›

Will Harry Saltzman be the forgotten man on the 50th anniversary of 007?

AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
edited January 2012 in Bond Movies Posts: 2,115
On 007.com, Michael G. Wilson said, "Cubby Broccoli made Dr. No." When the subject of Harry Saltzman arises, he often comes across as an eccentric crank.

http://bit.ly/v2BZm1
«1

Comments

  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Saltzman and MGW might not have got along very well. Plus, if "Inside TMWTGG" on the DVD is to be believed, Saltzman would buy ridiculous things just to satisfy a minor urge (like elephant shoes for an elephant stampede that isn't even in the movie), so maybe Saltzman wasn't as big a cog in the Bond machine as we think he was. Still, the man was involved, we should give him credit for that.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    In a lot of ways, Live And Let Die was Saltzman's swan song (it was his turn to be the primary producer, and Broccoli's for Golden Gun). I think on one of the Thunderball commentary tracks, John Hopkins says he was hired by Saltzman.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Well, I've never listened to the commentary tracks (I reserve that for zombie movies and Sin City, for the most part), so I can't really comment on anybody that Saltzman hired during his tenure as a producer.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    I did think that was rather odd and a pity he wasn't mentioned. Saltzman had a hand in the original film afterall.
  • SharkShark Banned
    Posts: 348
    As I've always said, Harry Saltzman was the more interesting producer of the two, and arguably the more culturally significant. Lest not forget his other productions - CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, THE IPCRESS FILE, THE ENTERTAINER, SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY MORNING, LOOK BACK IN ANGER etc. Aside from Bond, what else did Cubby Broccoli do? Not much.

    As the current producers aren't his heirs, sadly Harry will keep getting neglected. You get kicked out of the family, you don't get any more Christmas cards.
  • tqbtqb
    edited January 2012 Posts: 1,022
    Why did they break up? (Cubs and Saltzman)
    not to make them sound married.
  • SharkShark Banned
    Posts: 348
    tqb wrote:
    Why did they break up? (Cubs and Saltzman)
    not to make them sound married.

    Harry declared bankruptcy after the dismal failure of TMWTGG, and sold 50% of his stake in Danjac (the Bond production company) to United Artists, who were later bought by MGM. That's partly why the MGM ordeal last year put Bond on standstill.

    IIRC though, the Cubby/Harry problems are a bit more complex than that.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    There's no denying it those first nine films have something, though I'm unable to pinpoint what exactly, that the others just don't. A style perhaps? The recurring theme of death sure helps.
  • tqbtqb
    Posts: 1,022
    Shark wrote:
    tqb wrote:
    Why did they break up? (Cubs and Saltzman)
    not to make them sound married.

    Harry declared bankruptcy after the dismal failure of TMWTGG, and sold 50% of his stake in Danjac (the Bond production company) to United Artists, who were later bought by MGM. That's partly why the MGM ordeal last year put Bond on standstill.

    IIRC though, the Cubby/Harry problems are a bit more complex than that.

    Interesting, i'd like to know more- on wikipedia it said TMWTGG had a budget of 7 million and grossed 97 million.

    And if they had lost money from doing the movie how did Cubs still have the money to make TSWLM?


    And can't DANJAQ buy the other 50% rights to Bond from MGM?

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited January 2012 Posts: 15,690
    IIRC, United Artists (now MGM) bought Saltzman's 50%, and 1% of Cubby's share, so today MGM holds 51% of the Bond rights and EON/Danjaq holds 49%.
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638
    IF I recall correctly, Harry sold his shares to finance something else he wanted to do (can't remember off the top of my head what) and he lost his money on the other project. I also remember that when Harry sold his shares to UA, Cubby was upset that he did not sell them directly to him.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited January 2012 Posts: 13,894
    IIRC (and don't take this as gospel) it was a restaurant that Saltzman tried to open up which went into bankruptcy. In order to pay of his creditors, he had to sell of his 50% stake in Bond.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    edited January 2012 Posts: 2,115
    tqb wrote:
    Shark wrote:
    tqb wrote:
    Why did they break up? (Cubs and Saltzman)
    not to make them sound married.

    Harry declared bankruptcy after the dismal failure of TMWTGG, and sold 50% of his stake in Danjac (the Bond production company) to United Artists, who were later bought by MGM. That's partly why the MGM ordeal last year put Bond on standstill.

