Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Sean Connery was 'treated like ****' - says studio exec David Picker
DarthDimi
Behind you!Moderator
To promote his new memoir 'Musts, Maybes, and Nevers: A Book About the Movies', studio executive and past United Artists president David Picker has talked to ET about his time in the industry and some of the defining moments:
As for Bond, Picker was an avid fan of Ian Fleming's work and tried to get the ball rolling with Alfred Hitchcock directing a 007 adaptation. Later, Cubby Broccolli and Harry Saltzman acquired the option to produce his novels. Their $1.1 million budget request was turned down by their regular studio, Columbia, as being too high, so they went to United Artists and Picker, who gave them the green light for 1962's Dr. No.
"My vision of it and their vision of it was exactly the same," says Picker of the 007 films, adding with another laugh, "Everybody got rich off it but me."
Sean Connery was cast as James Bond, and the rest is history. But after five Bond outings, each one doing bigger and bigger box office, Connery was feeling unappreciated by Broccoli and Saltzman, who would renegotiate their deals for more money -- but never gave the actor his just rewards for becoming the face of the franchise. Connery left the series after 1967's You Only Live Twice, and was replaced by George Lazenby in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, "Which lays an egg," says Picker matter-of-factly. "Sadly enough, the Lazenby film was a disaster, and probably there wouldn't be any more Bond movies" if Picker hadn't brokered a deal with Connery for a king's ransom – and a deal to make any two other movies of his choice -- to bring him back for one more picture, 1971's Diamonds Are Forever.
"Sean realized he could trust us, came back, did the one movie, and saved the series," says Picker, who adds, "One of the terms of his deal was that he would not have to talk to the producers. It's laughable, but on the other hand, he was deeply offended and he had every right to be, because they treated him like shit." Connery subsequently gave his $1.25 million salary entirely to The Scottish Educational Trust Fund.
He adds, "Sean is famous for being cranky; I've never experienced it, he's never been anything but cordial, but he was heard to say that the only movie executive he'd ever liked was me."
I like to believe Picker that Connery wasn't treated as the hero of the franchise but rather as a tool they went to fetch in the barn every time they needed it. I disapprove of his comments of OHMSS though. I think that film demonstrates that Bond is bigger than one actor.
As for Bond, Picker was an avid fan of Ian Fleming's work and tried to get the ball rolling with Alfred Hitchcock directing a 007 adaptation. Later, Cubby Broccolli and Harry Saltzman acquired the option to produce his novels. Their $1.1 million budget request was turned down by their regular studio, Columbia, as being too high, so they went to United Artists and Picker, who gave them the green light for 1962's Dr. No.
"My vision of it and their vision of it was exactly the same," says Picker of the 007 films, adding with another laugh, "Everybody got rich off it but me."
Sean Connery was cast as James Bond, and the rest is history. But after five Bond outings, each one doing bigger and bigger box office, Connery was feeling unappreciated by Broccoli and Saltzman, who would renegotiate their deals for more money -- but never gave the actor his just rewards for becoming the face of the franchise. Connery left the series after 1967's You Only Live Twice, and was replaced by George Lazenby in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, "Which lays an egg," says Picker matter-of-factly. "Sadly enough, the Lazenby film was a disaster, and probably there wouldn't be any more Bond movies" if Picker hadn't brokered a deal with Connery for a king's ransom – and a deal to make any two other movies of his choice -- to bring him back for one more picture, 1971's Diamonds Are Forever.
"Sean realized he could trust us, came back, did the one movie, and saved the series," says Picker, who adds, "One of the terms of his deal was that he would not have to talk to the producers. It's laughable, but on the other hand, he was deeply offended and he had every right to be, because they treated him like shit." Connery subsequently gave his $1.25 million salary entirely to The Scottish Educational Trust Fund.
He adds, "Sean is famous for being cranky; I've never experienced it, he's never been anything but cordial, but he was heard to say that the only movie executive he'd ever liked was me."
I like to believe Picker that Connery wasn't treated as the hero of the franchise but rather as a tool they went to fetch in the barn every time they needed it. I disapprove of his comments of OHMSS though. I think that film demonstrates that Bond is bigger than one actor.
^ 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
:)
Luis Suarez has renegotiated his deal about 3 times already at Liverpool because they cant afford to lose him. Sean shouldve done the same.
Comparing Sean to the cannibalistic git, eh? Still, it worked alright for Conners in the end...
And even then SC did something great with the money for DAF, something EON should have matched in monetary funds even if it was just to show their appreciation for the important part SC played for them.
And without Connery there might never have been any movie beyond Doctor No.
I also read somewhere that once you adjust for inflation, Connery got paid less on average per film than just about any other star bar Lazenby. He would be fuming to see his face used to promote the franchise just about everywhere, and massive profits from his highly successful interpretation of the role, and his one chance of hitting the big time not paying off in proportion.
Abso-bloody-exactly.
I would wager the majority of fans now favor OHMSS to DAF, but I believe Picker's statement to not be that inaccurate. Lazenby was a risk, and the audience didn't seem to go along with a no-name at the time. So Connery kept things afloat, setting up a better transition to bring in Moore.
