I guess the question is, why didn't the producers stick by their original contracts? And seeing as they didn't, why should Connery be expected to?
But they did. The contract was for 6 films a year from 61-67, and seeing that they were just on their 5th as 67 was approaching, they released him from contract. The overriding condition of the contract was the period it was to be in effect and that's what Connery was bound to. If you think the producers breached their contract in any way, why didn't Connery sue since he was so upset?
That's not what I was referring to. I meant that the producers renogiated their own contracts with UA several times throughout the 60s, yet refused to allow Connery to renogiate his.
Granted, my choice, if he‘d still be here would be Sir Roger
Agreed, a much more engaging DInner companion in my view.
Lazenby would be irritating but I'd love to know his side of the story. Of course he tells everybody all the time, but I bet there is some fascinating inside stuff left.
Dalton and Craig would likely be as dull as a tax return (despite Dalton being my favourite ) Brozzer like Sir Roger would be charming.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
If he was such a principled man, he‘d stood with the contract without moaning.
Sorry, but I fail to feel sorry for him. As Bond, he was among the 0,01% of actors, that really could make a living out of their profession.
And he was a very well paid actor in his Bond days.
I think as fans, there's the emotional tendency to stack up all our sympathy on the actor, who after all is "solely" responsible for making us feel good, overlooking everything else that made the experience possible. There's a Jean Luc Goddard movie in which a couple discussed a dream dinner with James Bond and who wouldn't jump at the chance of spending time with Sean Connery? However, thinking about it more carefully in strict regard for any discussion about the ins and outs of film series, my dream dinner would be with Broccoli or Saltzman, or even Terence Young, Guy Hamilton, Peter Hunt, etc.
But if we are talking about principles, the principle tenet is not to be exploited by your employer. My point is that, like it or not, the FACE of JAMES BOND was SEAN CONNERY. The expectation from the producers was that CONNERY should be glad to be so successful, put up and shut up.
There are few contemporary equivalents for Sean's situation - but if you think Liz Taylor was paid $1million to be the face of Cleopatra in 1960 and that fee for one film, you can surely understand why, with the 007 whirlwind, he considered he was being under-appreciated.
When Thunderball took over 50 times it's investment at the box office, and the money men get their share on the back of Connery's FACE, you can surely see why he might believe his pay should increase. Not by x50, but something more realistic.
The fact he would make films in the 70s and 80s for less tells you it isn't about money per se, but about lack of recompense and recognition.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I guess the question is, why didn't the producers stick by their original contracts? And seeing as they didn't, why should Connery be expected to?
But they did. The contract was for 6 films a year from 61-67, and seeing that they were just on their 5th as 67 was approaching, they released him from contract. The overriding condition of the contract was the period it was to be in effect and that's what Connery was bound to. If you think the producers breached their contract in any way, why didn't Connery sue since he was so upset?
That's not what I was referring to. I meant that the producers renogiated their own contracts with UA several times throughout the 60s, yet refused to allow Connery to renogiate his.
Is that a fact that UA outrightly refused to renegotiate with Connery? When and how did they refuse renegotiations?
To this Harry Saltzman said, “It’s not necessarily a producer’s job to say they’d like to give you oodles more money… It’s for the agent to sort that out. Maybe his agent didn’t do what he should have done for his client.”
Renegotiating with EON was UA's prerogative and wisely so for their sake, which shouldn't violate EON's own prerogative with their contractual relationship with Connery. Besides, the nature of those two relationships (UA and EON; EON and Connery) are apples and oranges. There was much more involved in the Connery situation than compensation as the many posts on this thread will tell you ad nauseam and EON proved itself wise in the long run to thrive regardless of Connery, decades after parting ways with him.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
If he was such a principled man, he‘d stood with the contract without moaning.
Sorry, but I fail to feel sorry for him. As Bond, he was among the 0,01% of actors, that really could make a living out of their profession.
And he was a very well paid actor in his Bond days.
I think as fans, there's the emotional tendency to stack up all our sympathy on the actor, who after all is "solely" responsible for making us feel good, overlooking everything else that made the experience possible. There's a Jean Luc Goddard movie in which a couple discussed a dream dinner with James Bond and who wouldn't jump at the chance of spending time with Sean Connery? However, thinking about it more carefully in strict regard for any discussion about the ins and outs of film series, my dream dinner would be with Broccoli or Saltzman, or even Terence Young, Guy Hamilton, Peter Hunt, etc.
