Hmm, there was that piece in the Sunday Times, wish I'd brought it with me.
Connery got paid the least of all the Bond actors! Per film, I mean, and adjusted to today's money.
With the exception of Lazenby.
I mean, he got something like £3m per film, and Moore got £6m per film on average. Even Dalton got paid more per movie, and again, that is taking into account inflation!
Now you can say that only with GF did things take off big time, but even then he would have been paid only what he got offered for it, before it took off.
Okay, he got quids in for DAF - £1m he donated to charity - albeit with a hefty percentage of the US gross. But it wasn't really payday for Connery, and he was the Man. Very frustrating for him, I imagine, this brought it home to me.
Hmm, there was that piece in the Sunday Times, wish I'd brought it with me.
Connery got paid the least of all the Bond actors! Per film, I mean, and adjusted to today's money.
With the exception of Lazenby.
I mean, he got something like £3m per film, and Moore got £6m per film on average. Even Dalton got paid more per movie, and again, that is taking into account inflation!
Now you can say that only with GF did things take off big time, but even then he would have been paid only what he got offered for it, before it took off.
Okay, he got quids in for DAF - £1m he donated to charity - albeit with a hefty percentage of the US gross. But it wasn't really payday for Connery, and he was the Man. Very frustrating for him, I imagine, this brought it home to me.
This is taken from a Mail Online article that was reporting on Daniel Craig's supposed £31 million deal for the next two films. It is entitled Men With The Golden Touch, showing each Bond actors average fee per film and then converting it into today's money.
Sean Connery: £218,000 average fee per film. £3.2 million in today's money.
George Lazenby: £34,000........£460,000
Roger Moore: £1.4 million.........£6.3 million
Timothy Dalton: £1.4 million......£5.4 million
Pierce Brosnan: £6.1 million.......£8.7 million
Daniel Craig: £9.6 million, includes new two film deal.
I am not sure how accurate those figures are but they are probably an accurate reflection.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
On IMDB it claims George Lazenby made 400,000 for OHMSS, I don't know if that's converted or not.
However Connery doesn't really have a right to be upset. He signed a deal and agreed to X amount of dollars to do the work required. It's not like he was tricked.
And according to IMDB he was paid half a million dollars (Or more) for every single film except Dr No. and From Russia With Love. He made millions off the name that Bond gave him and he should be able to come around for the 50th Anniversary for the fans sake.
There are always rumours that's he's writing a proper autobiography - now THAT I would like to read... though it must be said that actors often can't remember a damn thing about making any particular film (as so many boring DVD comm tracks have taught us).
I don't think Sean was justified in his initial hatred for Eon and Cubby, but I understand where he got it. I suppose he expected that after the films took off big time they would be thankful and give him more money (to put it bluntly.) That combined with all the press and his statements being taken out of context etc... made him regret taking the part. He didn't attend the premier of TB after being assaulted at GF. In a way it's almost like Craig except they handle it differently. Sean became angry but took no great strides to become more private, while Daniel lays it down as a ground rule at any interview or event. Though He's reconciled with Eon and Cubby, before Cubby's death, he still doesn't want to be "just James bond" like Pierce and Roger fell into after their runs were up.
Sorry, but I can't hear this type-casting moaning anymore!
There are countless very talented actors that fail to make a reasonable living from their talent.
The ones who are well-known - they've all hit the big jackpot!
They have been there at the right time, the right place mostly with the right look - which is not really a talent.
If someone hit that jackpot, he's one of a few and should be happy with it. When he's talent, he's getting other smaller roles, but in the common recognition, they will always be linked with their main success.
So complaining about typecasting? I say deal with it!
Rant over.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Talking of actors scared of typecasting etc the Everything or Nothing documentary was on TV the other night so gave it another viewing. You nearly feel sorry for Lazenby and he gets very emotional and quite choked up when talking about how he totally blew his career due to his agents poor advice
As for Connery etc I think it prob worked out well the way it did. I would say he would have only had one more Bond film in him after YNLT anyhow as physically he had aged too much (Diamonds are Forever is a big blip in the series for me)
All I know is that he's gotten an astronomic sum for DAF and as 007 is a large budget thing, I doubt, that he'd get similarly paid afterwards.
