›

The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

1…8586889091…190

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,172
    I believe McClory, in the end, got too irrational when he even sued them because there would be underwater scenes in TSWLM and because Stromberg resembled Blofeld too much. Also, when preparing for NSNA, he tried to steal a lot of things away from EON, including Connery (who wasn't under contract anymore but who had helped tremendously in building the success of the Bonds) and John Barry (who luckily remained loyal to Broccoli). After NSNA, he still wasn't satisfied. He paralysed the production of a 17th Bond film after LTK and once more optioned for a TB remake.

    Yes, he may have been screwed out of his rights by Fleming, but the matter was eventually settled, he got writer's credit, he got producer's credit over TB and he got to make his own film. What more did he want? It's not like Fleming had destroyed his life, run off with his wife or downright plagiarized something that McClory had written entirely by himself.

    So, I agree that he deserved some compensation because Fleming had, indeed, wronged him, but his eventual quest to take down EON was disproportionate to anything that may have gone wrong when they were writing the original TB story. Hence I agree with the thesis: the man went too far. Fleming had committed petty theft and McClory answered by embarking on a lifelong religious crusade. He not merely fought for what was rightfully his, he purely sabotaged people who had, in essence, nothing to do with his quarrels with Fleming. Even we, as fans, should be mad at McClory. We want good Bond films and he tried more than once to keep us from getting any. His own attempt, NSNA, wasn't such a supergreat film anyway.

    I therefore blame him for showing an irrational hatred towards something that existed far beyond his reach and which he, as the puny, bitter, money hungry man, so desperately tried to damage.

    He may be deceased now and I usually don't talk bad about the dead, but I'll be honest. I hate Kevin McClory. I hate how he constantly sought methods to bring down the franchise I love passionately. I hate how, like a nasty cold that keeps coming back, he never gave up. I hate how restoring his credit + getting producer's credit for TB + obtaining the rights to make his own Bond film wasn't enough for him. In my opinion, he was royally compensated for whatever meagre injustice he had suffered. It should have stopped after '65. He should have given it a rest. Bitter . old . man!
  • VolanteVolante
    Posts: 774
    I completely agree. It wasn't even as if he had written all of Thunderball himself. Yes he had rights, but he was eventually given the rights to the work he had done; even though other men had a claim as well, in the end his lawsuit shut out two other men who had contributed as well.

    He got what he wanted, after that his continued lawsuits were unnecessary. At least with TB, EON, Cubby and Harry had some degree of control, NSNA showed what a Bond franchise under him would've been like. I would hope we're all glad that his rights ended there, though even then he wouldn't let it die.
  • 00130013
    edited July 2012 Posts: 1,817
    @darthdimi I agree with your very complete statement. And anybody who reads what I write knows I have always expressed my contempt towards McClory, his NSNA movie and Connery's vengence.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    I'm upset that McClory's bitter acts towards EON ruined an excellent chance to make a return for Ernst Stavro Blofeld and SPECTRE in The Spy Who Loved Me. Because of this, we get Karl Stromberg, who is the poor man's Blofeld in this case. He's not the worst villain in the series by any means, but he's rather dull and bland, and we've got ol' Kevin to thank for that.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,172
    And he was one of the reasons, not the only one - I agree, that we never got a third Dalton film. You can't believe how angry that makes me.

  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    0013 wrote:
    @darthdimi I agree with your very complete statement. And anybody who reads what I write knows I have always expressed my contempt towards McClory, his NSNA movie and Connery's vengence.

    I'll entirely second you on this, awesome post by Dimi and couldn't agree more.

    The last time I watched Thunderball, I pointed out McClory in the casino lounge to my son and told him the story behind the movie and all the things he tried to do. He said "what a jerk". Both my son's statement and "Good riddance" ought to be on his tombstone as far as I'm concerned.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2012 Posts: 15,715
    McClory did nothing wrong. When dealing with a multi-billion $$$ franchise, anyone would have done the same thing as McClory, just to get a piece of the pie. Anyone calling him a jerk for acting like he did, could well be jerks themselves because they would have acted the same way as McClory. When you have the opportunity to claim your share of something worth several billions $$$, it is normal to act like McClory, as every human being would act in the same way to get some big money. In hindsight you can say 'what an idiot', but the fact is if you were in his shoes, you'd have done the same thing. Calling McClory as jerk or an idiot mean you call every person on earth jerks and idiots, yourself included, because it's the human nature to act greedy when dealing with huge amounts of money. Your big boy Sean Connery demanded royalties for every outing made without him. Craig would have done the same if he had been the first Bond. It is the human nature to always want more money, to want a piece of the pie... McClory acted like a normal person.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    McClory did nothing wrong. When dealing with a multi-billion $$$ franchise, anyone would have done the same thing as McClory, just to get a piece of the pie. Anyone calling him a jerk for acting like he did, could well be jerks themselves because they would have acted the same way as McClory.