But if we are talking about principles, the principle tenet is not to be exploited by your employer. My point is that, like it or not, the FACE of JAMES BOND was SEAN CONNERY. The expectation from the producers was that CONNERY should be glad to be so successful, put up and shut up.
There are few contemporary equivalents for Sean's situation - but if you think Liz Taylor was paid $1million to be the face of Cleopatra in 1960 and that fee for one film, you can surely understand why, with the 007 whirlwind, he considered he was being under-appreciated.
When Thunderball took over 50 times it's investment at the box office, and the money men get their share on the back of Connery's FACE, you can surely see why he might believe his pay should increase. Not by x50, but something more realistic.
The fact he would make films in the 70s and 80s for less tells you it isn't about money per se, but about lack of recompense and recognition.
LOL, "the FACE of JAMES BOND was SEAN CONNERY" was disproved by EON. ) Sorry friend, but your response to my post just proved my earlier statement about fans' emotional quotient in appreciating the issue.
EDIT: BTW, Cleopatra was a flop, so maybe that $1 mil wasn't a wise investment.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Always thought Sean Connery was excellent in his movies from Dr No, to You Only Live Twice, unfortunately I don't think he should have made Diamonds Are Forever although he put in a good performance in Never Say Never Again - oh or was that his toupe?
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
edited February 2019
Speaking of million dollar paychecks, for a sixth film, Connery was asking for $1.25 mil and 12.5% of the profits, which of course didn't pan out for him...but which became the compensation package for DAF more or less. That whole drama of luring him back was some sort of herculean task on the part of David Picker in his own assessment of the situation. It was also Picker who said that as the head of UA, their contract with EON was periodically renegotiated and therefore criticized EON for not taking care of Connery, as if he were unaware of the contractual upheaval surrounding Connery's sixth film that would have been OHMSS. They were very much aware as well of the budget for each movie, which they had total control over, so where was this same effort for OHMSS that went into luring Connery back for DAF?
BTW, the $1.25 million that Connery was asking for his sixth Bond would have been an industry record at the time, so whether that was reasonable is subjective to everyone here. To borrow data from our fellow Bond forum, MI6, Connery's compensation was as follows:
DN : $17,000
FRWL : $250,000
GF : $500,000
TB : $750,000
YOLT : $750,000 + 25% of net marchandise profits = $1,000,000 (my notes: Compare Connery's salary to YOLT's budget, $10.3 million. BTW, the budget for OHMSS is even less at $7 million)
DAF : $1,200,000 + 12.5% of net US profits = $6,700,000
As Saltzman said about the negotiations for Connery's sixth movie, "they were so close," but as we saw, at that point in time Connery would have walked no matter what.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
But if we are talking about principles, the principle tenet is not to be exploited by your employer. My point is that, like it or not, the FACE of JAMES BOND was SEAN CONNERY. The expectation from the producers was that CONNERY should be glad to be so successful, put up and shut up.
Call me oldfashioned, but to me the main principle is, that I am sticking with what was agreed.
If we stick with your argument: If the entire EON gamble with Dr. No would have gone belly up, then Connery would voluntarily have released EON from their obligations because he would never had exploited his employer in return?
I understand Connery‘s disappointment to a degree but stick with my opinion, no matter what they‘d have added, Connery would have walked away grumpey
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
BTW, the $1.25 million that Connery was asking for his sixth Bond would have been an industry record at the time, so whether that was reasonable is subjective to everyone here. To borrow data from our fellow Bond forum, MI6, Connery's compensation was as follows:
DN : $17,000
FRWL : $250,000
GF : $500,000
TB : $750,000
YOLT : $750,000 + 25% of net marchandise profits = $1,000,000 (my notes: Compare Connery's salary to YOLT's budget, $10.3 million. BTW, the budget for OHMSS is even less at $7 million)
DAF : $1,200,000 + 12.5% of net US profits = $6,700,000
LOL Wish that I'd be exploited like that by my employer.......
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Wasnt just Connery , I think Barbra S felt cheated on salary prior to ASIB in '76 , she did those films mostly cuz of a contract.