ButIi may be wrong on that.
Nah, not really. But I think certainly films like that and Indy, Rising Sun, Avengers and Ex League of Gentlemen saw him hit paydirt in the US. Regards the Bonds, think about it, they only really got going after 3 movies, so he was under contract for that, getting paid a nice sum but not millionaire stuff. I did read that he got paid less per average movie than most of them, inc Dalton, even taking into account inflation, simply cos the ball only got going after a few films.
I agree that he would have got not much for his 1970s films, though he was always working, so you could argue that for a movie like YOLT, where he is spending six months, it is costing him in a way.
As much as I enjoy a few of Connery' s movies such as Goldfinger, Thunderball, Hunt For Red October , Indiana Jones to name a few I believe that in real life he can be a bit difficult to deal with. One word of warning Don't approach him when he's in the middle of playing golf!
As much as I enjoy a few of Connery' s movies such as Goldfinger, Thunderball, Hunt For Red October , Indiana Jones to name a few I believe that in real life he can be a bit difficult to deal with. One word of warning Don't approach him when he's in the middle of playing golf!
Or mention Scottish Independence )
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
Rigg felt ripped off too , only 800$ per show of Avengers......it's kinda difficult for us non-actors to understand but sometimes certain actors (example Connery/Rigg/Guinness) feel that their other work gets ignored , I kinda understand their way of thinking.
About the golf thing , again I see his POV......another no-no is asking for autograph in the middle of their meal.
Sorry, but I can't hear this type-casting moaning anymore!
There are countless very talented actors that fail to make a reasonable living from their talent.
The ones who are well-known - they've all hit the big jackpot!
They have been there at the right time, the right place mostly with the right look - which is not really a talent.
If someone hit that jackpot, he's one of a few and should be happy with it. When he's talent, he's getting other smaller roles, but in the common recognition, they will always be linked with their main success.
So complaining about typecasting? I say deal with it!
Rant over.
Not an actor, are you?
If actors are typecast into one particular role, they're going to have a hard time finding other roles. The ones who are well known play, and have played a variety of different characters rather than being stuck in one role.
During the height of Bondmania and shortly afterwards, Connery was, to the eyes of many, not an actor doing his job but as James Bond. Typecasting for an actor is dangerous as it could affect the roles he'd get in future. So yes, he has every right to do everything he can to avoid that, and if that meant distancing himself from the role, so be it. He had to defend his means of income.
And how much he got paid is completely irrelevant.
And how much he got paid is completely irrelevant.
Well you just display that you entirely did not understand my point!
There are thousands of highly-talented skilled actors out there who fail to make a living out of their art.
Ask them how much they sympathize with the "type-casting"-moaning of some stars.
Connery did not get the job because he's such a great actor!*
He's gotten the role because he was there at the right time at the right place with the right look. And it made him a wealthy man!
Your last quote is right - if you have comfortably the cash to live well.
For all others - well 8-)
* the same with Moore, Lazenby, Brosnan and probably Craig.
Dalton may have gotten it because he was a good actor and we all know how it ended - EON nearly stopped the franchise and the audience was turned-off.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
It's true that Connery's objections were 'first-world problems' as they say.
But the same could be said of anyone who has a job and gets annoyed with it, someone who can't have a job might be going, ooh, I wish I had your problems. Which is fair enough, but it is human nature to get annoyed at stuff.
Moore didn't, but what were his altenative options? He had hit pay dirt at the 11th hour, getting a plum job on big movies at 46 after a decade of TV work and failed attempts to break Hollywood. He was on easy street. Ditto Brosnan in a way, it was his only way to break into big movies, but even he expressed frustration.
When you are in your 30s and everything is to play for, it is different, esp when you see someone else making an absolute fortune, albeit they put the money upfront.
One must remember that the times were different, too. Even though the studio system in America was waning, it was still the model for film industries in many other countries, and an actor could very easily get typecast. The idea of actor as free agent is mostly a contemporary one. Connery struggled to get away from the Bond image, taking on questionable roles in generally inferior films, although there were exceptions. He mostly languished in the 70s as a result. And as much as he might have been dismissed as Bond because he was so iconic, it's pretty obvious that he took his profession seriously.
