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
Either one. For new actor Lazenby, it would have sealed the deal for many missions.
Connery not just demanded a paycheck, he also wanted a creative control in the Franchise (the latter really got Connery kicked into the Curb by the Producers), and if these things had been granted to him, it could possibly lead to the change of OHMSS: a creative control means an influence over the film's production that could possibly affect the film's outcome, and a big paycheck means giving him a large sum of money and not sparing for what could've been the film's outcome look at what happened to Diamonds Are Forever, they've given Connery a hefty sum but look at what happened to the film, it looked cheap (especially in cinematography and effects), and we're still not sure if he could've nailed the romantic scenes even with those given, and with creative control in mind, he could choose an actor he would've liked to worked with and man, who knows if his chosen female lead would have given such a chemistry, again, we've been debating about the case of Madeleine/Lea Seydoux in the other thread, the same for the actor who would play Blofeld, and he would probably have a say about some scenes here and there (he's not even a fan of the Fleming books to begin with and added his own interpretation into the character), none of us knows how Connery's demands would've affected the film, specifically, OHMSS, even if you've given him a paycheck, he wanted more than that, and if he thinks that it's not justifiable or reasonable that he's not been given those, he would've still phone in his performance because one of his wishes was not granted, the aspect of his conflicts with Broccoli and Saltzman.
Think of how Craig got some creative control in his Bond films and how it affected those, that's what Connery wanted at the time aside from a paycheck, since he believed that he had brought the character to life and fame and he felt that the Producers owed him a position in the Production (creative) unit, it's also one of the reasons why Kevin McClory easily lured him to his agenda, he'd allowed Connery to help in writing a screenplay for Warhead and involved himself in the Productions and Creative Controls in Never Say Never Again, he hired his preferred composer in Legrand, took his wife's idea for the film title and chosen some of his co stars and how the film would play out.
And to think if those are granted to Connery, I don't know how OHMSS would've turned out.
Connery felt he was bigger than the Bond character.
The film is already great as it is and I don't want any change to it.
Connery would have hated every minute of it.
Indeed - and having seen those clips of Gavin playing some kind of 'secret agent' that were posted on here last year, that's another bullet we dodged!
I have never seen or heard Connery say he was bigger than the part. Connery made the producers a ton of money and instead of being invited in and given some creative control, he was shunned. The role became less interesting to play with YOLT and he grew bored with the sets, gadgets and all the fantastical elements overshadowing the character. I would venture that Connery treasured the part and wanted better stories.
The original plan was for OHMSS to go after GF. But McClory came in and the producers had a chance to do one of the books that they didn't have rights for. Then OHMSS was set to go after TB, but someone said OHMSS is TB on skis. In some cases I can see some similarities. They pushed it back again.
The reason for the fantastical elements in the scripts was that they were attempting to go after GF and then TB. Look at how fantastical YOTL got. I can't see Connery advocating for the silliness of underwater cars and such. But of course this is all moot as none of it happened.
I would like to think if Connery saw the script he would see a chance to add some range and depth to the character of Bond. He would have likely not liked the shooting schedule and the length of time it took to film.
To be fair those ideas were from drafts that were around 1966-1968. Maibaum’s original treatments from 1964 stayed much closer to the book and the final film than what those later treatments would become.
Yes, he didn't said it, but from my observation, that's what I think he had felt at the time.
And still, creative control would mean of influencing the production of the film, much like how Craig did it in his Bond films by being more involved in the Production or the creative process like scripts or etc, and how Connery had done it in NSNA and the early scripts of Warhead, that's what he wanted, and if he had gotten that in OHMSS, plus the hefty paycheck, I don't know how OHMSS would've turned out, with creative control, he could've influenced the making of the film, would give him freedom to choose his co stars and to have a say regarding the scenes, I can still see a change, and with a hefty paycheck and with that scenario already happened in 1971, see Diamonds Are Forever, I don't want to think of a lesser looking OHMSS just because half of the money went to SC.
Why blame Connery for the producers' greed?
DAF made $116 million with a budget of 7.2
People liked it because Connery returned, but I'm talking about the film's quality as a whole, cheap and poor effects, props, cinematography and all.
The Producers were not greed, they're doing the right thing, it's Connery who was greed because he's asking for more when it's the Producers who had given him the break to fame that he didn't appreciate, even hating the Bond character (saying that "I'd liked to kill him") when in the first place Fleming didn't even approved of his casting ("he looked like an overgrown stuntman"), it's him who had became greedy and even asking for creative control and large sum of paycheck.
Also think of why he had teamed up with McClory? Knowing that he's the enemy of EON (Broccoli-Saltzman) and even Fleming himself? I remember McClory asking Barry and Peter Hunt to score and direct NSNA but both rejected because they've shown loyalty to Cubby and Harry, yet Connery did.
But if you're a Connery fan, then I'll understand you wouldn't read this into consideration.
The movie made $116 million!
If the movie was cheap, blame the producers.
Why would I blame the Producers? If they hadn't given Connery a whopping 1 million dollars paycheck (the biggest paycheck of any actor at the time, it's in the record!) Then the film would have a better outcome, quality wise.
1 million is 0,86% of 116 million.
