Casino Royale '67 and Sean Connery

2»

Comments

  • Posts: 1,626
    DN filming began Jan 16, 1962 in Jamaica.
  • Posts: 60
    I also might be mistaken here. But I don't think Dr. No is expressly stated to be working for SPECTRE in the film. He is retconned as being a SPECTRE operative in From Russia With Love. The reason for this is that there is no mention of SPECTRE in the From Russia With Love novel. It is SMERSH. But with Harry and Cubby chosing not to mention SMERSH in the film they instead chose SPECTRE. The organisation mentioned in Fleming's most recent novel Thunderball.

    Since SPECTRE is mentioned in both Dr. No and FRWL, the rights around the organisation itself and Blofeld were not as conflictuel in the 60s as they became in the next decade. The simple fact that Eon continued to think about Blofeld about a potentiel antagonist in Octopussy in the 80s, and had him in several drafts, also seems to indicate that the legal issues around these two are probably more complex that the idea that "McClory was the sole holder of these rights": it may have became the case in the 70s, but, at least in the 60s, the situation seemed more blurry.

    So I think Feldman could have utilised SPECTRE in Casino Royale as he planed to, if he produced a serious version.

    It was fine to use them in the Dr No and From Russia With Love films. As the court case by McClory against Ian Fleming had not yet begun. With it not begun there was certainly no ruling on it. So the producers were free to use SPECTRE.

    In fact, although McClory placed and injuction on them during the Spy Who Loved Me and this was the reason why SPECTRE and Blofeld were ceased being used in the francise going forward until the dispute was settled with the McClory estate after his death. I'm not entirely sure McClory would have won any case against EON.

    A legal brain might tell me differently. But I would guess the defence that EON would have used in court was that SPECTRE and Blofeld were already linked to the EON films. That Ian Fleming continued to use SPECTRE and Blofeld in the novels. And the fact SPECTRE is mentioned in Dr No and SPECTRE is mentioned and Blofeld seen (although no mentioned by name) in From Russia WIth Love. And that SPECTRE and Blofeld are again named (and seen but not mentioned by name) in Thunderball. And SPECTRE and Blofeld are named and seen in You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Diamonds Are Forever.

    This to me looks like a great case for EON to win. I guess they either couldn't be bothered with the headache of it all. And the years of wrangling in court. And for the fact by this point they were lifting bits and pieces from the novels but not filming them wholesale that they thought they didn't need to use SPECTRE and Blofeld.
  • Posts: 60
    Since62 wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Would SPECTRE have made it into the finished film, what with all the legal issues surrounding them?
    I may be mistaking, but I feel that, at the time, the issues were not so much about Spectre than about Thunderball itself. Or so it seems to be the case with Eon having no problem naming the organisation in DR, and using it and Blofeld in FRWL. I feel that Spectre became a legal problem in itself when McClory wanted to launch his Warhead project and didn't want to have Eon using the organisation at the same time in TSWLM.

    I also might be mistaken here. But I don't think Dr. No is expressly stated to be working for SPECTRE in the film. He is retconned as being a SPECTRE operative in From Russia With Love. The reason for this is that there is no mention of SPECTRE in the From Russia With Love novel. It is SMERSH. But with Harry and Cubby chosing not to mention SMERSH in the film they instead chose SPECTRE. The organisation mentioned in Fleming's most recent novel Thunderball.
    There was no retcon, Dr. No does explicitly say so in the film, something like "I'm a member of SPECTRE..." and explains the acronym and that it's made up of some of the greatest brains in the world, to which Bond corrects him "Criminal brains." Dr. No even mentions Bond could have a place in the organization and says he'd work for the revenge department and his first act would be to find who was responsible for killing Strangways and Quarrel, further antagonizing the doctor, who replies with the classic line "I've misjudged you, you are nothing more than a stupid policeman whose luck has run out."

    Still one of the classic Bond-head villain confrontation scenes.

    You are absolutely correct. And I inexplicibly got this wrong. I absolutely love this scene and I can hear Wiseman saying "SPECTRE" in his very sinister voice. And the line "I've misjudged you, you are nothing more than a stupid policeman whose luck has run out." Is not only one of the best of the film but in the entire franchise IMHO.

