It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It was fine to use them in the Dr No and From Russia With Love films. As the court case by McClory against Ian Fleming had not yet begun. With it not begun there was certainly no ruling on it. So the producers were free to use SPECTRE.
In fact, although McClory placed and injuction on them during the Spy Who Loved Me and this was the reason why SPECTRE and Blofeld were ceased being used in the francise going forward until the dispute was settled with the McClory estate after his death. I'm not entirely sure McClory would have won any case against EON.
A legal brain might tell me differently. But I would guess the defence that EON would have used in court was that SPECTRE and Blofeld were already linked to the EON films. That Ian Fleming continued to use SPECTRE and Blofeld in the novels. And the fact SPECTRE is mentioned in Dr No and SPECTRE is mentioned and Blofeld seen (although no mentioned by name) in From Russia WIth Love. And that SPECTRE and Blofeld are again named (and seen but not mentioned by name) in Thunderball. And SPECTRE and Blofeld are named and seen in You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Diamonds Are Forever.
This to me looks like a great case for EON to win. I guess they either couldn't be bothered with the headache of it all. And the years of wrangling in court. And for the fact by this point they were lifting bits and pieces from the novels but not filming them wholesale that they thought they didn't need to use SPECTRE and Blofeld.
Yes I know SPECTRE had been created and named in the novel Thunderball which was released in 1961 before filming began on Dr No in 1962. But the Dr No novel written by Ian Fleming was released in 1958 and makes no mention of SPECTRE.
So I'm not quite sure why the filmmakers chose to make him part of SPECTRE?
I know Thunderball was the planned first film and budget restraints put paid to that. And yes, they always planned to film it. So you might be quite right that they had invested in a film of Thunderball that they were planting seeds for the organisation down the line.
Which brings me to another interesting question. I'm not sure whether or not this deserves it's own thread or not or just to continue it here.
But what if they filmed Thunderball first?
I know that has been asked and theorised on. But on the basis of how would that have affected the franchise and if it would have been a success and so on.
But that's not the question I have. The question I have is, say, they film Thunderball first. So no court case yet by McClory and certainly no verdict.
They film this movie first and then everything else with McClory happens the same way and he is victorious in court and he has the film rights to Thunderball. What does he do? Does he produce another version of the film himself with a different cast only 3 years later? Does he wait longer?
Or would he be given ownership of this timelines Thunderball that was released in 1962? Or would Harry and Cubby just have to pay him remunerations and percentages of the film in perpetuity?
Actually, there is already a What if thread, with the current question being "What if James Brolin stared in Octopussy?". The Thunderball question was asked. I don't really remember what was the answers, but I think I remember that the consensus was that an earlier adaptation of TB would have lead to a much cheaper movie, and probably less good too.
I'm not sure about the quality of TB being much cheaper and less good, if my memory serves Fleming wanted Hitchcock to direct the movie with Cary Grant possibly in consideration for the role of Bond.
I've heard they picked FRWL for that reason too. But I've also read by having a criminal organization in SPECTRE instead of SMERSH it avoided direct Cold War references, although it meant several villains became independent such as Goldfinger, Drax and Scaramanga.
Bond films weren't shown in the USSR until TMWTGG, more than a decade later. But the producers were probably hoping to show the films in countries that were either non-aligned or behind the Iron Curtain.
Even without the court case there was little chance of that after UA determined the first Bond's film's budget. TB would have been immediately judged as too expensive. DN itself went over-budget.
I think that would have been the most likely option. If the film had already been made, McClory would have probably been granted a share of the profits. Harry and Cubby would have had much less incentive to make a deal giving him film rights, since they'd already made their film.
In retrospect, perhaps Harry and Cubby regretted not contributing more to the Fleming/McClory court case, though they did offer to help. Part of why McClory won is that he had a better lawyer (who went on to become a notorious figure in libel law cases). Cubby and Harry would have been more dependable backers than Ivar Bryce as well.
I see two options from there:
1. Eon prevents Connery from shooting Casino Royale, either legally or financially, pushing Feldman to wait for 1968 to produce his adaptation. I guess to have Connery would have been all the more expensive for him.
2. Unable to prevent Connery from shooting Casino Royale, Eon would probably have come to an agreement with Feldman and would have take Connery back after.