Not even Craig returning for NTTD, percentage wise, accounted for that much of the budget (a reported $25m) upfront out of a $300m budget only nets you 8.3%. Though you can argue that $300 was way too much to spend on the film. Even if you didnt blow $50m on an aborted Boyle version, $250m still only gets you to 10%.
Would an extra $1m in budget have made DAF a better film? Quality wise, possibly, some of the visual effects are a bit ropey (thinking of the exploding helicopters in the finale) and maybe they would've gone ahead and filmed the extended boat chase ending (though I think Hamilton wasnt much of a fan of it anyway, regardless of if it was affordable or not). But it would still be the same film at the end of the day, I think.
But the film grossed 116 million, a lot of money to share.
It could have cost 10 million and the movie would still have been a great success.
Oh sure, but would the additional spend have resulted in it making more money at the box office? If not, then dont spend the money and have a slightly better ROI.
DAF’s lack of quality wasn’t entirely to do with Connery’s pay. It was the President of United Artists who wanted Connery to come back with the higher pay to entice him, presumably not happy with the alternative choices the producers considered. I think he even said that the amount didn’t matter and they’d pay it. That figure is what they negotiated (and I believe a two picture deal with UA). While we’re talking about individuals being given an unprecedented amount of pay for doing a very particular job, it’s always worth saying Connery used that salary to form the Scottish International Education Trust. It still exists today and provides funding for talented people in the arts and sciences. I’m not sure if greed is quite the right description.
DAF was a film that came about in response to OHMSS. Audiences clearly hadn’t taken to that film, so instead it was decided to go for a course correction. It’s a film which tries to replicate the highs of the early Connery era (ie. the lighter tone, the inclusion of Hamilton etc) but on a lower budget, the lowest since GF in fact. As I tend to say, Hamilton was a director with a strange lack of attention to detail and finesse, and his films in this era generally look a bit cheap and unsophisticated anyway (even Hunt claimed that he’d botched the car chase in GF and had to heavily edit it to make it work. It makes sense when you consider how slow/lacklustre the chases in DAF are).
I suspect had Connery gotten a higher pay for OHMSS it wouldn’t have impacted the overall quality of the film. From what I understand the budgetary requirements for that film were lower compared to the mid year Connery films anyway. And I don’t think they were going to fork over 1.25 million to Connery at that time.
OHMSS made 82, 34 million less.
1.25 doesn't seem like a lot of money.
But at that time, he just didn't asked for a high paycheck, he also wanted a creative control, I guess, it's fine that they've gave him a fresh breath of air by doing films outside of Bond, because what happened during the filming of YOLT could envision what would happen if he had done OHMSS, with his clash against the Producers and the want for creative control (aside from a high paycheck), I think it would affected the film, in terms of his performance and if that creative control was given unto him, he would've a say about the making of the film, which would affect it, of course.
I guess ultimately all you can say without anyone recalling the discussions at the time is that Bond UA/MGM and EON always want to maximise the return on their films (they are commercial ventures after all) and they decided that $7.2m was the amount of budget they needed to realise their vision for the film. Maybe EoN wanted more and UA turned it down, others may know. Success following OHMSS wasnt guaranteed.
I guess they were pessimistic after OHMSS. It's their fault anyway.
I suppose it's worth saying that none of us (or at least I) know specifically what that 'creative control' would have looked like for Connery at this time when it came to Bond, had he even been granted it. From my understanding - so take with a pinch of salt - it wouldn't have been creative control as we know it today with the lead actor getting a producer credit/much more hands on involvement in the production.
We're into hypotheticals really. I'm not sure if the producers would have given Connery the level of creative input that he had with even NSNA. And it's difficult gauging how Connery would have worked with Peter Hunt as a director.
There was probably quite a lot of pride in Connery coming back and saving them from their mistake to some extent.
Again, this is money most of us can't even fathom, but I think it's fair to say the producers were, at the very least, not being entirely reasonable. They also underpaid Lazenby in this regard too (his pay was less than what Connery got for FRWL!) That's not even getting into things like how they may have interacted/treated Connery at the height of his frustrations. I think to some extent with Connery it wasn't even fully about the money (again, he used his rather large pay check for DAF to form a charity) but the principle and dissatisfaction.
How they've handled Connery badly? They've gave him everything, the price was right, they've put him to fame and made him a Hollywood superstar, what's bad in it, almost every celebrity have the same treatment, it's just Connery who had became too demanding, he wanted a creative control and a huge money, he's asking for so much, he's not appreciative of how the Producers and the James Bond character changed his life for the better, he had even built a beautiful house in Europe or is it in Bahamas, he had shown a glimpse of it in 1967 (with a billiard room), so, are those not enough?
The way they've paid Lazenby at the time was fine though, he's a newbie at the time (it's a starting pay), and Diana Rigg was paid more higher than him (because she's an established star), that's reasonable, but had he continued, his salary would've grown too, if not for his agent.
Again, it's not something most of us would ever truly understand. You're dealing with people making more for a few months of work than most of us would make in a lifetime.
But it really wasn't him asking for huge money in this context. He was essentially getting paid under a certain amount while having to deal with the obligations of being a huge star, and likely not having the best interactions with the producers.
See 007HallY's excellent post above yours.
My reply was late, got it.