    I feel sorry for "anyone" then. He got a fair and just settlement according to the letter of the law. I can understand if his lawyer told him he might be able to get more, but the rest of his actions showed in vivid color he held a grudge and was malicious.

    I hope your comment about jerks was not directed at my boy, or myself for that matter.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited July 2012 Posts: 6,287
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I believe McClory, in the end, got too irrational when he even sued them because there would be underwater scenes in TSWLM and because Stromberg resembled Blofeld too much. Also, when preparing for NSNA, he tried to steal a lot of things away from EON, including Connery (who wasn't under contract anymore but who had helped tremendously in building the success of the Bonds) and John Barry (who luckily remained loyal to Broccoli). After NSNA, he still wasn't satisfied. He paralysed the production of a 17th Bond film after LTK and once more optioned for a TB remake.

    Yes, he may have been screwed out of his rights by Fleming, but the matter was eventually settled, he got writer's credit, he got producer's credit over TB and he got to make his own film. What more did he want? It's not like Fleming had destroyed his life, run off with his wife or downright plagiarized something that McClory had written entirely by himself.

    So, I agree that he deserved some compensation because Fleming had, indeed, wronged him, but his eventual quest to take down EON was disproportionate to anything that may have gone wrong when they were writing the original TB story. Hence I agree with the thesis: the man went too far. Fleming had committed petty theft and McClory answered by embarking on a lifelong religious crusade. He not merely fought for what was rightfully his, he purely sabotaged people who had, in essence, nothing to do with his quarrels with Fleming. Even we, as fans, should be mad at McClory. We want good Bond films and he tried more than once to keep us from getting any. His own attempt, NSNA, wasn't such a supergreat film anyway.

    I therefore blame him for showing an irrational hatred towards something that existed far beyond his reach and which he, as the puny, bitter, money hungry man, so desperately tried to damage.

    He may be deceased now and I usually don't talk bad about the dead, but I'll be honest. I hate Kevin McClory. I hate how he constantly sought methods to bring down the franchise I love passionately. I hate how, like a nasty cold that keeps coming back, he never gave up. I hate how restoring his credit + getting producer's credit for TB + obtaining the rights to make his own Bond film wasn't enough for him. In my opinion, he was royally compensated for whatever meagre injustice he had suffered. It should have stopped after '65. He should have given it a rest. Bitter . old . man!

    I don't love NSNA--or TB, for that matter--but how much of Bond's success is attributable to SPECTRE? For example, Stromberg was basically Blofeld; they excised references to "Number One" from the script. McClory was asserting the rights of a character/organization he co-created.

    McClory's tactics may have been unpleasant, but Bond is not a charity; it's a hugely successful moneymaking endeavor. If any one of us had those rights, we'd be asserting them too--not just letting Broccoli/Saltzman use them at will.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2012 Posts: 15,715
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    but the rest of his actions showed in vivid color he held a grudge and was malicious.

    Everyone would have acted the same... it's human nature. when dealing with something worth several billion, everyone would act greedy and irrational. with hindsight people can say 'what an idiot', but if it were you in his shoes at that time, you would have accomplished the same acts and behaviour. If you call McClory as jerk, then you call every single person on earth a jerk, because it's in the human nature to act the way McClory did when dealing with multi billions $$$
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    but the rest of his actions showed in vivid color he held a grudge and was malicious.

    Everyone would have acted the same... it's human nature. when dealing with something worth several billion, everyone would act greedy and irrational.

    Just because its human nature doesn't mean its right.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2012 Posts: 15,715
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote:
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    but the rest of his actions showed in vivid color he held a grudge and was malicious.

