Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Who first decided Blofeld had potential? Fleming or EON?


13 replies to this topic

#1 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 19 December 2014 - 12:26 AM

The first Bond film is in production in 1962. I guess a script was ready in 1961. I further guess that Dr No's Spectre affiliation was in that script and that Fleming himself was allowed to read the script.

 

Meanwhile Fleming published Thunderball in 1961. He's writing TSWLM that year. Bond tells VM that the top man got away. Fleming doesn't write OHMSS until 1962.

 

Is it a coincidence that both author and filmmakers thought Blofeld had potential? Or did the filmmakers' decision to use Spectre as early on as DN influence Fleming? I can't see Fleming telling EON that Blofeld will be a recurring character and therefore the filmmakers should make the most of Spectre.



#2 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 19 December 2014 - 07:04 AM

This is actually a very good question.

Sellers' THE BATTLE FOR BOND mentions the idea of a faceless behind-the-scenes villain had featured in one of the early Whittingham outlines or scrips, back when the Thunderball operation was still a Mafia plan and neither SPECTRE nor Blofeld himself had yet been invented. It had always been McClory's general thrust of argument that during this illfated venture the groundwork was laid not just for the THUNDERBALL film but for the entire concept of Bond on screen. That's of course taking things very far, but at closer inspection one can see how his arguments - supposedly having the rights to do the first Bond film - might have actually landed him a much greater piece of the action than he finally did. As is the final verdict of the courts on this was damaging enough for the series and - much worse - for the people afflicted by it.

Anyway, this is an interesting question as the TB (novel) version of Blofeld doesn't tally with the OHMSS version and the book between those two doesn't even mention the character. And it is indeed not very likely Fleming informed Eon he intended to reuse the character as a major villain in the future. Not just was Fleming happy enough to come up with a new book each year, the actual rights to the character and organisation were still debatable with the entire TB novel up in the air to some extent - though printed and published and selling like mad due to the unwelcome attention the case drew.

Since the general idea of Eon was to do a whole series of Bond films perhaps the need for some kind of connecting factor had been detected early on and SPECTRE just happened to materialise at the right moment.

#3 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 19 December 2014 - 07:39 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the original intention of Messrs. Saltzman and Broccoli to film as the first Bond adventure the book "Thunderball" in 1962, but that they changed their minds - perhaps concerned about possible legal ramifications? - and switched to the book "Dr No", but retained the SPECTRE connection? I've even read somewhere that the idea of Dr No being the villain's pet monkey was in a script which referred to the villain as "Buchfield" (Blofeld in all but very similar name?)



#4 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 19 December 2014 - 08:34 AM

Saltzman already had an option (six months) on all books save CR, according to THE BATTLE FOR BOND. He met Broccoli who was interested and had connections to United Artists. They struck a deal over a budget of one million dollars that did not specify their first title (August '61). Naturally they wanted to make use of THUNDERBALL's publicity and they hired Maibaum to write a script. Their next move - after having been warned by UA's legal dep. - was to try and find an agreement with McClory. But the Irishman gambled too high and his demands would have seriously dented Eon's funds for their first film.

Which brings up the topic of how they intended to realistically bring THUNDERBALL on screen with a mere one million dollars, the budget that ended up as DR NO's. I'd say the TB script called for several times that amount.

At any rate, McClory had to grind his teeth but remained a thorn in Eon's side. Seller's book states that there have been various claims Blofeld was invented much earlier, but no written proof supposedly exists to back these claims.

#5 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 19 December 2014 - 11:35 AM

Good question.

 

Hadn't considered this.



#6 FlemingBond

FlemingBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 610 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Az U.S.

Posted 19 December 2014 - 03:47 PM

That's an interesting question, how Dr. No ended up in SPECTRE. 



