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
Saying that Tball was already on the shelves doesn't change the fact that it was based on works of which McClory was co-author. Nobody is saying Fleming didn't put the meat on the bones. Fleming created the character. However Fleming, along with McClory and Whittingham changed that character and it is that changed character that ended up on screen. It was Fleming, McClory and Whittingham that created SPECTRE et al and it is those characters that end up on the screen in Dr No..
I would love to know the name of the High court judge who sided with Eon. You are aware that the trustees lost their 1978 case against McClory? They also lost the appeal. In fact the three judge panel of the Supreme Court said that they were not to take any further actions against McClory.
The character of James Bond in DN is the same character that I read about in the novel of the same name. The only hint of SPECTRE is in the one line uttered by Doctor No himself. That's it, nothing else. There are no characters on screen in DN that either McClory or Wittingham had a hand in creating. I'm sorry but your argument just doesn't stand up.
Ehh... Dr No. is a SPECTRE agent. I guess that makes it different from the books. You are grasping at straws. SPECTRE, Blofeld and his cat are some of the most recognisable characters in film. They were born in the McClory treatments. The influence of the McClory extends far beyond DN and TB. The nuclear blackmail plot is so much a part of Bond that all you have to do is put your finger to your mouth and say 1 Million dollars for people to know exactly what you are talking about. The Nuclear blackmail plot was born in the McClory scripts.
Grasping at straws, are you kidding me? Mate, you keep dragging this conversation in different directions and at every turn your pithy arguments are rebutted. I'm all for talking this through but if you keep changing the rules of engagement then there's really no point. Doctor No is the same character written in the novel by Ian Fleming, his only connection to McClory is SPECTRE, for whom he happens to be an agent. It's about as superfluous as it gets. He's hardly been altered beyond recognition. I don't actually know what you're trying to imply or what you'd like fans here to say, but I'm guessing not much would suffice. You asked for a discussion and that is what you have, but don't expect everyone to suddenly lay down and believe Kevin McClory is all of a sudden a martyr to the Bond cause. Your failure to see both sides of the argument utterly clouds any judgement you may have.
I never said anything about McClory being a martyr. You seem to have made that up.
What was the name of that High Court Judge?
What you said was...
The 'new' character. There isn't and never was a 'new' character. The man on screen in Doctor No is the James Bond, Ian Fleming created. I've already stated...
They formulated 'a screen version', not 'the screen version' that eventually released in 1962. Yes, SPECTRE was born during their writing period, but I'd argue there are individuals more responsible for realising and defining these elements. Ken Adam whose sets made SPECTRE so memorable. Terence Young's direction, namely a faceless Blofeld, surely this notion contributes to the Blofeld legacy? The decision to have Blofeld finally be revealed as a bald, nehru jacket wearing scarface, who resides in a hollowed-out volcano. What's Lewis Gilberts address? We should get that contract out confirming his stake in the Bond franchise.
The difference with these people is that they weren't as narcissistic or self-absorbed as McClory. Kevin had his chance, he got to produce TB, the film he felt was his to make. That should have been the end of the affair. What kind of man drags out such a bitter legal battle just to gain the rights to produce the same film over and over again. If McClory was such a creative genius he'd have done what Lucas did. Create his own Bond. Trouble was, Kevin just wanted to piggyback on the hard work of others and reap the rewards. Karma is indeed a powerful force.
For me, the bottom line are the facts and not rampant speculation.
1. Ian Fleming wrote Dr.No, From Russia With Love, and Goldfinger before discussing the Thunderball screenplay project with McGlory and Whittingham. And had no discernable input in the screenplays for those films, meaning that by osmosis McGlory nor Whittingham had any input in the realized cinematic Bond. That vision belonged solely to those already mentioned.
2. Fleming wronged McGlory and Whittingham for adapting their screenplay collaboration into a novel and not giving them the proper credit. Both gentlemen won their case against Fleming and received their due share of rights for both the novel and future screen treatments, which included giving McGlory the right to remake the screenplay into a new film as of 1983, or 20 years time.