The opinion I've heard has been that Connery came back to do DAF just for the money and didn't care about the role. The fact that he donated his entire salary to his charity, sheds a different perspective. I think the lighter, care-free, just for fun, attitude Connery seems to portray in Diamonds reflects his attitude at the time: that he didn't feel mistreated and that it was worth his time.
I disagree with the above statements as well: I don't think it's a case of sour grapes. It's like any big business: music or sport, why should the execs get the majority of profits, when it's the talent that's really bringing home the large sums of money? Connery had every right to be unhappy of the situation not getting his due.
I agree here, in the 60's (following very much on from the established Studio system of putting stars under very restrictive contracts) producers had the attitude that their lead actors were for them to control - to even own - and so Connery, who was pretty much unknown when he landed Dr. No, was naturally treated the same way.
But look at the difference today - Eon are bending over backwards for Craig.
Eon, and MGM and Sony, recognize Craig's bloody good for them and has turned the series around with his take on Bond, (far more even than the apparently much safer bet of Brosnan) and he also draws other top talent to their film series; so it's a very different story to how it was in the 60's when the producers considered themselves the top dogs over their lead actor.
Connery did save the franchise. In 71 if Connery did not do DAF ... and Lazenby had done it ... Bond would have faded into oblivian!
Full of treacle, @SirHenryLeeChaChing? Oh, wait ... I see. ;)
Yes, I agree with above posters, and I have two kinds of feelings about this, too. In the 60's, as Col. Sun mentioned so astutely, things were quite different in the film industry. I do think many stars were not treated as fairly as they should have been or even given respect (well, especially if your director was Hitchcock or Preminger) ... so that has changed for the better. In Sean's particular case, Bond made him a major star practically over night. Huge, immeasurable impact on his career. But he was hounded by the press and rabid fans and I think that took a toll, and the producers attitudes towards him probably strongly rubbed him the wrong way. He is hardly the type to lie down and take it; I think his true self is a strongly independent type (not that I know him; of course I am just saying this from my impressions over the years).
Sean is a fine actor and has had a good career aside from Bond, but I do not think that even if he landed all of his roles that he has had since Bond without actually being Bond (following me?), he would not have been quite the major star he became. Personally, I think his finest turn was in The Man Who Would Be King with Michael Caine. I wish he could have cared more about James Bond, the character he helped mold indelibly, and had stayed on for OHMSS. It would have made a huge difference, to put it mildly.
But keep in mind that there were no guarantees the series would continue after Sean Connery left - and Lazenby did not pull in the critics or gain wide acceptance from the public. It could have ended there, truly, folks. Money is the bottom line in the business, right? Sean coming back for DAF, no matter what you think of that performance, did cement the series and they were blessed to have Roger ready (and the public more aware and accepting of Moore already due to his turn on tv as The Saint) so the Bond franchise would go on.
I absolutely love my Bond, so in spite of all the bad feelings - probably quite deservedly so - I am thankful to Sean for coming back for DAF (and for donating his earnings; what a gentlemanly thing to do). Yet ... I do wish Sean were more gracious about Bond and his time as Bond - perhaps that has gotten slightly better, but I don't like to hear him complain about it.
According to what I read on Amazon, Picker writes that Hitchcock had thought of filming the Bond books, but Fleming wouldn't sell the rights. Fleming's London agent at MCA supposedly said that Fleming refused to consider any offers after Gregory Ratoff bought the rights to Casino Royale. "Mr. Fleming just didn't like movies" concludes Picker.
That sounds highly unlikely. Lycett's biography and The Battle for Bond book shows that Fleming was eager to get his books filmed and that he would have jumped at having Hitchcock direct a Bond film.
But OHMSS was not a disaster. It didn't even lose money. In the actual book Picker is more restrained and says OHMSS did "considerably less business than You Only Live Twice." But he does claim that DAF's American gross doubled that of the DAF, and that foreign figures increased by 25%--other folks might want to check those figures.
In any case, Picker overstates the case for DAF. Connery left again and the Bond series persevered--which suggests that it would have survived even if Connery had never returned for a one-off (especially since the producers decided a well-known and well-liked actor such as Roger Moore was a safer bet than another unknown). Bond has indeed proved himself bigger than one actor--bigger than six actors in fact. But Picker is likely correct in saying the producers didn't pay or treat Connery as well as they could have. On the other hand, the producers correctly guessed that Connery was ultimately dispensable. And though Sir Sean is one of the greatest movie stars of them all (and an excellent, still-underrated actor), his reputation for crankiness, litigiousness, and combativeness seems justified.
1. Broccoli and Saltzman sought to renegotiate their contract after From Russia With Love. (In the Everything or Nothing documentary, he says something like, "they made sure they were happy but they didn't keep the star happy." That's not an exact quote but fairly close.)
2. UA gave the producers a lot of leeway. UA wasn't aware there was a Connery problem until the producers told the studio Connery wasn't doing any more after You Only Live Twice.
3. It was UA/Picker that took the lead in getting Connery back for Diamonds.
4. He basically says it's a shame that Saltzman is seen as little more than as asterisk today (not the exact words but close) but without Saltzman obtaining the option nothing would have happened.
Both sides are pretty well biased. I doubt we'll ever really know what happened in the Bond series in those early days.
I beg to differ ;-)
Well that certainly makes sense that Connery would be rather miffed to say the least. Thanks foir sharing that information, as I for one had not heard that before.