#7 SAWfinger

SAWfinger

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 48 posts

Posted 22 December 2014 - 11:08 AM

I think the decision to include Dr. Julius No as a member of SPECTRE could be interpreted in a number of ways: one possibility is that the producers were already hopeful that they could get 3-4 films out of the Fleming novels (they had no idea at the time how successful the series would actually become), so having SPECTRE in there from the beginning would provide some continuity to a 3-4 film series. Another possibility is that it was a bit of a 'dig' at McClory: yes, Broccoli and Saltzman had backed off filming Thunderball because of the legal issues surrounding it in 1961-62, but they were still marking out their 'territory' (so to speak) and signalling to McClory that he was not getting SPECTRE/Blofeld all to himself. Another possibility is that, by then, the 1950s Cold War idea of having a pro-Soviet SMERSH-style villain was becoming increasingly outdated: SPECTRE was more 'neutral' in a sense - it was a ruthless private-sector crime network and, as Dr. No himself makes it clear to Bond in the movie, SPECTRE had no loyalties to either West or East - both 'points on the compass', both as bad as each other (he claims). The other thing we need to remember, I think, is that the infamous court case involving Fleming and McClory/Whittingham was not the decisive victory for McClory as people sometimes seem to assume: it was a fairly close-run thing. The evidence is that Fleming's legal reps wanted him to fight on and were fairly confident they could win: however, Fleming himself, by then suffering serious health issues, in the end decided to settle. But the fact that it was a close-run thing perhaps gave Broccoli and Saltzman a little more confidence that SPECTRE/Blofeld was not necessarily just 'owned' by McClory - all he really gained were certain rights to Thunderball - and, in the end, even he realized the only way he could proceed was to come to an accommodation with Broccoli and Saltzman and agree to co-produce a movie version of Thunderball with the two EON producers. The 'Dr. No as a monkey' idea was indeed in an early draft of the screenplay, but (thankfully!) was dropped as a bad idea. The thing that I really regret is that Joseph Wiseman himself never really gave a full interview in his lifetime about his role as 'No'. At the time, he saw it very much as just another movie, and was quite dismissive of the role. However, over the years he mellowed a bit about it, but still never really gave a full interview about it. Had he done so, we might have gained some interesting insights into the SPECTRE aspects, etc. I personally think he made an excellent job of the role.  


Edited by SAWfinger, 22 December 2014 - 12:09 PM.


#8 SAWfinger

SAWfinger

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 48 posts

Posted 22 December 2014 - 01:49 PM

Hello again. Somebody has just pointed out to me that, in relation to one of my suggestions in my previous post, the chronology surrounding the court case does not support my theory. Well, possibly, to a point: however, I would point out that McClory, as soon as he read an advance copy of Fleming's novel outline in March, 1961, quickly petitioned the UK courts to stop the publication of the novel, and he was granted an injunction in the same month; he was also advised that he could pursue the case further, which he quickly did. Court cases and the build-up to them can take a long time to prepare and be heard. Although it was not heard until November, 1963 (i.e. after the UK release of Dr. No), Broccoli and Saltzman kept a close watch on the developments in the run-up to the court case, and were certainly aware of the controversy during the actual production of Dr. No. I still feel that the decision to have Julius No be made a member of SPECTRE (and, moreover, the decision to continue with the SPECTRE theme in From Russia, With Love), was possibly a way of having a 'dig' at McClory and his claims to ownership of the organisation and character of Blofeld.


Edited by SAWfinger, 22 December 2014 - 01:50 PM.


#9 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 22 December 2014 - 08:20 PM

This is actually a very good question.


Thank you!


Anyway, this is an interesting question as the TB (novel) version of Blofeld doesn't tally with the OHMSS version and the book between those two doesn't even mention the character.


I agree that the TB Blofeld and OHMSS Blofeld do not tally. In fact I noticed that when I first read the two novels! However TSWLM does mention Blofeld, tho' not by name. Bond tells Viv that the top man got away. As an aside, this bedtime story has some striking coincidences with Fleming's own story TLD which I believe was written the same year as TSWLM: 1961.


