Another Lost Bond Film?

2»

Comments

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    boldfinger wrote:
    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.

    Of course EON were right. Cubby had built up a very successful business through his clever acquisition of the rights from Fleming (perfectly legally) and his and Harrys own hard work. Mcclory thought that because he had once come up with one idea for a Bond story this entitled him to a slice of Fleming and EONs pie for the rest of his life. He'd already had his pay day for TB in 65 so he should have been content with that instead of trying to squeeze out a few dollars more. The guy was pure greed - from the day TB the novel was released did he ever do another days work that wasnt in some way related to trying to get himself a piece of the Bondwagon?

    And at the end of the day Kevin lived his life in the courts suing people for perceived injustices against his rights so why shouldnt Cubby dish out a bit of his own medicine?

    Live by the sword Kev.....
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,524
    McClory is one of the worst things ever to have happened to the franchise. I'm glad they managed to work against him when they did.
  • Posts: 2,189
    But McClory is dead now, he dropped ded just a few days after Casino Royale came out in 2006. So what happens to his rights to SPECTOR now? I've heard something about the "McClory Estate" or something. Is their a period of time after his death that will still make SPECTOR off limits for EON? How long will that be, and could they simply buy the rights back? I want SPECTOR and Blofeld back really bad!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    But McClory is dead now, he dropped ded just a few days after Casino Royale came out in 2006. So what happens to his rights to SPECTOR now? I've heard something about the "McClory Estate" or something. Is their a period of time after his death that will still make SPECTOR off limits for EON? How long will that be, and could they simply buy the rights back? I want SPECTOR and Blofeld back really bad!

    No ones going to see SPECTOR back for a long time I'm afaid.

    Poor old Phil has got at least 20 years in chokey ahead of him and he wont be eligible for parole until hes 88.
  • Posts: 5,745
    But McClory is dead now, he dropped ded just a few days after Casino Royale came out in 2006. So what happens to his rights to SPECTOR now? I've heard something about the "McClory Estate" or something. Is their a period of time after his death that will still make SPECTOR off limits for EON? How long will that be, and could they simply buy the rights back? I want SPECTOR and Blofeld back really bad!

    Why? Don't you want them to come up with new and original ideas?
  • 002 wrote:
    if Kevin McClory created SPECTRE? than why did Spectre first appear in Dr No and FRWL?

    Thunderball was supposed to be the first Bond film but at the time it was in litigation with the British courts. Eon chose to go with Dr. No instead, but retained the plotline that Dr. No was not working for Smersh but for SPECTRE. Richard Maibaum, one of the writers of the screenplay, apparently lifted SPECTRE from his Thunderball draft, which he was working on before the decision to go with Dr. No. Smersh was an organization that was slowly being disbanded and the producers wisely chose to go with a non-political entity such as SPECTRE and that is why FRWL has Blofeld leading the charge instead of General Grubozaboyschikov.

  • Posts: 2,189
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    But McClory is dead now, he dropped ded just a few days after Casino Royale came out in 2006. So what happens to his rights to SPECTOR now? I've heard something about the "McClory Estate" or something. Is their a period of time after his death that will still make SPECTOR off limits for EON? How long will that be, and could they simply buy the rights back? I want SPECTOR and Blofeld back really bad!

    Why? Don't you want them to come up with new and original ideas?

    I don't care so much about SPECTER because Quantum can take that role, but Blofeld is an irreplaceable. Sure you can re-interpret the Blofeld character, but he has to be their, and I can't imagine any villian having as big an impact as Blofeld. They can't just make up a Blofeld clone/replacement. Asking why I want Blofeld in this new Bond era is like asking why they put the Joker in The Dark Knight Rises. BLOFELD IS ICONIC!!!
  • Posts: 5,745
    *sigh*

    A blofeld clone/replacement still wouldn't be original. Bond doesn't need Blofeld. There have been dozens of films to prove this.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 128
    oo7 wrote:
    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.