Conversations could also have occurred among Broccoli, Saltzman, and Connery that we're simply unaware of, and someone like Connery, who seems pretty "old school" in his way of thinking, might have assumed a promise is a promise even if it wasn't written. And let's be serious -- Connery very much was the primary reason the franchise got popular and endured, owing to endless reruns of Bond films in the 70s and 80s.
And let's be serious -- Connery very much was the primary reason the franchise got popular and endured, owing to endless reruns of Bond films in the 70s and 80s.
I believe that is undeniable, although I am aware that there are those who disagree.
One of the aspects of Connery's anxiety, while playing Bond, was the scheduling of his movies, 1962 (DN), 1963 (FRWL), 1964 (GF), 1965 (TB). A new OO7 movie every year for five years is one helluva ask for any actor. Starring in several non-Bond movies in the same period would merely exacerbate any negative feeling he may have had about the Bond series, to which he was contracted.
From all the interview material I've read or seen, to date, Connery took pains to explain that playing Bond under such demanding circumstances would have been easier to bear had a percentage of the ever-increasing grosses of each succeeding Bond film come his way; indeed he had broached the subject of becoming a partner with Broccoli & Saltzman but had been denied.
Basically, Connery had what amounted to a full-time job as Bond - a character which, contributions of Terence Young aside, Connery had created and which contributed significantly to the international financial success of the Eon series.
In short, Connery was seeing millions of dollars generated but no proportional 'reward' for the part he was playing in the success of the Eon OO7 films. Broccoli and Saltzman both suffered from that malady unique to all Producers where they perceived the actor playing the role contributed nothing beyond showing up, walking to their 'marks', and repeating words from a script - things that any actor could do.
Under such circumstances, it's unsurprising that Connery felt he was being cheated and so fell-out with the Producers.
As for being a miserable pr!ck, this is a character trait of a good percentage of Celtic males (of which I am one and so speak from experience of my countrymen).
Merry Christmas.
007 Home Video - an archive of international OO7 home-video sleeve art across all formats from VHS to Blu-ray. www.007homevideo.com
The Bondles' Shamthology - the official unofficial website of the Sad Double-Oh Seven, The Bondles. www.shamthology.com
Under such circumstances, it's unsurprising that Connery felt he was being cheated and so fell-out with the Producers.
As for being a miserable pr!ck, this is a character trait of a good percentage of Celtic males (of which I am one and so speak from experience of my countrymen).
Merry Christmas.
Well, I am sure that Connery would have been happily financially contributing to financial failures like Zardoz out of his own pocket
A producer's job is to try and often fail and then carry the financial burdens and losses.
If they sometimes hit the jackpot - why should they share. And Coonnery got good money for all his films, no other actor was treated that well back at the time.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
All I know is that he's gotten an astronomic sum for DAF and as 007 is a large budget thing, I doubt, that he'd get similarly paid afterwards.
ButIi may be wrong on that.
Nah, not really. But I think certainly films like that and Indy, Rising Sun, Avengers and Ex League of Gentlemen saw him hit paydirt in the US. Regards the Bonds, think about it, they only really got going after 3 movies, so he was under contract for that, getting paid a nice sum but not millionaire stuff. I did read that he got paid less per average movie than most of them, inc Dalton, even taking into account inflation, simply cos the ball only got going after a few films.
I agree that he would have got not much for his 1970s films, though he was always working, so you could argue that for a movie like YOLT, where he is spending six months, it is costing him in a way.
Average per movie is a bit of a wonky way to look at it since it factors in movies that were made before the franchise was a hit, and that's a phenomenon that would only effect Connery.
Anyway if the sources I'm looking at are correct, he got paid about $6,000,000 for DAF when including his share of the film's profits. That's $34 million when adjusted for inflation. I get that he feels like he was underpaid for GF, TB and YOLT...but a 40 year grudge is a bit much considering all that Bond brought him.
Connery was upset that he was underpaid, considering he profoundly influenced the series. He got $3 million in the 1960's and nothing after that, despite 007 becoming a franchise which made billions. I honestly feel like they could have wrote him a few checks. Although, I know this is hard because technically his earlier films didn't sell as much as later better-advertised films.