3. Cubby and Harry correctly included both gentlemen as writers and McGlory got a producers credit as well as a brief cameo as a mustachio'd man smoking a cigarette when Bond walked into the Nassau casino. He deserved no more than that for Thunderball, and was compensated.
4. Sometime after 1971, long after his case had been settled and either Blofeld or SPECTRE had participated in 3 movies with no complaint from McGlory, in 1976 it all of a sudden became a compensatory issue when EON wanted to bring back Blofeld and SPECTRE, presumably to finish them off. McGlory threatened to sue Cubby Broccoli for alleged copyright infringement, claiming that he had the sole right to include SPECTRE and its agents in all films. Not wishing to extend the already ongoing legal dispute that could have delayed the production of The Spy Who Loved Me, as EON obviously believed that Fleming had some input in the characters of Blofeld and SPECTRE when the idea to use them in this movie was first proposed, Broccoli requested that writer Christopher Wood remove all references to Blofeld and SPECTRE from the script now that McGlory had taken issue.
5. In 1976, McGlory announced he was to produce an original James Bond film to be titled either Warhead, Warhead 8, or James Bond of the Secret Service, but the project was severely hampered as a result of legal action brought by the Fleming Trustees and United Artists. McGlory won the case. The Trustees and United Artists appealed to the Supreme Court of Judictature The Senior Courts of England and Wales but again they lost to McGlory. Lord Justices Waller, Fox and May affirmed McGlory's right to make a James Bond film based on the screenplay that he had written and enjoined the Plaintiffs from taking similar legal action against McGlory in the future. McGlory went on to licence his rights to Jack Schwartzman. The resulting 1983 film titled Never Say Never Again starred Sean Connery as Agent 007 in a highly publicized return to the role after a 12-year absence.
6. In 1981, an obviously unnamed Blofeld was finally finished off.
7. McGlory subsequently continued to try to make other adaptations of Thunderball, including Warhead 2000 A.D. which was to be made by Sony. MGM/UA took legal action against Sony and McClory in the United States to prevent the film going into production. MGM/UA abandoned the claim after settling with Sony and McGlory's rights were untouched. In 2004 Sony acquired 20% of MGM; however, the production and final say over everything involving the film version of James Bond is controlled by Eon Productions, Albert R. Broccoli's production company and its parent company Danjaq, LLC. Prior to Sony's settlement with MGM in 1999, they filed a lawsuit against MGM claiming McGlory was the co-author of the cinematic 007 and was owed fees from Danjaq and MGM for all past films. This lawsuit was thrown out in 2000 on the ground that McGlory had waited too long to bring his claims. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later affirmed this decision in 2001.
8. We hardly saw McGlory suing the Austin Powers people, meaning that he was more interested in making money off of the huge cash cow that was James Bond (although if he had known the AP films were going to be that big, the litigation happy McGlory would have likely tried to horn in on those too claiming he invented the image) and the people who truly created the literary and cinematic character than he was over a bald, Nehru jacket wearing villain with a white cat and dime a dozen nuclear blackmail plots.
CONCLUSION- McGlory apologists need not respond, as McGlory never won his argument that he was the co-author of the cinematic Bond, a case which I believe he would have lost due to the 3 films made prior that only mentioned one McGlory contribution in SPECTRE. Hardly enough to make any sane judge see it differently. Case closed.
Unfortunately, other than the mention of SPECTRE in DN, there is absolutely no evidence to back up your claim that the Maibaum script was ripped from McClory/Whittingham's treatment of TB.
James Cameron had for years tried to bring Spider-Man to the screen without success. Does that mean he is now entitled to a nice share of Sony's profits for the subsequent success or that he can take credit for what Sam Raimi put up on screen? No of course it doesnt.
I had an idea in my head of how a Harry Potter film would look before WB bought the rights. Can I go to JK Rowling and demand my £100 million?