    IIRC though, the Cubby/Harry problems are a bit more complex than that.

    Interesting, i'd like to know more- on wikipedia it said TMWTGG had a budget of 7 million and grossed 97 million.

    And if they had lost money from doing the movie how did Cubs still have the money to make TSWLM?


    And can't DANJAQ buy the other 50% rights to Bond from MGM?

    Saltzman had a number of other business dealings that went bad (he bought Technicolor at one point, just as Technicolor's business was flagging). My understanding is that it wasn't TMWTGG that brought Saltzman down, but his non-Bond business activities.

    To finance his non-Bond activities, Saltzman put his share of Bond up as collateral.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    IIRC.. i remember something being said about his frivolous spending of the production on TMWTGG that would make Cubby irate... like someone mentioned earlier about the elephants... he started spending money on things not even in the script - and spending the money without discussing it over with Cubby prior, he would just do it...

    it's on one of the DVDs, maybe it's the TMWTGG or possibly even CR.. i can't remember which - but it goes into a little more detail about the whole situation than i can clearly remember.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    On the documentary Inside The Man With the Golden Gun, Tom Mankiewicz talked about early development of the script. Saltzman supposedly got excited about the idea of an elephant stampede. Then, later, during filming, crates of elephant shoes showed up even thought there were no elephants in the movie and that Saltzman was responsible.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    AlexanderWaverly wrote:
    On 007.com, Michael G. Wilson said, "Cubby Broccoli made Dr. No." When the subject of Harry Saltzman arises, he often comes across as an eccentric crank.

    http://bit.ly/v2BZm1
    What, exactly, as you expecting them to do? By all accounts, Cubby Broccoli was the most-responsible for bringing Bond to the screen. Saltzmann simply got to the rights first and refused to sell them.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    shadowonthesun wrote:
    AlexanderWaverly wrote:
    On 007.com, Michael G. Wilson said, "Cubby Broccoli made Dr. No." When the subject of Harry Saltzman arises, he often comes across as an eccentric crank.

    http://bit.ly/v2BZm1
    What, exactly, as you expecting them to do? By all accounts, Cubby Broccoli was the most-responsible for bringing Bond to the screen. Saltzmann simply got to the rights first and refused to sell them.

    Yeah, it does seem as though Cubby was more interested in making the movies, while Saltzman was more interested in owning part of the Bond franchise (a wise investment, if I do say so).
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    edited January 2012 Posts: 2,115
    shadowonthesun wrote:
    AlexanderWaverly wrote:
    On 007.com, Michael G. Wilson said, "Cubby Broccoli made Dr. No." When the subject of Harry Saltzman arises, he often comes across as an eccentric crank.

    http://bit.ly/v2BZm1

    What, exactly, as you expecting them to do? By all accounts, Cubby Broccoli was the most-responsible for bringing Bond to the screen. Saltzmann simply got to the rights first and refused to sell them.

    I don't know, maybe say, "Fifty years ago, Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman made Dr. No." When Broccoli picked up the Irving Thalberg Award in 1982, he thanked both Irving Allen and Harry Saltzman.

    Also, by some accounts (see the 1998 book Adrian Turner on Goldfinger), Saltzman was more involved than Broccoli in script development on the early Bond films.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    AlexanderWaverly wrote:
    shadowonthesun wrote:
    AlexanderWaverly wrote:
    On 007.com, Michael G. Wilson said, "Cubby Broccoli made Dr. No." When the subject of Harry Saltzman arises, he often comes across as an eccentric crank.

    http://bit.ly/v2BZm1

    What, exactly, as you expecting them to do? By all accounts, Cubby Broccoli was the most-responsible for bringing Bond to the screen. Saltzmann simply got to the rights first and refused to sell them.

    I don't know, maybe say, "Fifty years ago, Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman made Dr. No." When Broccoli picked up the Irving Thalberg Award in 1982, he thanked both Irving Allen and Harry Saltzman.

    Also, by some accounts (see the 1998 book Adrian Turner on Goldfinger), Saltzman was more involved than Broccoli in script development on the early Bond films.

