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
What kind of awkward statement? That a male actor can play a male character? In retrospect, everyone got over M being played by a woman, Moneypenny being black and Bond himself being played by a tiny, blond man with protruding ears. I wish people would just chill and stop looking for things to be offended about.
It's more likely that he realized McClory's chances of getting a Bond film made weren't good and so decided to repurpose elements from screenplay material that was owned by the project's backer Ivar Bryce (or so he thought, mistakenly). His legal carelessness is what cost him. But McClory had no excuse for wasting his life and everyone's time in a never-ending series of lawsuits designed to appropriate a film franchise whose success owed little to him. And in the ultimate irony, when he did get a chance to make a Bond film it owed more to Fleming's novel than the McClory/Whittingham screenplays.
Well said, Sir.
Fleming was certainly careless and surprisingly naive, but we were in the infancy of these sorts of series. Copyright and IP was nowhere near as litigiously protected as it is these days. Back then, a few ‘mates’ kicking around ideas was just that. It was only when McClory saw C&H pull off what he couldn’t, and to incredible effect, that he wanted a piece.
I can recognise McClory’s gripe, but I believe he was adequately compensated with his Producer role on TB. Beyond that there was nothing to say he couldn’t ‘do a Harry’ and launch an alternative series. It’s quite evident he simply didn’t have the talent and died a bitter and twisted old man.
It's clear he knew what he was doing when he wrote TB, hence the (court-ordered) attribution in the later prints of the novel.
I don’t think anyone is saying Fleming is innocent, but I don’t think what he did was as calculated as your post infers.
We all love the Bond character (the novels, the films, etc.) and the vast majority of that goodwill is rightly due to Fleming and Eon. Yet because of that goodwill, I think we sometimes forget that Fleming did something wrong when it came to TB.
I agree. On the flip, McClory became a monster.
That would make him a very naive person, if he was really surprised/shocked, when McClory sued him.
It’s a complex scenario. At the end of the day Bond was Fleming’s IP. In 2018 McClory would have been served a contract outlining the terms. I suspect Fleming naively assumed no one would even entertain the idea of claiming ownership over his creation. I can understand that. For all his intellect and creativity he wasn’t a business minded bloke. McClory on the other hand was shrewd.
Wonder what that's all about.
https://variety.com/2018/film/global/universal-international-bond-grinch-dolittle-pokemon-1202848020/
As for the recent addition to Universal’s international slate of EON/MGM’s Bond 25, which Danny Boyle will direct, Clark says: “This is one of the classic franchises of all time. Any studio would want to have it on their slate. Personally, I am a James Bond fan. It is an iconic brand.”
No, I wouldn´t exercise my right to produce a remake ten years later if I knew I´d had to fight a huge company willing and most of all able to stop me. No bs at all. What did it earn McClory beside feeding his ego? Money perhaps, but come on, he must have got a huge chunk of money even without the film rights. I find my physical and mental health more important to me than being a millionaire.
It is good that in the end they found a way to produce Thunderball as part of the official series. And since I like that movie a lot, I am happy the film turned out what it was and no rival film in NANA-quality (even I like Connery and Brandauer in it). Everything that came after that agreement in 1965 was a shame and McClory just couldn‘t get enough. He became a wealthy man and based on everything I saw and read his input was little besides the location and scuba diving thing. He made a fortune out of that, betrayed Whittingham and all that. Just a shame.
Unless it is Denzel Washington.
Also, Bond had the Xperia in SP, but Moneypenny's gift phone was a Samsung. What was the deal with that? Why not also give MP a Sony branded phone, or even the 'Made for Bond' Z5 Harris promoted for the film?
Fleming was under the assumption that Ivar Bryce owned all rights to the scripts, and since he and Bryce were friends he didn't see the danger. When Bryce settled in court, Fleming was upset with his old friend. Ann was even more upset and wrote "Dedicated to Ivar Bryce - the man who betrayed Ian in the Thunderball case" in one of Ian's manuscripts.
I also like NSNA (probably more than most people on this board!) and the film was practically a comeuppance for McClory--he was pushed out of the creative process by Schwartzman and didn't get to either direct or script it. The Bond movie McClory had prepared beforehand, Warhead, read more like a parody of the EON Bond films than a film based on the Whittingham scripts (which would have made a terrible film, judging from their summaries), and it was rightfully struck down in court. And then McClory wasted the rest of his life announcing cockamamie future projects (Warhead starring Timothy Dalton, coming to theaters in 1999!) before, in the ultimate display of hubris, deciding to sue Broccoli out of Bond altogether. He lost big time and after his death his heirs disposed of the rest of his Bond rights. What a waste! A real artist would have used the money from the 1965 film and moved on to projects of his own. Instead he gave the world an unnecessary TB remake and dozens of failed lawsuits.
Not to mention McClory even gave Blofeld a white cat, something which had first appeared in EON's movies and not McClory's screenplays.
One of these days someone should ask Dalton about Warhead 2000. I wonder if McClory buttered him up at a party, and Dalton gave the guy a half-assed agreement to do the movie.
I remember getting excited when it was announced. At that point I so thoroughly despised the Brosnan films, I wanted to see McClory try to torpedo the official series. And starring Dalton, my favorite Bond? Even better!
We know Dalton was (and is) a friend of the Broccolis, so I have my doubts he would have entertained any thought of starring in a rival series. My guess is that McClory somehow got the wrong message from an agent, or even straight-up lied to attract investors or attention.
I do enjoy SP, but Blofeld, Quantum and Spectre as an organisation have been handled terribly. I can't see anyway to continue with that story.
And TB is my least favourite Connery entry.... a shame it led to such a mess.
I only mentioned McClory offhand, didn't intend for it to derail everything for 2 days.
I think it has something to do the not getting any official word from EON, discussions sprout from the anticipation and nerves.
Words of wisdom on page 1594
But there will inevitably be a thread where Bond 26 is discussed. So the change will be in name only.
The idea I've had for months is a 'Bond 26 Anything Goes' Thread, so we can avoid the possibility of being off-topic as we discuss our wants and hopes, rumors, etc. Then the Production Thread gets opened around the time the press conference is set to begin, or even when the new actor is announced. I don't see a reason why it can't be done that way.