Everything you've said is conjecture. It is mere speculation and is not based in fact whatsoever. I'm sure if Richard Maibaum were still alive, he would be quite interested in your comments. Some could argue they are quite libellous.
Do you remember when Quentin Tarantino suggested they make a back to basics CR and then they did? How can they do that when it was Quentin's idea all along?
Read my posted CR trivia in my Originals thread for in depth details. The short version, all he wanted is was a thank you for the idea, as he otherwise had no claims to anything Bond. I'd think that if a lawyer had suggested otherwise, he would have pulled the same McGlory stickup routine.
I wouldn't go that far. @Morgan raises some valid points regarding the history of what McGlory was entitled to, but fails to prove what McGlory could not regarding rights he was not nor ever entitled to. It appears that it's only much later on that McGlory got the idea in his head that he was, which should have been resolved in 1963 at the time of his initial settlement. I almost have to wonder if @Morgan is a family member or someone involved in the process, if so Morgan should keep in mind regarding libel and/or slander that these are only opinions no better or worse than his/hers expressed here by the membership.
I was being sarcastic. Even though he said it publically, what's to say the folks at EON hadn't already been working towards a similar idea for years. I guess this is the point. Some people have very inflated egos and don't believe others to be up to their standard of 'genius'.
SARCASM ALERT- Well, as you know, Quint also claimed they weren't going to film CR at all until his "genius" surfaced. Seems unlikely as eager as they were to get the film rights, that they were planning to just do nothing until Quint "showed them the light".
Other than McClory owning the rights to TB, Blofeld and SPECTRE I don't think @Morgan had any valid points whatsoever. McClory was in no way at all responsible for the film version of Dr No and anyone who thinks otherwise is completely bloody deluded.
It's all the other BS claims that have been bandied about that have absolutely no credence.
@sirhenryleechahing
You are a little light on the facts. Following the 1963 case McClory owned the film rights in TB outright. He gave a 10 year license to Cubby in 1965. From 1965 to 1975 Eon was allowed to use the McClory property legally. McClory and Cubby were friends (sorry to burst your bubble). They only fell out in late 1975 when Kevin told him of his plans for James Bond of The Secret Service/Warhead as Cubby's licence has expired. McClory's rights were not remake rights. The 1983 decision confirmed that he could make films based on part or all of the 10 treatments or the novel.
You have confused McClory's case against Christopher Wood and Eon (1976) and the Trustees case (1978). In 1976 Eon removed the offending elements from SWLM and McClory dropped the case. He won the 1983 case outright. He has never been laughed out of court. He may have been laughing when he left the court but that was because he had won.
Of course he didn't sue on Austin Powers. It was satire.
It's McClory not McGlory.
This has been an interesting day but I don't think I'll be posting here for a while. The atmosphere in this forum is very hostile to differing opinions and some of the posts here are really disgusting. As Bond fans, I am sure a lot of you are conditioned to seek a bad guy as scary and evil as your hero is good. It seemed McClory was your man. It's all over now so you might do well to stop blurring the lines between fiction and reality. This is a great week for Bond. Be happy. Stop hating.
Slán
P.S- It's always going to be McGlory and I'll be sure to have saved up a large jar full of hot steamy piss to water his grave and the surrounding area. Although I think right now I'd prefer it were your leg. How's that for disgusting? :)
I'm assuming you are a member of the McClory family or someone close to them. If so, how do you feel about Kevin McClory's unfair treatment and unconscionable behavior towards the Whittingham heirs?
One of the saddest aspects of the entire Thunderball affair was that screenwriter Jack Whittingham was given the cold-shoulder by Kevin McClory despite writing the screenplay and helping McClory to win his legal suit against Ian Fleming. McClory made a mountain of money and lived like a king, but Whittingham was thrown to the wolves. McClory broke countless promises towards Whittingham regarding his owed money.