    Harry was the one who also almost nixed the Shirley Bassey version of Goldfinger... but because it was too late into post, and the film was nearing it's opening, they had to go with it.... the rest is history.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    HASEROT wrote:
    AlexanderWaverly wrote:
    shadowonthesun wrote:
    AlexanderWaverly wrote:
    On 007.com, Michael G. Wilson said, "Cubby Broccoli made Dr. No." When the subject of Harry Saltzman arises, he often comes across as an eccentric crank.

    http://bit.ly/v2BZm1

    What, exactly, as you expecting them to do? By all accounts, Cubby Broccoli was the most-responsible for bringing Bond to the screen. Saltzmann simply got to the rights first and refused to sell them.

    I don't know, maybe say, "Fifty years ago, Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman made Dr. No." When Broccoli picked up the Irving Thalberg Award in 1982, he thanked both Irving Allen and Harry Saltzman.

    Also, by some accounts (see the 1998 book Adrian Turner on Goldfinger), Saltzman was more involved than Broccoli in script development on the early Bond films.

    Harry was the one who also almost nixed the Shirley Bassey version of Goldfinger... but because it was too late into post, and the film was nearing it's opening, they had to go with it.... the rest is history.

    True enough. Saltzman was the more volatile character. But it's not like he just sat around, either. Broccoli was pretty gracious regarding both of his partners and he had serious disagreements with both.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    AlexanderWaverly wrote:
    Also, by some accounts (see the 1998 book Adrian Turner on Goldfinger), Saltzman was more involved than Broccoli in script development on the early Bond films.
    Script development is not an element of production.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited January 2012 Posts: 4,399
    shadowonthesun wrote:
    AlexanderWaverly wrote:
    Also, by some accounts (see the 1998 book Adrian Turner on Goldfinger), Saltzman was more involved than Broccoli in script development on the early Bond films.
    Script development is not an element of production.

    umm... pre-production on a film, which includes script development - is every bit a part of production on a film as shooting and editing it.... its usually the longest and most time consuming part of the film production process

  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    But it's not a producer's responsibility to actually write the script. Not unless the producer was actually a screenwriter - and Harry Saltzman never received a screenwriting credit.

    I get the feeling AlexanderWaverly is overstating Saltzman's contribution to Bond because he is upset that Michael G Wilson did not mention him in the introduction video posted on 007.com.
  • SharkShark Banned
    edited January 2012 Posts: 348
    shadowonthesun wrote:
    But it's not a producer's responsibility to actually write the script. Not unless the producer was actually a screenwriter - and Harry Saltzman never received a screenwriting credit.

    MGW still suggested a few ideas for the last couple of films (i.e. the water monopoly shtick for OQS), but never received any credits. One of Harry's ideas was the recurring "kill James Bond" twist in the pre-credits.

    As said before. Cubby was the businessman, and Harry was the eccentric ideas man.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited January 2012 Posts: 15,690
    .
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,885
    I've removed several posts from our two regular thread disruptors.
    DC and Shadow, enough of your petty squabbles. Take it somewhere else.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    Shark wrote:
    As said before. Cubby was the businessman, and Harry was the eccentric ideas man.
    I hardly think that counts as producing. It's more in line with the script writer's job. You said it yourself - Broccoli was the businessman. Producing a film is a business. They put up the money. They organise. They are responsible for the whole, not the individual parts. I'm not negating Saltzman's involvement, but going by everything I've read, it was Cubby Broccoli who got things done. Saltzman gave the films their quirky edge, but he couldn't do it without Broccoli. Broccoli, however, could do what he did without Saltzman.
  • SharkShark Banned
    Posts: 348
    shadowonthesun wrote:
    Broccoli, however, could do what he did without Saltzman.

    Sure, but arguably the post-74 Bond films lost something. I'm not sure what exactly, but with SPY onwards, they become more like Hollywood blockbusters.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    But it's still not really fitting the definition of a producer. It brought something to the films as they were being made, but it didn't actually get them made.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,885
    I would suggest going back to look at the dvd special 'Harry Saltzman - Showman', for a little more info on what Harry Saltzman brought to the Bond series.
    I have to agree with @Shark, when he said the post 1974 films lost something. The Eon series was a much better machine with Cubby and Harry at the helm. Despite their relationship, it was a business relationship that worked.
    Harry was a man who had many contacts, and many ideas that were instrumental in making the first nine films the success they were.
Sign In or Register to comment.