Eon said Connery simply wanted too much. They helped make him a star, and he wanted a bit much. He wanted to help manage Eon and have a share in the company. In that sense, I agree with Eon. If you hire a mechanic to fix your car, the mechanic doesn't own a share of the car. He was paid purely for a service.
Maybe Eon is right. Maybe they're wrong. But Connery isn't speaking, so he's not giving me much to work with.
Comments
Connery got paid the least of all the Bond actors! Per film, I mean, and adjusted to today's money.
With the exception of Lazenby.
I mean, he got something like £3m per film, and Moore got £6m per film on average. Even Dalton got paid more per movie, and again, that is taking into account inflation!
Now you can say that only with GF did things take off big time, but even then he would have been paid only what he got offered for it, before it took off.
Okay, he got quids in for DAF - £1m he donated to charity - albeit with a hefty percentage of the US gross. But it wasn't really payday for Connery, and he was the Man. Very frustrating for him, I imagine, this brought it home to me.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
This is taken from a Mail Online article that was reporting on Daniel Craig's supposed £31 million deal for the next two films. It is entitled Men With The Golden Touch, showing each Bond actors average fee per film and then converting it into today's money.
Sean Connery: £218,000 average fee per film. £3.2 million in today's money.
George Lazenby: £34,000........£460,000
Roger Moore: £1.4 million.........£6.3 million
Timothy Dalton: £1.4 million......£5.4 million
Pierce Brosnan: £6.1 million.......£8.7 million
Daniel Craig: £9.6 million, includes new two film deal.
I am not sure how accurate those figures are but they are probably an accurate reflection.
However Connery doesn't really have a right to be upset. He signed a deal and agreed to X amount of dollars to do the work required. It's not like he was tricked.
And according to IMDB he was paid half a million dollars (Or more) for every single film except Dr No. and From Russia With Love. He made millions off the name that Bond gave him and he should be able to come around for the 50th Anniversary for the fans sake.
He should compare his cheque with that from any other movie that he's done after DAF or parallel to the Bonds and think again
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
All I know is that he's gotten an astronomic sum for DAF and as 007 is a large budget thing, I doubt, that he'd get similarly paid afterwards.
ButIi may be wrong on that.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
http://www.starpulse.com/news/Dave_Simpson/2013/10/31/movie_boss_offered_sean_connery_histor?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com
There are countless very talented actors that fail to make a reasonable living from their talent.
The ones who are well-known - they've all hit the big jackpot!
They have been there at the right time, the right place mostly with the right look - which is not really a talent.
If someone hit that jackpot, he's one of a few and should be happy with it. When he's talent, he's getting other smaller roles, but in the common recognition, they will always be linked with their main success.
So complaining about typecasting? I say deal with it!
Rant over.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
As for Connery etc I think it prob worked out well the way it did. I would say he would have only had one more Bond film in him after YNLT anyhow as physically he had aged too much (Diamonds are Forever is a big blip in the series for me)
Nah, not really. But I think certainly films like that and Indy, Rising Sun, Avengers and Ex League of Gentlemen saw him hit paydirt in the US. Regards the Bonds, think about it, they only really got going after 3 movies, so he was under contract for that, getting paid a nice sum but not millionaire stuff. I did read that he got paid less per average movie than most of them, inc Dalton, even taking into account inflation, simply cos the ball only got going after a few films.
I agree that he would have got not much for his 1970s films, though he was always working, so you could argue that for a movie like YOLT, where he is spending six months, it is costing him in a way.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Or mention Scottish Independence
About the golf thing , again I see his POV......another no-no is asking for autograph in the middle of their meal.
Not an actor, are you?
If actors are typecast into one particular role, they're going to have a hard time finding other roles. The ones who are well known play, and have played a variety of different characters rather than being stuck in one role.
During the height of Bondmania and shortly afterwards, Connery was, to the eyes of many, not an actor doing his job but as James Bond. Typecasting for an actor is dangerous as it could affect the roles he'd get in future. So yes, he has every right to do everything he can to avoid that, and if that meant distancing himself from the role, so be it. He had to defend his means of income.