    Everyone would have acted the same... it's human nature. when dealing with something worth several billion, everyone would act greedy and irrational.

    Just because its human nature doesn't mean its right.

    where did I say it was right ? all I am saying is that the 7 billion people living on this planet today would have acted the very same way as McClory. I didn't say human nature is always right, I am merely saying everyone on this earth has the same human nature.

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote:
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    but the rest of his actions showed in vivid color he held a grudge and was malicious.

    Everyone would have acted the same... it's human nature. when dealing with something worth several billion, everyone would act greedy and irrational.

    Just because its human nature doesn't mean its right.

    where did I say it was right ? all I am saying is that the 7 billion people living on this planet today would have acted the very same way as McClory.

    You said McClory did "nothing wrong'' in a previous statement.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2012 Posts: 15,715
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote:
    You said McClory did "nothing wrong'' in a previous statement.

    he did nothing wrong aka he acted like a normal human being would. I don't agree with his behaviour, because I'm a Bond fan and wanted a 3rd Dalton outing, but I would almost certainly have accomplished the same acts of greed, vengeance, etc., if I were in his shoes.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    DC, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You can never measure someone's level of greed. The level of vengeance however, is in my opinion beyond reason. The guy was a jerk about that. If I was a Bond fan in the vicinity of his grave, I'd be quite tempted to piss on it, particularly for costing us a 3rd Dalton flick.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2012 Posts: 15,715
    He was dealing with a franchise worth several billions $. Everyone would act the same way if he/she/they felt they deserved a piece of that pie. Vengeance is part of human nature. If someone killed my father or my mother, I'd most certainly want to kill the one who did it... just like 100% of the humans living on this earth would have the same reaction.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote:
    You said McClory did "nothing wrong'' in a previous statement.

    he did nothing wrong aka he acted like a normal human being would. I don't agree with his behaviour, because I'm a Bond fan and wanted a 3rd Dalton outing, but I would almost certainly accomplished the same acts of greed, vengeance, etc., if I were in his shoes.

    Not all human beings would act the way he did, not even close to true. He got much more than he deserved in his compensation and the rights to make his own adaptation, and as such anything after that is simply wrong. Whether anyone else would act that way is, in my opinion, irrelevant because we're not talking about anyone else. He didn't just go for things he had a right to, he attacked the franchise itself because of a personal grudge. I don't think trying to justify his actions as human nature is appropriate, no offence @DaltonCraig007.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2012 Posts: 15,715
    all I am saying is that with hindsight we can insult him for what he did, but we'd have acted just like him if we were in his shoes and felt we deserved a piece of the Bond pie that is worth several billion $. No what he did was not right... but everyone would act the same way as he did when dealing with such a huge amount of money.

    What about Sean Connery who demanded royalties for every Bond film made without him ? He still holds a grudge with Cubby today, long after Cubby's death.
    It's greed, revenge, personal grudges... everyone has these issues, which are implified when the stakes are very big.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    I agree with the thesis, DD pretty much covers my thoughts on this too. My biggest gripe is that it cost us a 3rd and possible 4th Dalton movie?!
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, @CraigMooreOHMSS and @SirHenryLeeChaChing
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,172
    I understand the basic human desire to grab every buck you can when the system opens up such possibilities. I understand the concept of greed and how we're all familiar to it. I also understand envy, jealousy and the sweet - sweet taste of vengeance.

    BUT, a man has got to know his limitations. McClory spent nearly four decades trying to cause damage to one of the most successful film franchises ever, after having been indulged in several ways already.

    Disputes related to film rights and creative control etcetera are plenty but usually they get settled and people move on. McClory blew this thing out of proportions. What the hell had Broccoli and Saltzman to do with his quarrels with Fleming? Nothing! Also, he made his version of TB, it wasn't very good and that should have put a full stop to already two and a half decades of pursuing 'justice'.

    It simply isn't sane anymore when you fight a war over a little gripe. It becomes madness when you already got more out of this than you deserved and you're still unwilling to give up.

    So yes, were I McClory, I would have tried darn hard to give Fleming some bad nights and sue him for a couple of dollars that will send my kids to college, but after that, wow, enough is enough. Why not try to have my own film career? Why not come up with my own film franchise, my own characters, my own pride? His career post TB is limited to NSNA for the love of God. This man, this "filmmaker", spent the last forty - fifty years of his life doing exactly two things: remaking TB and having his lawyers figure out how to sue EON out of existence and deprive us of our beloved James Bond!

