The character of James Bond may’ve made Sean Connery a world film star, however the actor did not actually benefit from the preliminary 9 years he spent enjoying the MI6 agent. As Michael Caine as soon as noticed, “Should you had been his pal in these early days, you did not increase the topic of Bond.” A giant a part of the problem, in accordance with Caine, was that Connery knew he had extra to supply as an actor than 007, and thus, he bristled each time somebody would establish him as Bond when he was out in public. Connery himself made no bones about his annoyance with the character. “I’ve all the time hated that damned James Bond,” he as soon as remarked (by way of The Guardian). “I might prefer to kill him.”
Producers Harry Saltzman and Albert “Cubby” Broccoli, who had been sitting on high of a field workplace goldmine, had no such want. They had been eager to maintain knocking out Bond flicks at a once-every-other-year clip, and whereas they acknowledged the worth of Connery within the function (to the extent that they paid him $1.5 million in 1971 to lure him again to the character for the saucy “Diamonds Are Eternally,” after he sat out “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”), they’d finally understand that 007 was larger than anybody star -– even one as gifted and charismatic because the ornery Scotsman.
Connery lastly bailed on Bond previous to “Stay and Let Die,” which allowed Saltzman and Broccoli to find that their collection might survive no matter who wielded the Walther PPK. Connery, in the meantime, acquired to maneuver on and additional show his price as an actor and a star in hit movies like “Homicide on the Orient Categorical,” “The Wind and the Lion” and “The Man Who Would Be King.” He would by no means have to return to the Bond franchise, and it did not want him.
Then some very unhealthy movies began to occur to Connery. “Cuba,” “Meteor” and “Flawed Is Proper” obtained horrible opinions and carried out poorly commercially. Even a fairly well-reviewed movie like “Outland” underperformed on the field workplace. It appeared onerous to consider on the time, however a couple of years into the Nineteen Eighties, Connery’s star was unquestionably fading. He wanted to remind moviegoers why they fell in love with him within the first place. So he did the one factor he mentioned he’d by no means do, a lot to the amusement of his spouse.
The title of By no means Say By no means Once more was a cheeky suggestion from Micheline Connery
Sean Connery’s seventh look as James Bond did not come low-cost, nor did it come within the official 007 timeline he helped launch. 1983’s “By no means Say By no means Once more,” directed by the underrated craftsman Irwin Kershner (finest identified for “Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Again”), was a remake of “Thunderball,” which was doable as a result of Ian Fleming’s e book was a novelization of an unmade screenplay he’d written with Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham, Ernest Cuneo and Ivar Bryce. After a authorized battle, the manufacturing of the movie was allowed to maneuver ahead, at which level Connery pocketed a cool $3 million to reprise the function that, a lot to his acknowledged chagrin, made him a family identify.
As a result of they might not name it “Thunderball,” the filmmakers discovered themselves struggling to provide you with a title for the movie. Connery, who had script and casting approval, was concerned in these discussions and was additionally flummoxed. That is when his spouse, Micheline Connery, urged the title “By no means Say By no means Once more” as a cheeky nod to Connery’s publicly identified aversion to ever revisiting Bond. The star acquired a kick out of it, as did everybody else, so not solely did the title stick, Micheline additionally acquired a credit score on the finish of the film for having provide you with it.
Although “By no means Say By no means Once more” was a field workplace smash, grossing $160 million worldwide on a $36 million funds, the expertise was so off-putting for Connery -– his unhappiness compounded by taking pictures the dismal “Sword of the Valiant” at roughly the identical time –- that he took a three-year break from appearing. Quickly after he started performing once more, he gained the Greatest Supporting Actor Oscar for his impossible-to-ignore work in “The Untouchables.”