And it is indeed not very likely Fleming informed Eon he intended to reuse the character as a major villain in the future.


Or perhaps he did? As TB was indeed the first scripted Bond film, would Fleming have also not read that script just to give his opinion? Guy Haines' own theory posted above makes sense, namely that the producers didn't want to make the Russians the villains, so just used Spectre.

Ultimately though it's an interesting question, and probably one we'll never satisfactorily answer. Not unless Fleming put something in writing in his correspondence and said correspondence just so happens to be in the Fleming archives.


I've even read somewhere that the idea of Dr No being the villain's pet monkey was in a script which referred to the villain as "Buchfield" (Blofeld in all but very similar name?)


Another interesting theory. Notice how the idea of a villain and his distinguishing pet gets carried over in FRWL onwards... Calling Mr. Bigglesworth!

#10 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 22 December 2014 - 11:23 PM

I think Ian Fleming himself wasn't too keen in carrying on with just the Russians as villains, and for a very prescient reason; possible future sales of his books in the Eastern Bloc itself. I certainly think that's the reason the film producers tread very carefully when it comes to villainy on screen. I can think of only one Bond film in which the Russians are backing the bad guys, namely FYEO in 1981, and even then remotely, settling on a truce in the end.

 

Certainly there are Russian villains in several of the other films, but they are usually rogue agents or power crazed types such as General Orlov whose actions are disavowed by their own side. This theme of not linking the villains directly to a particular country's government even extended to "flavour of the month" bad guys North Korea in DAD, with Colonel Moon/Gustav Graves own father General Moon being disapproving of his son's activities. Oddly enough, one country which definitely got linked to the villain's schemes was "Red China" - they provided Goldfinger with his "atomic device". (A nice touch that, because in 1964 when the Chinese first tested a nuclear bomb, "atomic device" was what they described it as!). They almost certainly were SPECTRE's backers in YOLT, providing the rockets and other equipment used. I can only imagine that, at the time - Cultural Revolution and all - the prospects of Bond being popular in Peking, as it was then known, seemed slim to none.

 

So that may be another reason I think that Blofeld and SPECTRE had potential - business prospects overriding politics when it came to the books and the films.



#11 Major Tallon

Major Tallon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2107 posts
  • Location:Mid-USA

Posted 22 December 2014 - 11:46 PM

Guy Haines' explanation strikes me as right on the money, though I'll point out in passing that the other nation that doesn't fare too well in the films is Cuba, repeatedly portrayed as a safe haven for spies (FYEO), drug dealers (LTK), and assorted evildoers with weapons of mass destruction (GF, DAD).



#12 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 23 December 2014 - 01:27 AM

Thank you for your kind comments, Major. Cuba has indeed also been a haven for baddies in Bond films, although that didn't stop Bond activating a "sleeper" agent in DAD. I wonder if the thawing of relations between the US and Cuba will change the way the place is portrayed in Bond films?

 

Going a bit off topic, the other thing one notices about Bond's adversaries on screen and to an extent in the novels is that, well, you don't have to be a Bond villain to be rich, but you do have to be rich to be a Bond villain (Usually!). I can think of few main adversaries 007 has encountered who aren't in the multi-millionaire or even billionaire bracket. All of which makes the complaint by some that Bond is a tool of "Western capitalist-imperialism" etc. etc. seem a bit odd. The truth is that on screen Bond has finished off more big business villains than any of his former Soviet opposite numbers could have managed. Which doesn't make him an unlikely "revolutionary" - just that as a man of expensive tastes himself, he tends to find his adversaries are also similarly inclined.



#13 The*SPY*

The*SPY*

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 85 posts

Posted 24 December 2014 - 04:28 AM

ON a related topic:  I've always wondered how McClory's Blofeld in NSNA was able to have the white cat, as surely that was a creation of the Bond producers (I don't recollect Fleming's Blofeld as having a cat).  Is this a 'take-away" from the Thunderball movie rights that McClory gained in producing Thunderball?