    Fleming wrote several Bond novels pre-TB and they convince me of the man's talents. McClory was one of three people adding elements to Bond's universe (not creating said universe, mind, but adding a few things to it) and that's about it. Wow, what an artist. He produced two films between 1965 and 2006 and both existed because of Fleming's creation - not his. Why not create something himself and try to compete with EON in an honest way?

    I can't take this man seriously. This is he:

    haat-smurf.jpg
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited July 2012 Posts: 13,355
    Everyone's got in before me. What's there to add? McClory got what was his - and maybe more - with Never Say Never Again but anything after that he wasn't entitled to. He kept on and on but really, even he must have known he had reached the limit.
    DarthDimi wrote:
    And he was one of the reasons, not the only one - I agree, that we never got a third Dalton film. You can't believe how angry that makes me.

    But also part of the reason we got a Casino Royale film, so it's swings and roundabouts. Such as life.
  • 00130013
    edited July 2012 Posts: 1,817
    Yes @DaltonCraig, McClory was human in the economic sense of rationality and greed. He wanted money and pursuit it like most people.
    But take John Barry for example. He didn't do the score for the heretic movie. Was it because they didn't pay him enough? They say he was like the Scaramanga of the soundtracks: a million dollars a score. But wasn't any loyalty towars Broccoli and EON?
    I consider myself rational in many senses and of course McClory actions were economically rational. But wasn't there any anger against Fleming and EON? Wasn't the opposite of Barry whose work was properly acknowledge?
    And another example: Monty Norman could have sued for money, but he also wanted be recognize as the composer of the Bond theme.
    It all depends of your understanding of the human nature.
    I saw greed but also confrontations about honor, recognition and pride.
    When I see the stubborn behaviour of McClory I see greed, yes, but also a desire of vengeance. Was a remake of Thunderball his only source of income? I doubt that... So why follow with it? You had my answer to that.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited July 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Agree. He did make up alot of TB and he did deserve credit, but he got NSNA (which I enjoyed and stick up for), why couldn't he have just stopped then? Why did he have to rob us of a third Dalton film :((

    Although, like DC said, we probably would've all done the same.
    Samuel001 wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    And he was one of the reasons, not the only one - I agree, that we never got a third Dalton film. You can't believe how angry that makes me.

    But also part of the reason we got a Casino Royale film, so it's swings and roundabouts. Such as life.

    I'd happily sacrifice CR for another Dalton (I like CR but, a third Dalton film, how awesome would that have been).
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,172
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 127</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The fact that the DAD Bond threw away his cyanide long ago is entirely in the spirit of Fleming's Bond.</b></font>
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 127</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The fact that the DAD Bond threw away his cyanide long ago is entirely in the spirit of Fleming's Bond.</b></font>

    When is that mentioned??
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited July 2012 Posts: 11,189
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 127</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The fact that the DAD Bond threw away his cyanide long ago is entirely in the spirit of Fleming's Bond.</b></font>

    When is that mentioned??

    When Bond is recovering on the ship and M comes in.

    M: You had your cyanide
    Bond: Thew it away years ago, what the hell is this all about!?

    Would Fleming's Bond have thrown away his cyanide pill? Well if he had taken it we woudn't have had any more stories would we ;)

    Agree (kind of)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited July 2012 Posts: 24,172
    @0Brady, you need to watch DAD more often, sir. ;-)

    Now then, do you both agree with the thesis or not? :)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    Completly agree with this thesis, as Brosnan's performance in DAD is one of the most Flemingesque performance in the franchise.
  • 00130013
    Posts: 1,817
    The actitude sounds like Fleming's Bond but in two occasions Bond thought of suicide in his missions:
    1. In Live and Let Die while being carried by Mr Big in the boat he thought of drowning Solitaire and then killing himself in order to escape the painfull death of being eated by the baracuradas and the sharks.
    2. In Golfinger, when he was about to be cut in half, he remember of people holding their breath until dying as a solution to his "partition" problem.
    So I'm gonna be controversial and say no, I desagree with the thesis. I think Fleming's Bond would keep the cyanide pill "just in case".
Sign In or Register to comment.