    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?
    [/quote]

    Remember the only reason the whole mess started was because Fleming took the ideas he developed with McClory as partners and tried to pass it off as his sole creation. Fleming even pushed for the publication of the novel even though it was becoming clear that McClory would sue him if he did. The writers you mentioned were employed under a work for hire agreement in which they assign any rights to the characters, plots etc they create to their employer. McClory was working under no such agreement - he was in a partnership with Fleming to write/produce a movie. Any ideas developed during this process belonged to McClory as much as they did to Fleming. Fleming knew this and was plainly in the wrong when he took the plot of the script, adapted it for the TB novel and then agreed to sell the film rights to EON.
    oo7 wrote:
    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.
    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.
    [/quote]

    It's actually a well established legal principle that once you become aware of an infringement on your rights you cannot wait too long before seeking to enforce or protect them. The reasoning being that you can't just look on while someone else spends money building up a creation and then you swoop in and claim it once its successful.

    In the 1998 case McClory claimed that he had helped create the "cinematic Bond" because the Bond in his TB scripts contained changes to the character as depicted in Fleming's novels. He then claimed that these changes had been adopted by EON when they produced Dr No and the other Bond films. This was something new which he hadn't really brought up before. He lost the case because he took so long to enforce this alleged right to the cinematic Bond - during which time EON had spent time and money building up the franchise. If he thought he had a valid case he should have pursued it in 1962 when DN was released, or in 1976 when he went after EON over TSWLM and not waited over thirty years to bring his case.
    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.

    The Thunderball case wasn't decided by the court. Fleming settled and assigned the film rights for TB to McClory as well as a cash payment for damages and McClory's legal costs. McClory then approached Broccoli and Saltzman (or vice versa) and a deal was struck which gave EON ten years to produce a TB movie. Once the ten years was up McClory had the exclusive film rights to the TB plot.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited May 2012 Posts: 9,117
    Cipher wrote:
    Any ideas developed during this process belonged to McClory as much as they did to Fleming. Fleming knew this and was plainly in the wrong when he took the plot of the script, adapted it for the TB novel and then agreed to sell the film rights to EON.

    Whilst I take most of your points on board and they make sense from a legal standpoint (even if I dont agree with their pro Mcclory slant) I cant agree with this statement.

    The ideas developed - ie a plotline and characters of SPECTRE, Largo, Domino, Lippe etc were shared 50/50 but please lets not detract from the fact that the whole Bond character and universe was Flemings and his alone.

    Fleming was plainly not in the wrong to use his own character and ideas for which he was joinly responsible in the next book of a series he had created. He was legally naive in not giving Kev and Jack Whittingham a credit because then everything would have been above board, Kev would have had to settle for a nominal royalty because surely a court would have found that just writing a plotline did not entitle Kev to more than that. The only reason Kev got as much as he did was because Fleming effectively shafted him and he got nothing and he was legally much more savvy than Fleming.

    The law may well have found Kev to be in the right but the law also doesnt allow us to extradite Abu Hamza. Just because the law says so dont make it right.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 128
    It's not my intent to detract from the fact that Fleming created Bond. Thunderball is a Bond book because it features characters created by Fleming (Bond, M, Felix) in a literary universe created by Fleming and featuring the narrative style which is characteristic of Fleming. The problem is he knowingly took his creations then put them in a plot which he did not solely create, and included other characters which he did not create himself. He then tried to pass this off as his own work, solely created by him.

    In doing this Fleming was acting not as a person who was legally naive. He was a successful writer with years of experience in the writing industry. He was university educated, a former journalist and sub-editor and had even been the managing director of a small publishing firm. It is strains credulity to think that he didn't have any knowledge of proper attribution of sources, or of copyright, or that what he was doing would have some legal implications. Maybe he thought McClory wouldn't bother, maybe he thought he could outgun McClory if it came to trial, who knows. In the end he realised he'd done the wrong thing and he settled the case. A judge didn't decide it - Fleming admitted he was in the wrong and settled the case.

    Finally, this isn't about being pro-McClory, but about what I think is right. No matter how talented a person is, they shouldn't be allowed to pass something off as solely their own if someone else has played a part in its creation. I think that McClory was being an ass when he went after EON in the seventies and the nineties. But I think he was justified in suing Fleming. I admire Fleming in many respects - he was an fantastic writer, served his country and led an interesting life with style. I'm a fan of his books and the movies which spun off from his creations. But he wasn't perfect and in this instance I think he was wrong - not just legally - but morally wrong.
Sign In or Register to comment.