And how much he got paid is completely irrelevant.
But I don't doubt there would have been a certain self-centredness there, it's just odd that when pop stars act that way it tends to get applauded.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Well you just display that you entirely did not understand my point!
There are thousands of highly-talented skilled actors out there who fail to make a living out of their art.
Ask them how much they sympathize with the "type-casting"-moaning of some stars.
Connery did not get the job because he's such a great actor!*
He's gotten the role because he was there at the right time at the right place with the right look. And it made him a wealthy man!
Your last quote is right - if you have comfortably the cash to live well.
For all others - well 8-)
* the same with Moore, Lazenby, Brosnan and probably Craig.
Dalton may have gotten it because he was a good actor and we all know how it ended - EON nearly stopped the franchise and the audience was turned-off.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
But the same could be said of anyone who has a job and gets annoyed with it, someone who can't have a job might be going, ooh, I wish I had your problems. Which is fair enough, but it is human nature to get annoyed at stuff.
Moore didn't, but what were his altenative options? He had hit pay dirt at the 11th hour, getting a plum job on big movies at 46 after a decade of TV work and failed attempts to break Hollywood. He was on easy street. Ditto Brosnan in a way, it was his only way to break into big movies, but even he expressed frustration.
When you are in your 30s and everything is to play for, it is different, esp when you see someone else making an absolute fortune, albeit they put the money upfront.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Conversations could also have occurred among Broccoli, Saltzman, and Connery that we're simply unaware of, and someone like Connery, who seems pretty "old school" in his way of thinking, might have assumed a promise is a promise even if it wasn't written. And let's be serious -- Connery very much was the primary reason the franchise got popular and endured, owing to endless reruns of Bond films in the 70s and 80s.
That is a very important issue that is often overlooked when Connery is discussed.
I believe that is undeniable, although I am aware that there are those who disagree.
From all the interview material I've read or seen, to date, Connery took pains to explain that playing Bond under such demanding circumstances would have been easier to bear had a percentage of the ever-increasing grosses of each succeeding Bond film come his way; indeed he had broached the subject of becoming a partner with Broccoli & Saltzman but had been denied.
Basically, Connery had what amounted to a full-time job as Bond - a character which, contributions of Terence Young aside, Connery had created and which contributed significantly to the international financial success of the Eon series.
In short, Connery was seeing millions of dollars generated but no proportional 'reward' for the part he was playing in the success of the Eon OO7 films. Broccoli and Saltzman both suffered from that malady unique to all Producers where they perceived the actor playing the role contributed nothing beyond showing up, walking to their 'marks', and repeating words from a script - things that any actor could do.
Under such circumstances, it's unsurprising that Connery felt he was being cheated and so fell-out with the Producers.
As for being a miserable pr!ck, this is a character trait of a good percentage of Celtic males (of which I am one and so speak from experience of my countrymen).
Merry Christmas.
www.007homevideo.com
The Bondles' Shamthology - the official unofficial website of the Sad Double-Oh Seven, The Bondles.
www.shamthology.com
Well, I am sure that Connery would have been happily financially contributing to financial failures like Zardoz out of his own pocket
A producer's job is to try and often fail and then carry the financial burdens and losses.
If they sometimes hit the jackpot - why should they share. And Coonnery got good money for all his films, no other actor was treated that well back at the time.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Average per movie is a bit of a wonky way to look at it since it factors in movies that were made before the franchise was a hit, and that's a phenomenon that would only effect Connery.
Anyway if the sources I'm looking at are correct, he got paid about $6,000,000 for DAF when including his share of the film's profits. That's $34 million when adjusted for inflation. I get that he feels like he was underpaid for GF, TB and YOLT...but a 40 year grudge is a bit much considering all that Bond brought him.
Eon said Connery simply wanted too much. They helped make him a star, and he wanted a bit much. He wanted to help manage Eon and have a share in the company. In that sense, I agree with Eon. If you hire a mechanic to fix your car, the mechanic doesn't own a share of the car. He was paid purely for a service.
Maybe Eon is right. Maybe they're wrong. But Connery isn't speaking, so he's not giving me much to work with.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!