Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Another Lost Bond Film?
Have you ever heard that there was a film called James Bond, Secret Agent? As I read, it was going to be original story that was going to be written by Ian Fleming and was going to be produced by Kevin McClory. But, later,it was dropped off, scheduled for 1959 release.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=y8p-qpJjPU4C&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=y8p-qpJjPU4C&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
^ 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
Fleming later used that manuscript as the basis for his 1961 novel, Thunderball.
When the book was published, McClory filed a lawsuit against Fleming.
Rights to Thunderball were assigned to McClory thus he received credit as producer on the film when it came out in 1965.
I think they do, but what I meant was that McClory should have stuck with EON so that he could make up a story and have the real Bond experts in cinema comb over his story, fix it up, and make a superb movie. Instead, he was left to his own devices and the result was horrible.
Yes, through court hearings EON now own all the rights involving Bond.
You obviously think McClory should not have been given the rights to THUNDERBALL and SPECTRE simply because he created a rival Bond film. Unfortunately, the world does not work that way. McClory created SPECTRE and had a significant enough input into the THUNDERBALL script that a court of law recognised his claim to them. They can't simply say "Well, Mr. McClory, you were right. You created SPECTRE and you have a claim to THUNDERBALL. But there can only be one James Bond franchise, so we will not recognise your claims".
I never said created, I said "rights to use".
Crazy eh?
TB was published in '61.
Janus is not the Sicilian Mafia. Nothing wrong with using a crime syndicate, just can't use the Mafia...
for the record, there are other crime syndicates besides the Sicilian Mafia--Hello?
yeah I know what you meant, I was just wondering if they had the rights back (fingers crossed for blofeld in skyfall :) ). But I actually liked NSNA, I think its just as good as the original thunderball
http://007art.free.fr/posters/st_warhead_1.jpg
http://007art.free.fr/posters/st_warhead_2.jpg
http://007art.free.fr/posters/st_warhead_3.jpg
http://007art.free.fr/posters/st_warhead_4.jpg
http://007art.free.fr/posters/st_warhead_5.jpg
Dalton never would have gone for that, given what a rogue Bond film stands for. But damn, Dalton as Bond with Stone and Belluci as the girls. If I can just figure out how I can get my hands on a flux capacitor... :-?
1. Seeing as EON had used SPECTRE and Blofeld in DN and FRWL why was Mcclory not entitled to sue for unauthorised use of his intellectual property. Neither Blofeld or SPECTRE appeared anywhere in the novels of DN and FRWL so it strikes me that EON (presumably without his permission) lifted his creations for use in their films. I presume there must be a reason why he didnt sue as old Kevin was never shy about going to court so why didnt he? Perhaps he waived his rights to sue for DN and FRWL as part of the TB deal? But then that doesnt explain why he didnt stop them using SPECTRE and Blofeld in DAF. OHMSS he could do nothing about as its part of the novel but seeing as he stopped EON in the original script for TSWLM why did he not do the same for DAF as Blofeld and SPECTRE also have no connection to the book.
2. Fair enough in law Mcclory is entitled to SPECTRE, Blofeld and the TB story but surely Fleming has rights to the characters of Bond, M, Leiter etc. It seems entirely unjust to me that Mcclory can make a fortune of the success of Flemings character by remaking as many James Bond films as he likes. NSNA would never have got funding had it just been about some crime syndicate stealing some nukes and the hero had had to be named John Bland or something. Its only the fact that its part of the Bond legend (which Kevin had no part in creating in either print or on film) that made people want to go and see his story.
And how far does a remake have to deviate from the source material before it becomes just a Bond film and not a remake of TB? There are large differences between NSNA and the Thunderball story that should not be allowed as for me hes just making a Bond film - which he does not have the right to do.
Well at least the parasitic tosser is dead now and EON finally have all the rights. Dont feel too sorry for Kevin - he made millions out of Bond when his input was on a par with someone like Bruce Fierstein or P&W. Shame he was so greedy he spunked most of it in legal costs. And before anyone comes on and says you shouldnt speak ill of the dead it was this case that sent Fleming into an early grave so I would happily erase Mcclory and TB (not my favourite by a long chalk anyway) from the Bond universe for all the hassle it ultimately caused.
I think Mclory recieved some moneys for the use of spectre but due to the increasing amounts they just killed blofeild off. I'm unsure if his family were keen to push for maintaining these rights as some people sudgested the character had come back into Danjaq holdings for the Goldeneye game.