McClory even refused to give Whittingham any compensation when he re-filmed Never Say Never Again using a modified version of Whittingham's script. To this very day, the heirs of the Whittingham estate are patiently waiting for Kevin McClory's heirs to pay them their rightful dues. What about that, hmm?
As such, I'm sure you would agree the McClory estate should share their recent MGM settlement funds with Sylvan Whittingham and Jonathan Whittingham, the two heirs of the Jack Whittingham estate. After all, Whittingham's contribution to Thunderball was as substantial as McClory. Fair is fair, you know.
It's odd that you are want Kevin McClory to be given proper credit for the cinematic James Bond and yet Jack Whittingham was just as important. The McClory estate owes the Whittingham family -- and many others -- a lot of long-overdue money.
If you really care about people getting their rightful dues and proper credit, call the McClory estate and demand they share their money with the two Whittingham heirs.
You're new, and unless you know any of us in real life or from other forums - which I doubt - drop the act. You aren't impressing anyone, nor is it a good way to fit in. If you're looking to have lots of people loathe you, though, you're doing a fantastic job.
I'll admit, though, this topic in particular seems to have stirred up a good bit of emotions (for some reason) and there are a few who seem to take opinions as facts and can't respect the opinions of those around them, loyal members or not.
To answer your points:
A) I don't.
B) He didn't.
C) I'm not.
Oh the irony in your last sentence. For someone who joined this forum yesterday to be calling me a troll shows how badly you've lost the plot as well as your pathetic argument.
Thank you and goodbye.
@WillyGalore is not a troll, far from it in fact, and I can vouch for that.
@SirHenryLeeChaChing hasn't got issues with differing opinions, just with differing opinions that get stated as fact and are used to 'prove' other opinions as invalid.
@Creasy47 has a point that, as a new member, you might bring a slightly more modest attitude to the game.
Please think this through and return to the forum with a positive attitude. All opinions are appreciated, but how they get stated is something else entirely.
Thank you.
Darth Dimi
MI6 Moderator
Well I don't.
SPECTRE are a part but significant to the 'formula'? Hardly. They appeared in one sentence of DN and 5 other films.
As for the nuclear blackmail threat? Seeing as it only appears in TB and EON had the formula pretty well perfected by GF you just show yourself up as being utterly clueless.
But like Kev himself don't let the facts get in the way of your increasing desperation.
It's Rafa time as Morgan is struggling with anything more nuanced than bullet points:'
FACT: Mcclory contributed in some way to the TB novel and scripts based upon it.
FACT: Mcclory won the rights legally to make a film based on said scripts.
FACT: Mcclory got a massive pay day for his fairly minimal contribution.
FACT: Mcclory was an unpleasant man who was happy not to share any of his wealth with Whittingham despite carping on about moral rights all his life.
Say Kev was right and he was entitled to the whole character and should be the sole person allowed to make Bond films; Cubby and Harry owned every other Bond novel (bar CR) so what rights would that entitle them to?
Bloke was just a bitter delusionist who preferred to try and piggyback on other people's sweat and creativity rather than do a days work himself.
Morgan is right in one aspect - that Mcclory made a contribution to Bond. The trouble is seems to have been drinking what Kev did and it has ballooned in his mind to the size of the stay puft marshmallow man. Kev's contribution lies somewhere between George Martin and Peter Murton. And you'll find I'm being generous there - some people would place him between Victor Tourjansky and the double take pigeon, or lower.
I second that motion. Very well said, @RC7, sir. There are many areas of grey here. It's not all just black and white. This is a very complex area of Bondology, a fact that the book The Battle for Bond by Robert Sellers attests to.
Touche! Agreed completely. If we all talk about making Bond films more 'Fleming-esque', then Blofeld is one of the characters that has mainly been ignored by the Bond producers due to legal reasons. I think for the late Fleming that isn't nice either.
Yes but they should do. Have you not been listening to Morgan? All he's asking for is justice for Kevin.