#14 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 25 December 2014 - 05:19 PM

And it is indeed not very likely Fleming informed Eon he intended to reuse the character as a major villain in the future.

Or perhaps he did? As TB was indeed the first scripted Bond film, would Fleming have also not read that script just to give his opinion? Guy Haines' own theory posted above makes sense, namely that the producers didn't want to make the Russians the villains, so just used Spectre.

It's of course possible, no doubt about that. And without any proper form of written documentation it will be impossible to rule this out entirely.

Yet, I somehow still think it's unlikely Fleming went so far as to set Broccoli and Saltzman into the picture regarding his future plans.

Why? Take a look at the events from - roughly - December 1958 up until the remarkably swift agreement that was reached in December 1963. Fleming, his friends Cuneo and Bryce and on the other side McClory and Jack Whittingham became involved in an unbelievably complicated legal battle that showed each player - with the possible exception of Jack Whittingham - in a most unflattering light, to say the least. Greed and ambition, lies and deception worked to cook up a most unpleasant affair that cost Fleming a hefty price in terms of nerves, of time and possibly of health, too. All because he wanted to see his creation on the big screen and several efforts had proved abortive. How was he to know the gin-and-tonic idea of a friend - practically given for free - would in the end result in the most serious effort to that date, but also threaten his entire work, his reputation and ultimately the deal he made later with Eon?

Fleming was more than just a little lax with the legal side of his efforts, had things gone wrong he could have ended up in court a couple of more times. After McClory sued him it must have become painfully clear for him how lucky he had been all those years before.

Now is it really realistic, in light of this, that Fleming didn't just intend to make use of material (SPECTRE here) that was by all means still up in the air from a legal point of view? Would he on top of that also be inclined to the lunacy of reaching out with his freshly burned fingers and hand Eon informally part of a blueprint for future works? Maybe even during an informal meeting over drinks, causing him another hangover five years later?

I don't think so.

From what I read about the case Fleming himself was hugely affected by the legal troubles. Partially perhaps because he honestly never thought it was possible it would come to such an affair, partially no doubt because a lot of the blame has to be laid at his door, from his initial naïveté to his fickle opinion regarding McClory's qualities to the bold move to just use the project as that year's book when he was out of ideas himself. Fleming jumped as a tiger and landed as bedside rug. I think he was cured very effectively from any throwaway gestures without covering his own.

My personal theory is the initiative on this one came from Eon, namely probably from Saltzman. According to Sellers' book Saltzman was very bullish about the matter. Eon had gotten their own legal advice on the case and they were supposedly optimistic Bryce and Fleming could have won, if only just Bryce had not caved in. I seem to remember they even were prepared to push the matter further, perhaps to a point where they could have squeezed out McClory. Eon were not happy about the settlement and supposedly had tried to prevent it. Back in the day when DR NO was in production McClory could have stalled all their efforts, but was more concerned about his showdown with Fleming.

Eon probably heard the same things McClory did when he sought after a good law firm to take over his case: McClory should try and settle. Eon's offer to buy his TB rights at the time probably would have been the reasonable thing to do for McClory. All the more so as he was not yet married to the rich Bobo Sigrist who could afford to support even a lengthy battle. On balance I'd say at the time of the DR NO script things looked reasonably well for Fleming and thus for Eon. I suppose they included this dialogue indeed as the equivalent to a popular modern gesture. It could be easily cut without damaging the film, should there be indeed trouble. And it opened the door to numerous possibilities. In the worst case the lines could be dubbed with some other kind of abbreviation, no problem.

And I suppose seeing Blofeld back in print may actually have been partially inspired by Eon's boldness.

Edited by Dustin, 25 December 2014 - 05:23 PM.