West & Ward also felt cheated on Batman : they never saw a penny of the bat merch pie , prolly lost a lot in residue on that ( I dont think they paid for that back in the day)
Guess I was wrong , it was prolly due to her not having total control , these figures arent exactly chicken feed :
Funny Girl (1968) $200,000
Hello, Dolly! (1969) $750,000
On a Clear Day You Can See Forever (1970) $350,000
The Owl and the Pussycat (1970) $1,000,000
A Star Is Born (1976) $15,000,000 (including %)
The Main Event (1979) $1,000,000 + 10% of the gross
All Night Long (1981) $4,000,000
Yentl (1983) $3,000,000
Nuts (1987) $5,500,000
The Prince of Tides (1991) $6,500,000
The Mirror Has Two Faces (1996) $20,000,000 plus percentage of profits
Little Fockers (2010) $7,000,000 (pretty well paid for a bit part
)
Adam West had to argue to get 100k for Batman feature - which he did.
Walken is underpaid , only once did they pay him a mill......no idea if that was for Bond , though ?:)
I think as fans, there's the emotional tendency to stack up all our sympathy on the actor, who after all is "solely" responsible for making us feel good, overlooking everything else that made the experience possible. There's a Jean Luc Goddard movie in which a couple discussed a dream dinner with James Bond and who wouldn't jump at the chance of spending time with Sean Connery? However, thinking about it more carefully in strict regard for any discussion about the ins and outs of film series, my dream dinner would be with Broccoli or Saltzman, or even Terence Young, Guy Hamilton, Peter Hunt, etc.
But if we are talking about principles, the principle tenet is not to be exploited by your employer. My point is that, like it or not, the FACE of JAMES BOND was SEAN CONNERY. The expectation from the producers was that CONNERY should be glad to be so successful, put up and shut up.
There are few contemporary equivalents for Sean's situation - but if you think Liz Taylor was paid $1million to be the face of Cleopatra in 1960 and that fee for one film, you can surely understand why, with the 007 whirlwind, he considered he was being under-appreciated.
When Thunderball took over 50 times it's investment at the box office, and the money men get their share on the back of Connery's FACE, you can surely see why he might believe his pay should increase. Not by x50, but something more realistic.
The fact he would make films in the 70s and 80s for less tells you it isn't about money per se, but about lack of recompense and recognition.
LOL, "the FACE of JAMES BOND was SEAN CONNERY" was disproved by EON. ) Sorry friend, but your response to my post just proved my earlier statement about fans' emotional quotient in appreciating the issue.
EDIT: BTW, Cleopatra was a flop, so maybe that $1 mil wasn't a wise investment.
At what point did EON prove that in 1967?
Cleopatra wasn't a flop, it was a huge hit, it just didn't earn a profit because it cost so much to make.
You won't convince me, sorry to say.
I'm not emotionally tied to Connery, in fact I think Lazenby is just as good a Bond as you need to be in OHMSS; for me this is a moment when an actor understood his worth and made an effective stand for what he wanted. Eventually, no one really lost out of this, and you could say no one really won either.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
But if we are talking about principles, the principle tenet is not to be exploited by your employer. My point is that, like it or not, the FACE of JAMES BOND was SEAN CONNERY. The expectation from the producers was that CONNERY should be glad to be so successful, put up and shut up.
There are few contemporary equivalents for Sean's situation - but if you think Liz Taylor was paid $1million to be the face of Cleopatra in 1960 and that fee for one film, you can surely understand why, with the 007 whirlwind, he considered he was being under-appreciated.
When Thunderball took over 50 times it's investment at the box office, and the money men get their share on the back of Connery's FACE, you can surely see why he might believe his pay should increase. Not by x50, but something more realistic.
The fact he would make films in the 70s and 80s for less tells you it isn't about money per se, but about lack of recompense and recognition.
LOL, "the FACE of JAMES BOND was SEAN CONNERY" was disproved by EON. ) Sorry friend, but your response to my post just proved my earlier statement about fans' emotional quotient in appreciating the issue.
EDIT: BTW, Cleopatra was a flop, so maybe that $1 mil wasn't a wise investment.
At what point did EON prove that in 1967?