In any case, I can't see Broccoli and Saltzman cutting all ties with Connery at the peak of the spy craze.
Hi @Revelator thank you for your reply. I'm new to the community and I haven't quite managed to figure out yet how to quote sections of a person's reply as you have. So forgive me.
I also want to say before joining the community I had been visiting as a guest and I have always enjoyed your replies and your insight and knowledge of Bond. So thank you again, for taking the time to reply.
As for filming TB first, you are quite right that when UA deemed the budget was $1 million then that would have immediately vetoed TB regardless. Although it would have temporarily taken away the McClory issue. Although as you mentioned. The likely course of action would have been McClory being granted a share of the films profits.
I own and have read the excellent book "The Battle For Bond" by Robert Sellers. It's been a while since I've read it, but I can't recall off the top of my head if it delves into Harry & Cubby offering to help Fleming at the trial and why Fleming rebuffed them?
Another question, after Feldman had approached Cubby and Harry about a co-production of Casino Royale and this fell through. And then when he offered the role to Connery and baulked at his $1 million fee demand. And decided then that he couldn't compete with EON and so he was going to make a spoof. Wouldn't he have just been better selling the rights to Cubby and Harry. Perhaps also with a deal where he got a profit percentage. Or did he make more money from the profits of the spoof than what he would have done selling the rights to Cubby and Harry?
You would have to assume Cubby and Harry would cut Sean loose. Considering both films were in production at the same time and were released in the same year. I doubt Cubby and Harry would delay production and wait for Sean. So presumably You Only Live Twice is a new actors first outing. Unless because it was a new actor in the role they decided to go back to basics and film On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
That's crazy when you think about. Considering all the on set antics he caused. And the issues between himself and Orson Welles.
But if Thunderball's production was fast tracked to capitalise on the spy craze and Sean chose to do Feldman's Casino Royale wouldn't this have held up Thunderball? So would they have replaced Sean for Thunderball? Or would Casino Royale have been filmed after Thunderball?
Either way to me it seems likely that Sean would be replaced.
Consider Sean's dilemma. Film a Bond film for less money than filming a different Bond film.
If Connery had made the CASINO ROYALE film with Feldman, would the fans be bleating about it decades later, claiming that it's not "canon" and not really a Bond film, as they do with NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN?
As @Agent_Zero_One said, if it's good.
Many people bleating about NSNA was because of the quality, lack of Barry score, many people disliked Lani Hall's theme, Rowan Atkinson, Connery's age, some moments that felt out of place, some blame the editing and the cinematography and the fact that it's a remake of Thunderball (the original one), which came before it also weighed it down for some fans.
If it was a faithful adaptation of the novel and starred Sean Connery then I have to imagine it would have been a huge success. And if it was faithful and based on Hecht's script then it's likely it would have been a good film.
However, it wouldn't have the gun barrel. No James Bond theme. No John Barry score. So I assume people would have mixed feelings about it.
Even though it has it's faults. I still like Never Say Never Again. When people say it's not really a Bond film. What they mean is it isn't an EON film. But it's still a Bond film. But even though I enjoy it. It is still missing something without the gun barrel. The Bond theme and so on.
And one thing even the most ardent of Never Say Never Again fans would have to admit is that it is a poorer remake of Thunderball.
This is something that Feldman's Casino Royale would have in it's favour. It would have been a non EON filmed Bond story and closely resembling the books. So I guess fans would have had affection for it. But it's all what if's? I mean, it could have starred Sean and still been a disaster.
Yes there is a what if thread and we have debated the whole what if TB was the first novel. You have to remember that Broccoli and Saltzman had received a $1,000,000 budget for the first film, I believe TB was too ambitious for that size of budget. We certainly would have had the world map that merely showed the flying range of the Vulcan. I always chuckle at that, I don't know how much it cost but for the screen time it received I can see it being very expensive.
In an old Starlog magazine interview with Maibaum, he stated that Broccoli wanted to keep politics out of the films. SPECTRE stood in as the bad guys because they weren't tied to a country. Even LALD they chose to create a fictional nation instead of picking an island in the Caribbean.
You are welcome to deposit your views of what if's over in the thread if you wish!