    Thank you for correcting me.

    I'm still not really sure why they made him a member of SPECTRE in the film though. As he is not a member of SPECTRE in the novel and SPECTRE hadn't even been introduced yet when Doctor No was released. Unless the idea was always to film From Russia With Love next and use SPECTRE instead of SMERSH at this point? Although, always thought the reason for choosing FRWL as the next film was because President Kennedy chose it as one of his 10 favourite novels?

    DN was released in 1962. TB (w/credit to Fleming's co-writers, though I am uncertain whether this credit was included in the very first of the books published) the book was released March 27, 1961

    Yes I know SPECTRE had been created and named in the novel Thunderball which was released in 1961 before filming began on Dr No in 1962. But the Dr No novel written by Ian Fleming was released in 1958 and makes no mention of SPECTRE.

    So I'm not quite sure why the filmmakers chose to make him part of SPECTRE?
  • So I'm not quite sure why the filmmakers chose to make him part of SPECTRE?
    Eon always had in mind to adapt Thunderball, it was their initial pick for the first instalment of the series and, even when Dr. No was picked, Richard Maibaum was nonetheless still hired to pen a scrip for TB. So I think that, because they were already so much interested in TB, Broccoli and Saltzman decided to plant seeds for this future adaptation.
  • Posts: 60
    So I'm not quite sure why the filmmakers chose to make him part of SPECTRE?
    Eon always had in mind to adapt Thunderball, it was their initial pick for the first instalment of the series and, even when Dr. No was picked, Richard Maibaum was nonetheless still hired to pen a scrip for TB. So I think that, because they were already so much interested in TB, Broccoli and Saltzman decided to plant seeds for this future adaptation.

    I know Thunderball was the planned first film and budget restraints put paid to that. And yes, they always planned to film it. So you might be quite right that they had invested in a film of Thunderball that they were planting seeds for the organisation down the line.

    Which brings me to another interesting question. I'm not sure whether or not this deserves it's own thread or not or just to continue it here.

    But what if they filmed Thunderball first?

    I know that has been asked and theorised on. But on the basis of how would that have affected the franchise and if it would have been a success and so on.

    But that's not the question I have. The question I have is, say, they film Thunderball first. So no court case yet by McClory and certainly no verdict.

    They film this movie first and then everything else with McClory happens the same way and he is victorious in court and he has the film rights to Thunderball. What does he do? Does he produce another version of the film himself with a different cast only 3 years later? Does he wait longer?

    Or would he be given ownership of this timelines Thunderball that was released in 1962? Or would Harry and Cubby just have to pay him remunerations and percentages of the film in perpetuity?
  • Which brings me to another interesting question. I'm not sure whether or not this deserves it's own thread or not or just to continue it here.

    But what if they filmed Thunderball first?

    Actually, there is already a What if thread, with the current question being "What if James Brolin stared in Octopussy?". The Thunderball question was asked. I don't really remember what was the answers, but I think I remember that the consensus was that an earlier adaptation of TB would have lead to a much cheaper movie, and probably less good too.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 2022 Posts: 3,785
    Which brings me to another interesting question. I'm not sure whether or not this deserves it's own thread or not or just to continue it here.

    But what if they filmed Thunderball first?

    Actually, there is already a What if thread, with the current question being "What if James Brolin stared in Octopussy?". The Thunderball question was asked. I don't really remember what was the answers, but I think I remember that the consensus was that an earlier adaptation of TB would have lead to a much cheaper movie, and probably less good too.

    I'm not sure about the quality of TB being much cheaper and less good, if my memory serves Fleming wanted Hitchcock to direct the movie with Cary Grant possibly in consideration for the role of Bond.
  • Posts: 1,911
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Would SPECTRE have made it into the finished film, what with all the legal issues surrounding them?
    I may be mistaking, but I feel that, at the time, the issues were not so much about Spectre than about Thunderball itself. Or so it seems to be the case with Eon having no problem naming the organisation in DR, and using it and Blofeld in FRWL. I feel that Spectre became a legal problem in itself when McClory wanted to launch his Warhead project and didn't want to have Eon using the organisation at the same time in TSWLM.