Flemings willingness to keep mclory out of court and pay him off for the inconvenience affrims the fact that he and mclory had indeed co authored the story, Much the way Harlen Ellison had his name put on the credits to terminator as cameron admitted that the ideas had been stolen from twilight zone episodes.
"Well at least the parasitic tosser is dead now and EON finally have all the rights. Dont feel too sorry for Kevin - he made millions out of Bond when his input was on a par with someone like Bruce Fierstein or P&W. Shame he was so greedy he spunked most of it in legal costs. And before anyone comes on and says you shouldnt speak ill of the dead it was this case that sent Fleming into an early grave so I would happily erase Mcclory and TB (not my favourite by a long chalk anyway) from the Bond universe for all the hassle it ultimately caused."
The writers EON EMPLOY are being paid to produce Bond stories. Fleming and Mclory had come up with the other story before the film series started. by this they were trying to take his idea without paying him so he was in the right. the rights i would imagine still legally lay with mcclorry for those characters, the outcome of the court case that claimed he had sat on them for too long without using them seems a tad EON sided rather than actually favouring unbiased opinion.
I would actually imagine that EON have become so far removed from the source matterial that someone could argue they are no longer making Flemings stuff and wrestle the rights to that from them. Legally.
I simply meant that his creative input is only the same as writers who over the years have tossed a few ideas into the ring. Did Joanna Harwood, Paul Dehn or Michael France end up making literally millions of dollars from their small contribution to Bond?
I wasnt casting any aspertions on the legality of Kevins position, just that it seems wholly unfair that he should wind up making as much as he did from a character who he made absolutely no contribution towards establishing either in print or film.
Imagine if one of the writers for Shrek or Pirates Of the Caribbean wasnt credited for a certain plotline or character and the court decided they could make their own rival film on the strength of it?
Agree here. I dont see in law what difference in makes if you sit on your rights or make a film a year with them.
I would argue that there is a fundamental difference here in that EON own the rights to Flemings work and also to the James Bond character so they can do pretty much what they want.
Kevin only owned the rights to TB so he can make loads of spinoff Domino, Lippe and Largo films if he wants but he should be severely restricted in his rights to use the characters of James Bond, M, Moneypenny, Leiter and the 007 number in a film as he had no part in creating them.
I cant remember all the ins an outs of the case as its a long time since I read up on it (really need to read the Battle for Bond) but didnt the court decide that it was pretty much 50/50 who created SPECTRE and Blofeld etc so found that Fleming could own the literary rights and Kevin the film rights to TB that is?
I think this is the case otherwise Kev wouldve had a case against Fleming over Blofeld and SPECTRES use in TSWLM, OHMSS and YOLT novels and that never materialised. I dont think Kev would have hesitated in taking Glidrose to court after Flemings death if he thought he could get his grubby mitts on some more cash off Flemings back.
At the end of the day Kev has struck lucky in court after coming up with a few Bond storylines (which we've all done in fan fiction) and then for the rest of his life slurped up lashings of gravy that was only tasty thanks to the labours of others.
Same as marvelous Monty Norman (thats perhaps a bit harsh on Monty. Hes not quite the same level of prick that Kev was). How much would pitiful ditty Mr Biswas have made him were it not for John Barry rearranging it into something decent instead of some feeble Indian restaurant background music?
I was always annoyed by McClory because (as I understand it) he was the main reason we didn't get a third Dalton film. However, when I heard rumours he wanted to cast Dalts in Warhead 2000 (or whatever they were calling ), I softened slightly.
Dalts should never, ever have walked away from the part. He was still looking great at the time GE came out and could have still pulled it off until quite recently. Such a shame.
What Mclory was being paid while they used Spectre is unknown, as he was PAID DIRECTLY BY FLEMING for damages about the publication on Thunderball. This being outside of a court because Fleming must have suspected he would not actually win.
As for EON owning the character, this is debatable as they have actually painted sucha character that they could keep it to some extent. a lot of people I think would be happer with a concistant bond playing out through a tv serial akin to the BBC's Walander or Sherlock.
IMO that´s the real reason why it was stupid of McClory to take on the project. Wether Eon were right or not to sabotage McClory, he knew from the start that he was battling a monster. Such is not a reasonable basis to produce a big budget film.