Why did Kevin McClory want to remake Thunderball?
Monsieur Sixte
Posts: 39MI6 Agent
Why did Kevin McClory want to remake Thunderball?
It strikes me as odd that seeing as Thunderball is so superior to Never Say Never Again, that McClory thought he could have improved on it. What was going through his mind I wonder?
It’s understandable that he felt betrayed by Fleming “stealing” and novelising the screenplay that he, Fleming, Jack Whittingham, Ivar Bryce and Ernest Cuneo had been collaborating on—the novel later becoming an Eon Bond film (Thunderball). The previous sentience is a very potted version of what I have understood to be the case, and so could be wrong, if so I welcome corrections.
But I can’t see how he thought he could better that film without the expertise, resources and talent of Eon behind him. Maybe he didn’t want to better it, but simply “get back” at the estate of Fleming and Eon. Or maybe he just wanted to make a film that was more faithful to the original screenplay he had worked on. Not having read that screenplay, I don’t know if Never Say Never Again is faithful to it or not.
In any event, Never Say Never Again is not a very good legacy for him after all his efforts to see it come to pass.
It strikes me as odd that seeing as Thunderball is so superior to Never Say Never Again, that McClory thought he could have improved on it. What was going through his mind I wonder?
It’s understandable that he felt betrayed by Fleming “stealing” and novelising the screenplay that he, Fleming, Jack Whittingham, Ivar Bryce and Ernest Cuneo had been collaborating on—the novel later becoming an Eon Bond film (Thunderball). The previous sentience is a very potted version of what I have understood to be the case, and so could be wrong, if so I welcome corrections.
But I can’t see how he thought he could better that film without the expertise, resources and talent of Eon behind him. Maybe he didn’t want to better it, but simply “get back” at the estate of Fleming and Eon. Or maybe he just wanted to make a film that was more faithful to the original screenplay he had worked on. Not having read that screenplay, I don’t know if Never Say Never Again is faithful to it or not.
In any event, Never Say Never Again is not a very good legacy for him after all his efforts to see it come to pass.
Comments
The following threads may be of interest:
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/29701/kevin-mcclory/
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/28885/kevin-mcclory/
https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/45208/the-whole-fleming-mcclory-thing/
There are a few others, too.
I went to two of the threads you gave to make a comment but it says at the top of their pages:
“You are not logged in. Please login or register.”
Which is strange, as at the top of other pages it says:
“Logged in as Monsieur Sixte. Last visit 9th Oct 2018 17:45”
The threads that say I am not logged in are:
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/29701/kevin-mcclory/
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/28885/kevin-mcclory/
I’m logged in when I go to those threads, yet I’m not recognised on those pages as being logged in.
And he got that.
Doubtless he'd have been irked to see the franchise doing so well when in theory all that could have been his. Anyway plenty of EON films borrow from previous movies, I mean TSWLM is similar to YOLT and anyhow much of TSWLM seems to have been 'inspired' by the remake of Thunderball that McClory had in mind in the mid 70s and was a preemptive strike, what with its submarines, Spectre-like villain and HQ (Atlantis). It seemed to want to shoot McClory's fox, just as the FYEO pts which killed Blofeld was said to have done.
I don't know if TB is a work of genius that can't be improved upon, it depends on what mood you're in when you see it. Unfortunately, NSNA was interfered with a lot by EON who objected almost on a daily basis over its plot, prompting revisions. They tried to get a good team on it but went ahead when the money was right, not the script. Plus, they had to bag Connery when he had a window and was up for it. In a way Connery was of the same attitude - get some cash because you didn't make enough the previous time round.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
NSA, though he was in it, failed (for me) mainly because it had none of the film Bond elements that we had become used to by 1983—such as the cinematography, Barry’s musical score, and all the other elements of Eon Bond films. Having said that, though, LALD and OP don't seem like Eon Bond film either—to me anyway, but I still like them.
NSNA’s failure was no doubt due to what you say about Eon hampering its pre-production. It’s a pity that this happened, but Eon being a business had its interests to consider I suppose.
By the time NSNA came out, the Indiana Jones films probably were the “Bond films” for most youngsters of that generation. It would have been interesting to see what an Eon Bond would look like if they had let Spielberg direct one. I think he wanted to at one point but they wouldn’t let him as they always chose directors who were not famous, as having a famous one would detract from Eon’s ensemble-style approach to production. That’s what I heard in 1989. I can’t find any mention of it online.
Here's a few:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/steven-spielberg-james-bond-the-bfg-moonraker-broccoli-007-jaws-close-encounters-a7142731.html
http://www.mtv.com/news/1993590/steven-spielberg-james-bond-roger-moore/
https://filmschoolrejects.com/why-we-havent-gotten-a-james-bond-film-from-steven-spielberg-6520485ba37a/
From them it seems Spielberg approached Cubby Broccoli four times: after making Duel, after making Jaws, after making Close Encounters and after making Schindler’s List.