    I also might be mistaken here. But I don't think Dr. No is expressly stated to be working for SPECTRE in the film. He is retconned as being a SPECTRE operative in From Russia With Love. The reason for this is that there is no mention of SPECTRE in the From Russia With Love novel. It is SMERSH. But with Harry and Cubby chosing not to mention SMERSH in the film they instead chose SPECTRE. The organisation mentioned in Fleming's most recent novel Thunderball.
    There was no retcon, Dr. No does explicitly say so in the film, something like "I'm a member of SPECTRE..." and explains the acronym and that it's made up of some of the greatest brains in the world, to which Bond corrects him "Criminal brains." Dr. No even mentions Bond could have a place in the organization and says he'd work for the revenge department and his first act would be to find who was responsible for killing Strangways and Quarrel, further antagonizing the doctor, who replies with the classic line "I've misjudged you, you are nothing more than a stupid policeman whose luck has run out."

    Still one of the classic Bond-head villain confrontation scenes.

    You are absolutely correct. And I inexplicibly got this wrong. I absolutely love this scene and I can hear Wiseman saying "SPECTRE" in his very sinister voice. And the line "I've misjudged you, you are nothing more than a stupid policeman whose luck has run out." Is not only one of the best of the film but in the entire franchise IMHO.

    Thank you for correcting me.

    I'm still not really sure why they made him a member of SPECTRE in the film though. As he is not a member of SPECTRE in the novel and SPECTRE hadn't even been introduced yet when Doctor No was released. Unless the idea was always to film From Russia With Love next and use SPECTRE instead of SMERSH at this point? Although, always thought the reason for choosing FRWL as the next film was because President Kennedy chose it as one of his 10 favourite novels?

    I've heard they picked FRWL for that reason too. But I've also read by having a criminal organization in SPECTRE instead of SMERSH it avoided direct Cold War references, although it meant several villains became independent such as Goldfinger, Drax and Scaramanga.
  • MI6HQ wrote: »
    I'm not sure about the quality of TB being much cheaper and less good, if my memory serves Fleming wanted Hitchcock to direct the movie with Cary Grant possibly in consideration for the role of Bond.
    Back when the movie was developed by Fleming & McClory in the 50s, before he turned it into a novel. At that time, the idea was indeed to have a big budget movie (don't know if they could have afforded it though). When I was speaking about a cheaper adaptation, I was thinking about when Broccoli and Saltzman decided to launch the series in 62 with a $1 million budget.
  • edited July 2022 Posts: 2,913
    Although I'm not sure it was quite because it would affect Bond's popularity in Russia. How many Western blockbusters were released in the Soviet Union at that time?

    Bond films weren't shown in the USSR until TMWTGG, more than a decade later. But the producers were probably hoping to show the films in countries that were either non-aligned or behind the Iron Curtain.
    But what if they filmed Thunderball first?

    Even without the court case there was little chance of that after UA determined the first Bond's film's budget. TB would have been immediately judged as too expensive. DN itself went over-budget.
    They film this movie first and then everything else with McClory happens the same way and he is victorious in court and he has the film rights to Thunderball...would Harry and Cubby just have to pay him remunerations and percentages of the film in perpetuity?

    I think that would have been the most likely option. If the film had already been made, McClory would have probably been granted a share of the profits. Harry and Cubby would have had much less incentive to make a deal giving him film rights, since they'd already made their film.

    In retrospect, perhaps Harry and Cubby regretted not contributing more to the Fleming/McClory court case, though they did offer to help. Part of why McClory won is that he had a better lawyer (who went on to become a notorious figure in libel law cases). Cubby and Harry would have been more dependable backers than Ivar Bryce as well.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited July 2022 Posts: 554
    If Feldman had agreed to Connery's salary, would EON have let Connery go at it alone and then taken him back after, or would they have cut him loose for it?
  • If Feldman had agreed to Connery's salary, would EON have let Connery go at it alone and then taken him back after, or would they have cut him loose for it?
    I guess it would have depend of the time Feldman asked Connery. Ben Hecht died in 1964 and it is seemingly at this time that Feldman approached Broccoli and Saltzman, asking them to loan Connery to him. By 1966, the project had already become something close to the final movie, so, if Feldman had agreed to Connery's salary, it would have probably be between '64-'65, so at the peak of the spy craze with Thunderball in production.