Cleopatra wasn't a flop, it was a huge hit, it just didn't earn a profit because it cost so much to make.
You won't convince me, sorry to say.
I'm not emotionally tied to Connery, in fact I think Lazenby is just as good a Bond as you need to be in OHMSS; for me this is a moment when an actor understood his worth and made an effective stand for what he wanted. Eventually, no one really lost out of this, and you could say no one really won either.
Why do you limit proof to just 1967? That’s a ridiculous parameter and such an artificial argument. The proof is that here we are in 2019 and the Bond series is going strong, presently with the face of Daniel Craig, and if box office is an indicator, for millions upon millions who bought tickets to plant their behinds in movie theaters, he is James Bond. And sadly in 2019, the series has outlived one actor who for his tenure, was also James Bond to millions and millions. But who knows what surprises are in store for EON? Perhaps the Bond actors still living may actually outlive the series.
Regarding Cleopatra, I don’t know if “flop” is the correct term, so pardon me if I may have used inaccurate semantics. However, there must be a kernel of truth in what Wikipedia has to say on the financial stats of “Cleopatra.”
“Cleopatra was the highest-grossing film of 1963, earning box-office of $57.7 million in the United States and Canada (equivalent to $472 million in 2018), yet lost money due to its production and marketing costs of $44 million (equivalent to $360 million in 2018), making it the only film ever to be the highest-grossing film of the year to run at a loss.”
Maybe not a flop per se in terms of BO, but in terms of financial objectives, an utter failure. These mechanics by the way were and are integral to the Bond films’ budgeting, which includes the Bond actors’ salaries. It’s funny how David Picker of UA washed his hands with the loss of Connery, yet they were in total control of each film’s budget, sometimes increasing significantly and other times getting cut just as dramatically.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I think you're both right. Connery was extremely important to the Bond series, but they were able to move on without him. OHMSS took a hit because Connery wasn't in it, and he was brought back for DAF because he was important. But other actors were able to help the Bond series move past Connery. Moore was able to be the ultimate Bond for a generation. Brosnan was able to do that too. And now Craig has made people forget Connery (and other previous Bonds) in ways that none of the previous Bond actors could.
But for many people who grew up with Connery in the cinema, none of the other Bond actors were able to be James Bond. If Connery wasn't so important, NSNA wouldn't have been made. OP's superior box office is in favour of Connery not being important, but NSNA was still a success and showed that Connery was still the face of Bond for many people.
It's as well to point out that though the franchise did survive Connery's departure and went from strength to strength, that could not have been forseen at the time.
Lazenby's relative poor showing and appreciation demonstrated how difficult it was to get the public on your side, and it seemed to need Connery's return to 'right' things.
That helped take Bond into the 70s and yes, Moore took over but again, his success was not an easy done deal, his second wasn't much cop. You could never say that about ANY of Connery's films around then, whatever your view of them. I mean, TB isn't great but it hit the spot and was hugely successful. Some don't like DAF but they'd like the same film less with Lazenby or Moore in the role.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
It's as well to point out that though the franchise did survive Connery's departure and went from strength to strength, that could not have been forseen at the time.
Lazenby's relative poor showing and appreciation demonstrated how difficult it was to get the public on your side, and it seemed to need Connery's return to 'right' things.
That helped take Bond into the 70s and yes, Moore took over but again, his success was not an easy done deal, his second wasn't much cop. You could never say that about ANY of Connery's films around then, whatever your view of them. I mean, TB isn't great but it hit the spot and was hugely successful. Some don't like DAF but they'd like the same film less with Lazenby or Moore in the role.
.
No doubt that was the sentiment across the board, the public, the industry, perhaps UA and to SOME extent, EON. Yes, DAF is an indicator that they felt that way because they caved, through getting Connery back was UA’s initiative. I still applaud them for their resolve to know when to stop and move on, lest they paint themselves in a corner and be held hostage to a star’s demands. Yes, to a dgree they underwent that with RM and are doing so now with DC. But I feel if they completely caved, they would have gotten SC for YOLT plus 2 more at what would have been a ridiculous expense.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
There's no villain. They all won large sums of money, in the end, and after a lot of hard work.