The reason he was rejected after Duel was that he wanted a percentage of the profits of any Bond film he directed, according to what Roger Moore says about his meeting with Spielberg (in the second link). If Moore is correct, then Spielberg shot himself in the foot for asking for a percentage seeing as Duel, though good, hardly put him in a position to demand such a thing.
After making Jaws he approached Broccoli but at the time Broccoli thought he wasn’t right for the job (in the first link), so he approached Broccoli again (in the first link) after Close Encounters and was again rejected for presumably the same reason.
Then (in the third link) Broccoli after being impressed with Schindler’s List and being asked by Spielberg if he could now direct a Bond film replied that he (Broccoli) couldn’t afford him.
So it all seems to boil down now to Spielberg being too expensive to hire these days.
I wasn’t aware of the money reason and only of the other reason that the third link mentions:
“Not only that, with a director of that caliber, they wouldn’t exactly be hiring a filmmaker who would bow to certain creative requests.”
I had no idea about the money angle.
Spielberg is so rich, though, I don’t see why he couldn’t direct a Bond film for free—if he loves Bond so much.
He has Bond commenting on how Monte Carlo had lost some
Of its glamour. With " One armed bandits " in the Casino, and
How he'd expect to see "Space Invaders" in next. I thought as
This was a year after NSNA, was it a little dig, at the film ?
Just like Bruce Lee : after Enter had wrapped and offers were coming in from world wide , he wanted at least 2 mill to consider doing a movie with Ponti or Hwood in general......he was aware of his market value indeed
So, why do I think he wanted to remake TB, and after NSNA why did he make it his life's mission to do so again? I think it's a matter of extreme anger and frustration watching the juggernaut success of the EON series, which he surmised should have been his success to behold and enjoy, but felt he was robbed of. So I don't think it's far off that for the rest of his life he bode his time wringing his hands in this anger to take what he believed was his to take.
I think that the initial high takings for NSNA were due to people being curious to see Connery “updating” his Bond role, and that the majority of tickets bought were due largely to that. I certainly bought a ticket for that reason, and not because of the trailer, which was pretty naff, and if Connery hadn’t been in it I wouldn’t have bothered. To show how naff it was here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UepZyoe7Nf4
And here is a fan trailer made in 2009:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlIXXkBvUUE
The fan trailer is far superior and does the film more justice than the official one. It makes what little there is in the film seem like a feast.
That original trailer is awful! I had never seen it before. I didn't think anything could make the film look worse than it is on its own!
The fan trailer is much better, but it's cheating by using proper Bond music!
Starburst magazine of 1983 kept banging on about the battle of the Bonds, so yes the opening of NSNA was big, esp as it was a bit more of an American Bond in flavour.
It had a limp opening in the UK, second fiddle in most fleapit cinemas to Jaws 3.
That Battle of the Bonds book is highly readable even if it needs editing. Dick Clements and Ian Le Frenais reveal they were hired for the Moonraker script, just some tarting up with one-liners, but in conversation they couldn't remember what they did for it, they said they were on for the big explosion scenes so not much going on there from their point of view. I suppose that joke with Jaws and the ladder might have been theirs. The script doctors are very good on the perils of making NSNA, and it seems the film only went ahead because a) They had a lawyer on board as producer, only he was no good at producing and b) They had Connery on board, and they got the green light - but the script wasn't any good, so they were forever playing catch up, rewriting as they went.
Director Irvin Kershner said he couldn't make the film he wanted to and always had to compromise but you do wonder about the bloke. He wanted that bike to be able to sprout wings that would let if fly over buildings, but when he got it out the packet in Nice, they hadn't provided any really so that was that, he couldn't shoot it. It does make you think, eh? Like, is that stunt suited to a Connery Bond film, and hadn't anyone on the project talked to each other at all.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The whole film just looked cheap to me, and lacking in the cinematic scope of the Eon Bonds of the time. I don’t know why that was. Was it lack of money, lack of a good action director, lack of a good cinematographer who could make a film look large-scale?
I don’t know why Connery agreed to be involved. It must just have been for the money perhaps.
Even then he gave his fee for DAF to charity, though he got a percentage of grosses so was hardly out of pocket.
Now he gets the chance to nab some of Moore's cash - Moore being on around £3m per film!
NSNA did not quite suffer from lack of money but lack of nouse - they didn't know how to put that money up on the screen, they didn't have experience with action, nor did the director who went too slowly and they were getting nabbed daily by EON's lawyers over the script.
The cinematographer Douglas Slocombe was a good one, fine track record and went on to do Indy and The Last Crusade so it's not really him that said the film didn't always look great and if you can't get the sun to come out in the South of France then the gods really aren't smiling on you.