    I see two options from there:
    1. Eon prevents Connery from shooting Casino Royale, either legally or financially, pushing Feldman to wait for 1968 to produce his adaptation. I guess to have Connery would have been all the more expensive for him.
    2. Unable to prevent Connery from shooting Casino Royale, Eon would probably have come to an agreement with Feldman and would have take Connery back after.

    In any case, I can't see Broccoli and Saltzman cutting all ties with Connery at the peak of the spy craze.
  • Posts: 60
    Revelator wrote: »
    Although I'm not sure it was quite because it would affect Bond's popularity in Russia. How many Western blockbusters were released in the Soviet Union at that time?

    Bond films weren't shown in the USSR until TMWTGG, more than a decade later. But the producers were probably hoping to show the films in countries that were either non-aligned or behind the Iron Curtain.
    But what if they filmed Thunderball first?

    Even without the court case there was little chance of that after UA determined the first Bond's film's budget. TB would have been immediately judged as too expensive. DN itself went over-budget.
    They film this movie first and then everything else with McClory happens the same way and he is victorious in court and he has the film rights to Thunderball...would Harry and Cubby just have to pay him remunerations and percentages of the film in perpetuity?

    I think that would have been the most likely option. If the film had already been made, McClory would have probably been granted a share of the profits. Harry and Cubby would have had much less incentive to make a deal giving him film rights, since they'd already made their film.

    In retrospect, perhaps Harry and Cubby regretted not contributing more to the Fleming/McClory court case, though they did offer to help. Part of why McClory won is that he had a better lawyer (who went on to become a notorious figure in libel law cases). Cubby and Harry would have been more dependable backers than Ivar Bryce as well.

    Hi @Revelator thank you for your reply. I'm new to the community and I haven't quite managed to figure out yet how to quote sections of a person's reply as you have. So forgive me.

    I also want to say before joining the community I had been visiting as a guest and I have always enjoyed your replies and your insight and knowledge of Bond. So thank you again, for taking the time to reply.

    As for filming TB first, you are quite right that when UA deemed the budget was $1 million then that would have immediately vetoed TB regardless. Although it would have temporarily taken away the McClory issue. Although as you mentioned. The likely course of action would have been McClory being granted a share of the films profits.

    I own and have read the excellent book "The Battle For Bond" by Robert Sellers. It's been a while since I've read it, but I can't recall off the top of my head if it delves into Harry & Cubby offering to help Fleming at the trial and why Fleming rebuffed them?

    Another question, after Feldman had approached Cubby and Harry about a co-production of Casino Royale and this fell through. And then when he offered the role to Connery and baulked at his $1 million fee demand. And decided then that he couldn't compete with EON and so he was going to make a spoof. Wouldn't he have just been better selling the rights to Cubby and Harry. Perhaps also with a deal where he got a profit percentage. Or did he make more money from the profits of the spoof than what he would have done selling the rights to Cubby and Harry?
  • Posts: 60
    If Feldman had agreed to Connery's salary, would EON have let Connery go at it alone and then taken him back after, or would they have cut him loose for it?

    You would have to assume Cubby and Harry would cut Sean loose. Considering both films were in production at the same time and were released in the same year. I doubt Cubby and Harry would delay production and wait for Sean. So presumably You Only Live Twice is a new actors first outing. Unless because it was a new actor in the role they decided to go back to basics and film On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
  • You would have to assume Cubby and Harry would cut Sean loose. Considering both films were in production at the same time and were released in the same year.
    Feldman's CR as it exists was indeed in production at the same time than YOLT, but Connery was approached some years before (probably in 1964), so the situation wasn't the same. Goldfinger was just released and Thunderball's production was fast-tracked to capitalise on the spy craze. I doubt Cubby and Harry would cut Connery loose at that time.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The ironic thing about them not wanting to pay Connery a million, is that they ended up paying just Sellers alone a lot more.
  • Posts: 60
    The ironic thing about them not wanting to pay Connery a million, is that they ended up paying just Sellers alone a lot more.

