was 20+ years ago." It was a couple films in a long career.

We totally see the 6 lead actors through the prism of Bond.

They do not see themselves that way.

There was no contract for a fifths film, so EON did nothing to Brosnan.
And in 1986 Brosnan had to do Remington Steel, and that had nothing to do with EON.

There was no written contract for a 5th film, but Brosnan claims there was a verbal agreement he would do a 5th.

And regarding Remington Steele, you are right - it was not Eon that renewed that series. But the Remington producers were willing to share Brosnan and work around the Daylights schedule to allow him to do both. Eon pulled the plug and said no.

[S K Y F A L L]

At least Connery was able to make it out for that tennis match and Roger Moore for the Blu Ray photo opportunity.

IMO

Its not like Connery has to do much, just go to a small closed set for a photo with the other Bonds maybe a few words. But its not like it is needed, just something everyone wants to see.

[Dustin]

It's the same with Dalton. People bring up Bond, and he says "Yes I did it. But that was 20+ years ago." It was a couple films in a long career.

We totally see the 6 lead actors through the prism of Bond.

They do not see themselves that way.

This is the crucial point. Bond in the lives and careers of these actors wasn't and isn't everything. The only thing we can do about this is accept it.

[Loomis]

Actually, if you watch after that video and other similar celeb signing videos are previewed, half of them are pretty stressed and seemingly a bit rude...I mean, the fans made them who they are and simply want to admire them and their work. Check out the Sly one, ok so he does make a d**k of himself before, but he's well cranky after... any celeb who does this in a positive way really is a quality professional in my opinion. If they don't want to sign things, and put up with major fans of their work, don't go down the route of a global star actor as you KNOW what to expect - don't take your own stress out on the fans.

By "the Sly one" are you referring to the vid in which Stallone seems to whack himself in the nuts by walking into a pole? To his credit he appears to see the funny side of it almost immediately - I didn't detect any particular crankiness from him, but perhaps you were referring to a different clip.