One thing I have to point out, is that Connery's bitterness on Saltzman & Broccolli largely bled over to Broccolli after he'd decided to come on-board with McClory's alleged Warhead project, and later NSNA, which was a shoot that was continuously and on a daily basis in danger of being shut down, due to EON's legion of lawyers suing the picture, practically daily. And Connery was hands-on in the film in a way he never was before on a Bond film, and he noted since that the working environment was horrid because of that. SO, whatever their troubles had been in those early days... I think his experience working on NSNA cemented Connery's dislike on Broccolli himself.
Comments
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
That's not what I was referring to. I meant that the producers renogiated their own contracts with UA several times throughout the 60s, yet refused to allow Connery to renogiate his.
Agreed, a much more engaging DInner companion in my view.
Lazenby would be irritating but I'd love to know his side of the story. Of course he tells everybody all the time, but I bet there is some fascinating inside stuff left.
Dalton and Craig would likely be as dull as a tax return (despite Dalton being my favourite ) Brozzer like Sir Roger would be charming.
But if we are talking about principles, the principle tenet is not to be exploited by your employer. My point is that, like it or not, the FACE of JAMES BOND was SEAN CONNERY. The expectation from the producers was that CONNERY should be glad to be so successful, put up and shut up.
There are few contemporary equivalents for Sean's situation - but if you think Liz Taylor was paid $1million to be the face of Cleopatra in 1960 and that fee for one film, you can surely understand why, with the 007 whirlwind, he considered he was being under-appreciated.
When Thunderball took over 50 times it's investment at the box office, and the money men get their share on the back of Connery's FACE, you can surely see why he might believe his pay should increase. Not by x50, but something more realistic.
The fact he would make films in the 70s and 80s for less tells you it isn't about money per se, but about lack of recompense and recognition.
Is that a fact that UA outrightly refused to renegotiate with Connery? When and how did they refuse renegotiations?
To this Harry Saltzman said, “It’s not necessarily a producer’s job to say they’d like to give you oodles more money… It’s for the agent to sort that out. Maybe his agent didn’t do what he should have done for his client.”
Renegotiating with EON was UA's prerogative and wisely so for their sake, which shouldn't violate EON's own prerogative with their contractual relationship with Connery. Besides, the nature of those two relationships (UA and EON; EON and Connery) are apples and oranges. There was much more involved in the Connery situation than compensation as the many posts on this thread will tell you ad nauseam and EON proved itself wise in the long run to thrive regardless of Connery, decades after parting ways with him.
LOL, "the FACE of JAMES BOND was SEAN CONNERY" was disproved by EON.
EDIT: BTW, Cleopatra was a flop, so maybe that $1 mil wasn't a wise investment.
BTW, the $1.25 million that Connery was asking for his sixth Bond would have been an industry record at the time, so whether that was reasonable is subjective to everyone here. To borrow data from our fellow Bond forum, MI6, Connery's compensation was as follows:
DN : $17,000
FRWL : $250,000
GF : $500,000
TB : $750,000
YOLT : $750,000 + 25% of net marchandise profits = $1,000,000 (my notes: Compare Connery's salary to YOLT's budget, $10.3 million. BTW, the budget for OHMSS is even less at $7 million)
DAF : $1,200,000 + 12.5% of net US profits = $6,700,000
As Saltzman said about the negotiations for Connery's sixth movie, "they were so close," but as we saw, at that point in time Connery would have walked no matter what.
Call me oldfashioned, but to me the main principle is, that I am sticking with what was agreed.
If we stick with your argument: If the entire EON gamble with Dr. No would have gone belly up, then Connery would voluntarily have released EON from their obligations because he would never had exploited his employer in return?
I understand Connery‘s disappointment to a degree but stick with my opinion, no matter what they‘d have added, Connery would have walked away grumpey
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
LOL Wish that I'd be exploited like that by my employer.......
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The contract was for 6 movies but they only finished with 5 in the contracted period.
