Could Goldfinger be considered an early reboot?
osris
Posts: 558MI6 Agent
Could Goldfinger be considered an early reboot? It is very different to DN and FRWL, in both style and Bond’s character, in that Connery plays him with less of an edge. Also, it was the first Bond film to have a bevy of beautiful women working for the villain (Pussy Galore’s “flying circus”, or whatever they were called). Also, Odd Job was the first over-the-top cartoon-like henchman; and the finale where the US army and CIA come to help Bond, as they do in later Bond films, was first introduced here.
Comments
I would prefer a reboot based on FRWL. I believe I could write a screen treatment to make it relevant today.
Most of the difference is due to the change in director, with Terence Young (till the next film) being replaced with Guy Hamilton.
I agree, it was more an evolution. A true reboot would have had someone like Charles Bronson doing Bond, and they would have let him keep his moustache.
I suppose so.
For me, Craig is a sort of Charles Bronson: emotionless, tough, serious, of few words, brooding, not very handsome, lacking charisma, short, stocky... the list could go on.
Fleming devotes HUGE amounts of time to cars and girls. If he didn't, I wouldn't have read the novels!
But you do nail it with gadgetry at the expense of Bond's character although I think you start seeing that more in YOLT than GF (gadgetry at the expense of not only Bond, but also quite frankly cars as well as two of the three Bond girls!). You of course see a return to "TB style" Bond where you have a few gadgets, three cool cars (bonus is two British and one American), and MANY girls in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. But then you get DAF and you start snowballing. I don't think GF was the start of it; if it were, then there would be no TB and no OHMSS. I often think GF was more of an excuse to say "but you liked it when we did it in the past!" rather than an actual rot setting in.
Why knock Charles Bronson? Are we now arguing about looks in degrees? Here's another case of discrediting the "standard," and in the process of lifting DC up, Bronson get's slammed, pretty unfair. BTW, I'm not the one who mentioned the bit about DC being emotionless.
But since I've inadvertently introduced Charles Bronson into the conversation, maybe some analysis is due. Like many leading men and action stars in their respective decades, CB was a product of his time and the tough, "emotionless" hero was very appealing during the 60s. Interestingly enough, this was not suitable for movie Bond, who was and has been presented up to even this day with a somewhat charming persona. Paradoxically, the book Bond was less expressive and the "emotionless" demeanor of a Charles Bronson (as observed by other characters) actually would have better approximated this trait. Similar actors from the period come to mind, like Alain Delon, Laurence Harvey and John Philip Law. Perhaps, this is the impression to others that Fleming had in mind while being interviewed and describing Bond as a cipher.
What an interesting prospect; what if the Bond series was rebooted at 3 or 4 movies in, perhaps continuing even with Connery but in a quietly menacing delivery, or maybe being more repulsive like his villainous character in "A Woman of Straw." I'm sure this was the kind of acting that he yearned to do while he was playing Bond...now that would really be a worthy reboot.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Agreed, although Dr No set some of the background up too - Goldfinger was the next most significant and defining update in the films - even AVTAK copies its entire plot structure.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Yes, a slow evocation of the echo of the James Bond of the films of old.
That's almost poetic!