    That's crazy when you think about. Considering all the on set antics he caused. And the issues between himself and Orson Welles.
  • Posts: 60
    You would have to assume Cubby and Harry would cut Sean loose. Considering both films were in production at the same time and were released in the same year.
    Feldman's CR as it exists was indeed in production at the same time than YOLT, but Connery was approached some years before (probably in 1964), so the situation wasn't the same. Goldfinger was just released and Thunderball's production was fast-tracked to capitalise on the spy craze. I doubt Cubby and Harry would cut Connery loose at that time.

    But if Thunderball's production was fast tracked to capitalise on the spy craze and Sean chose to do Feldman's Casino Royale wouldn't this have held up Thunderball? So would they have replaced Sean for Thunderball? Or would Casino Royale have been filmed after Thunderball?

    Either way to me it seems likely that Sean would be replaced.

    Consider Sean's dilemma. Film a Bond film for less money than filming a different Bond film.
  • Posts: 628
    Here's another question:

    If Connery had made the CASINO ROYALE film with Feldman, would the fans be bleating about it decades later, claiming that it's not "canon" and not really a Bond film, as they do with NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN?
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    Here's another question:

    If Connery had made the CASINO ROYALE film with Feldman, would the fans be bleating about it decades later, claiming that it's not "canon" and not really a Bond film, as they do with NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN?
    Depends if it's good.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 2022 Posts: 3,785
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    Here's another question:

    If Connery had made the CASINO ROYALE film with Feldman, would the fans be bleating about it decades later, claiming that it's not "canon" and not really a Bond film, as they do with NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN?

    As @Agent_Zero_One said, if it's good.

    Many people bleating about NSNA was because of the quality, lack of Barry score, many people disliked Lani Hall's theme, Rowan Atkinson, Connery's age, some moments that felt out of place, some blame the editing and the cinematography and the fact that it's a remake of Thunderball (the original one), which came before it also weighed it down for some fans.
  • From what we know, Ben Hecht's script was pretty good, which is not a surprise since Hecht is one of the best screenwriters of all time. With the right director (Howard Hawks was interesting at one point in adapting the novel, or even John Huston), I doubt it would have came close to NSNA.
  • Posts: 60
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    Here's another question:

    If Connery had made the CASINO ROYALE film with Feldman, would the fans be bleating about it decades later, claiming that it's not "canon" and not really a Bond film, as they do with NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN?

    If it was a faithful adaptation of the novel and starred Sean Connery then I have to imagine it would have been a huge success. And if it was faithful and based on Hecht's script then it's likely it would have been a good film.

    However, it wouldn't have the gun barrel. No James Bond theme. No John Barry score. So I assume people would have mixed feelings about it.

    Even though it has it's faults. I still like Never Say Never Again. When people say it's not really a Bond film. What they mean is it isn't an EON film. But it's still a Bond film. But even though I enjoy it. It is still missing something without the gun barrel. The Bond theme and so on.

    And one thing even the most ardent of Never Say Never Again fans would have to admit is that it is a poorer remake of Thunderball.

    This is something that Feldman's Casino Royale would have in it's favour. It would have been a non EON filmed Bond story and closely resembling the books. So I guess fans would have had affection for it. But it's all what if's? I mean, it could have starred Sean and still been a disaster.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,329
    Great discussion here. Adding my two cents, if you look at DAF it doesn't mention SPECTRE at all. It plays like Blofeld has had to parasite on to Whyte's fortune in order to run his scheme.

    Yes there is a what if thread and we have debated the whole what if TB was the first novel. You have to remember that Broccoli and Saltzman had received a $1,000,000 budget for the first film, I believe TB was too ambitious for that size of budget. We certainly would have had the world map that merely showed the flying range of the Vulcan. I always chuckle at that, I don't know how much it cost but for the screen time it received I can see it being very expensive.

    In an old Starlog magazine interview with Maibaum, he stated that Broccoli wanted to keep politics out of the films. SPECTRE stood in as the bad guys because they weren't tied to a country. Even LALD they chose to create a fictional nation instead of picking an island in the Caribbean.

    You are welcome to deposit your views of what if's over in the thread if you wish!
Sign In or Register to comment.