I suppose NSNA is what you get when you do something for money rather than love, it gets done on the cheap to cut costs and maximise profits - typical of today's outsourcing racket you'll find.
Of course, 1983 was the year when all the cinema Bonds got to play Bond again, as Lazenby had a cameo driving a gadget-laden Aston Martin DB5 in The Return of the Man from UNCLE.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
It was McClory's idea to set the story in the Bahamas, because he was establishing a production company in the Bahamas at the time. He had lost money on the Boy and the Bridge, and could save taxes/receive subsidies if he set up in the Bahamas, Not certain the precise legal details.
Also, all the underwater scuba-diving content was McClory's idea, as he himself was a diving buff. I would have assumed that was definitely Fleming's idea, but Lycett says Fleming was not the only underwater enthusiast in the gang.
The original collaborators also included Ivar Bryce and the real life Ernie Cuneo, who I think was a New York lawyer Fleming knew through William Stephenson. I'm not sure why a lawyer had cinematic ambitions, but he wrote the original story outline which Fleming reviewed and expanded upon after doing a bit of travelling. Fleming was researching Thrilling Cities at the time his collaborators developed the idea for the film. It was Cuneo's idea to feature a boat with an underwater hatch. I think the murder of the pilot was Cuneo's idea too.
Fleming noted Cuneo's plot had no heroine, so the character that evolved into Domino was his idea. According to Lycett Fleming also came up with the idea of SPECTRE too, but I've seen this argued back and forth. Certainly whoever came up with SPECTRE was the key legal question for decades to come, and we all know it was McClory who ended up with those rights. Cuneo's original story had the villains as Russia, then for a while it was going to be the Mafia, before someone decided on an allnew fictional terrorist organisation.
My copy of the Lycett's book is on my bedside table in another city, so I'm going by memory. Please feel free to tell me all I got wrong, because I don't want to be the source of further misinformation. But since we're talking about why McClory would want to remake the one thing he held valuable legal right to, I think its important to review what precisely each of the players contributed. I bet Barbel has it all properly memorised.
If Lycett has it correct, I am surprised how few of the big ideas were Fleming's. Also that Ernie Cuneo was conspicuously the one person who did not get a credit in later printings of Fleming's book.
One element I do understand was all Fleming was the Shrublands sequence that basically makes up the first third of the book, because this was a fantasy version of his own recent real life experience. When you think about it, that sequence is almost tacked on to the main Bahamas story, the connection (Lippe and his tattoo) is very tenuous. So I wonder if he added that himself later when he decided to novelise the abandoned film project? elsewhere, Lycett claims the Blades sequence in Moonraker was added after the proposed Moonraker film project was abandoned, to fill out a book to 200pgs, and the Shrublands sequence fits into the larger plot of Thunderball in much the same way.
there's a good Never Say Never Again thread here, where much of this stuff was previously discussed.
also theres five pages of excerpts from the Battle of Bond book on this DoubleOhSeven Magazine blog.
Bingo. McClory actually wanted to make a Bond film called Warhead that had nothing to do with Thunderball. More can be read about it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20121024232001/http://www.totalfilm.com/features/the-lost-bond
Safe to say there were no robotic sharks in Fleming's book!
Broccoli called foul, and after the lawyers were sicced on McClory, the decision was made to play things safe and re-adapt Fleming's Thunderball instead, since McClory couldn't prove he had the rights to make up a new Bond story. Ironically, when Never Say Never Again was finally made, it wasn't really McClory's baby. The real producer was Jack Schwartzman, and McClory found himself almost pushed out of the film, though he still received credit and money.
Correct on both counts. I have criticized the book for being too biased in Jack Whittingham's favor, but the fact remains that Sellers is one of only two people who have gone through all the scripts of what became the novel and film of Thunderball. The other person is John Cork, whose article "Inside Thunderball" is required reading and useful corrective to Sellers. It can be read in three parts online:
http://archive.li/cjf2m
http://archive.fo/Ha6nu
http://archive.li/QQ2QU
I believe both Cork and Sellers state that Fleming created Spectre, which settles the matter for me. It's possible that McClory first had the idea to make the villains a freelance terrorist organization, but there's no evidence to clinch this, whereas Fleming's proposal and description of Spectre exists on paper and marks the first ever mention of the organization.
McClory ended up with a claim to the rights only because Broccoli did not want to delay production of The Spy Who Loved Me by engaging in a legal battle over ownership of Spectre. So he had the organization removed from the script and didn't bother with it again, though some early scripts of Octopussy featured Blofeld and Spectre.
Correct. Fleming claimed he was making "a book of the film," but the film follows his book far more than McClory and Whittingham's scripts! I suspect Fleming wanted to take back control of the project, which Whittingham was taking into somewhat unFlemingian directions, by making a novel out of it.
http://www.mandrakewiki.org/index.php?title=8