How much was the contracted salary for the 6th and did Connery get the money without really working?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
West & Ward also felt cheated on Batman : they never saw a penny of the bat merch pie , prolly lost a lot in residue on that ( I dont think they paid for that back in the day)
Funny Girl (1968) $200,000
Hello, Dolly! (1969) $750,000
On a Clear Day You Can See Forever (1970) $350,000
The Owl and the Pussycat (1970) $1,000,000
A Star Is Born (1976) $15,000,000 (including %)
The Main Event (1979) $1,000,000 + 10% of the gross
All Night Long (1981) $4,000,000
Yentl (1983) $3,000,000
Nuts (1987) $5,500,000
The Prince of Tides (1991) $6,500,000
The Mirror Has Two Faces (1996) $20,000,000 plus percentage of profits
Little Fockers (2010) $7,000,000 (pretty well paid for a bit part
Adam West had to argue to get 100k for Batman feature - which he did.
Walken is underpaid , only once did they pay him a mill......no idea if that was for Bond , though ?:)
At what point did EON prove that in 1967?
Cleopatra wasn't a flop, it was a huge hit, it just didn't earn a profit because it cost so much to make.
You won't convince me, sorry to say.
I'm not emotionally tied to Connery, in fact I think Lazenby is just as good a Bond as you need to be in OHMSS; for me this is a moment when an actor understood his worth and made an effective stand for what he wanted. Eventually, no one really lost out of this, and you could say no one really won either.
Why do you limit proof to just 1967? That’s a ridiculous parameter and such an artificial argument. The proof is that here we are in 2019 and the Bond series is going strong, presently with the face of Daniel Craig, and if box office is an indicator, for millions upon millions who bought tickets to plant their behinds in movie theaters, he is James Bond. And sadly in 2019, the series has outlived one actor who for his tenure, was also James Bond to millions and millions. But who knows what surprises are in store for EON? Perhaps the Bond actors still living may actually outlive the series.
Regarding Cleopatra, I don’t know if “flop” is the correct term, so pardon me if I may have used inaccurate semantics. However, there must be a kernel of truth in what Wikipedia has to say on the financial stats of “Cleopatra.”
“Cleopatra was the highest-grossing film of 1963, earning box-office of $57.7 million in the United States and Canada (equivalent to $472 million in 2018), yet lost money due to its production and marketing costs of $44 million (equivalent to $360 million in 2018), making it the only film ever to be the highest-grossing film of the year to run at a loss.”
Maybe not a flop per se in terms of BO, but in terms of financial objectives, an utter failure. These mechanics by the way were and are integral to the Bond films’ budgeting, which includes the Bond actors’ salaries. It’s funny how David Picker of UA washed his hands with the loss of Connery, yet they were in total control of each film’s budget, sometimes increasing significantly and other times getting cut just as dramatically.
But for many people who grew up with Connery in the cinema, none of the other Bond actors were able to be James Bond. If Connery wasn't so important, NSNA wouldn't have been made. OP's superior box office is in favour of Connery not being important, but NSNA was still a success and showed that Connery was still the face of Bond for many people.
Lazenby's relative poor showing and appreciation demonstrated how difficult it was to get the public on your side, and it seemed to need Connery's return to 'right' things.
That helped take Bond into the 70s and yes, Moore took over but again, his success was not an easy done deal, his second wasn't much cop. You could never say that about ANY of Connery's films around then, whatever your view of them. I mean, TB isn't great but it hit the spot and was hugely successful. Some don't like DAF but they'd like the same film less with Lazenby or Moore in the role.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
No doubt that was the sentiment across the board, the public, the industry, perhaps UA and to SOME extent, EON. Yes, DAF is an indicator that they felt that way because they caved, through getting Connery back was UA’s initiative. I still applaud them for their resolve to know when to stop and move on, lest they paint themselves in a corner and be held hostage to a star’s demands. Yes, to a dgree they underwent that with RM and are doing so now with DC. But I feel if they completely caved, they would have gotten SC for YOLT plus 2 more at what would have been a ridiculous expense.
One thing I have to point out, is that Connery's bitterness on Saltzman & Broccolli largely bled over to Broccolli after he'd decided to come on-board with McClory's alleged Warhead project, and later NSNA, which was a shoot that was continuously and on a daily basis in danger of being shut down, due to EON's legion of lawyers suing the picture, practically daily. And Connery was hands-on in the film in a way he never was before on a Bond film, and he noted since that the working environment was horrid because of that. SO, whatever their troubles had been in those early days... I think his experience working on NSNA cemented Connery's dislike on Broccolli himself.