goldfinger

always shaken

having watched Goldfinger last night, one is a tad confused? being a Kentish man and ex Kent police,
I know Golfingers home/operations are based in deepest Reculver , ie very close to airports at Manston and Lydd
so why does the film show him at Southend airport on his in car tracking device?

sniperUK

always shaken wrote:

having watched Goldfinger last night, one is a tad confused? being a Kentish man and ex Kent police,
I know Golfingers home/operations are based in deepest Reculver , ie very close to airports at Manston and Lydd
so why does the film show him at Southend airport on his in car tracking device?

Because British United Air Ferries operated the route from Southend to Geneva not from Manston (that was still RAF Manston at that time) or Lydd.

always shaken

sniperUK wrote:

always shaken wrote:

having watched Goldfinger last night, one is a tad confused? being a Kentish man and ex Kent police,
I know Golfingers home/operations are based in deepest Reculver , ie very close to airports at Manston and Lydd
so why does the film show him at Southend airport on his in car tracking device?

Because British United Air Ferries operated the route from Southend to Geneva not from Manston (that was still RAF Manston at that time) or Lydd.

Thanks,

Mr_Osato

Damn, and I thought this was finally an appreciation topic for this great movie. Too little love for GF here, maybe because it is a bit too famous and too much considered the ultimate Bond? Well, to me, all praise is fully deserved. Great, great movie. In fact: The best one.

chrisisall

Mr_Osato wrote:

Damn, and I thought this was finally an appreciation topic for this great movie. Too little love for GF here

An iconic Bond, an improvement on the novel (how rare is that?) and a slice of early Sixties era cool with a look at the future of working gadgets. Add to that the most powerful Bond song, a killer PTS and one of Barry's best scores and how can you lose??

Mr_Osato

Exactly, however, there is hardly any appreciation to be found here. Especially if you compare it to the appreciation topics of movies like Moonraker, DAF, OP or even DAD. weird. But maybe it is a compliment; GF is so good, it does not need an appreciation topic, since everyone loves it? Than again I read more that it is overrated which makes me sad. It is iconic in every way; cinema perfection. Wished I could have seen it in the cinema when it was released.

Blackleiter

Mr_Osato wrote:

Damn, and I thought this was finally an appreciation topic for this great movie. Too little love for GF here, maybe because it is a bit too famous and too much considered the ultimate Bond? Well, to me, all praise is fully deserved. Great, great movie. In fact: The best one.

Fact! -{

chrisisall

I myself plead guilty to having underrated it in the face of so many decades of loving reviews. Although TB is my favourite Connery flick, GF is where the true greatness started, cinematically.

ZorinIndustries

Blackleiter wrote:

Mr_Osato wrote:

Damn, and I thought this was finally an appreciation topic for this great movie. Too little love for GF here, maybe because it is a bit too famous and too much considered the ultimate Bond? Well, to me, all praise is fully deserved. Great, great movie. In fact: The best one.

Fact! -{

+1

Dalkowski110

Except maybe Blackleiter since he was impressed I knew anything about baseball, you might have forgotten my old analogy to a very good friend of mine's research conducted on the Negro Leagues (i.e. segregated baseball, but it was MLB quality) during the 1980's and 1990's (that's when he conducted the research, I mean). He quickly came up with something he called "Faster Than Satchel Syndrome" after an all-time great pitcher (indeed one of the greatest of all time and a Hall of Famer) named Leroy Robert "Satchel" Paige. Satchel Paige threw hard. As in 95+ mph in his prime with loads of movement. I have no doubt of that. But he was runner-up on practically everyone's list of "top three fastest" that they had faced. You might be asking why.

Well, when somebody would go out and play one of the two primary teams Paige played for in his prime, the Pittsburgh Crawfords and the Kansas City Monarchs, they were told by their managers, "this guy is the fastest pitcher in the league...he can get by on his fastball alone, he doesn't even throw much of a breaking pitch*, so stay on your toes!"

*Satchel Paige developed a terrific curveball in 1941 following an arm injury (supposedly during a rainy afternoon where he'd thrown well over 200 pitches the previous game), but before that, he relied on heat.

Well, the NeL hitters went out, saw Satchel Paige (and probably got blown away or beaten on one of his fastballs) and then they did something that was either conscious or subconscious: they went back into their memories or perhaps played around the league a bit more and looked for someone...anyone...who was faster. As such, you have a myriad of people named as "the fastest pitcher in Negro League Baseball"...Dick Redding, Bill Foster, Smokey Joe Williams as per a lot of the really old guys (although notably NOT Hall of Famer Pop Lloyd, who was a very level-headed student of the game; he believed Paige was the fastest he faced, apparently), Slim Jones, Frank Wickware, Jose Mendez, Plunk Drake (if you guessed he intentionally threw at a lot of batters, you would be right), Leon Day, Hilton Smith, and even Bill Jackman. But on all these lists, there were two commonalities...

1) Neither the first nor the third pitcher, in cases of guys who faced Paige prior to his 1941 arm injury, was the same from ex-ballplayer to ex-ballplayer. Paige was, however, a constant as being in second.

2) The first name that came up as a measuring stick by which all of the other pitchers was Satchel Paige. In other words, a conversation might start out with "Well, everyone says Satchel Paige was the fastest. He was close...I'd put him in second...but the fastest was [and there you have the rest of the conversation]."

So what does Satchel Paige have to do with Goldfinger? Well, for one thing, look at how many people use it, consciously or unconsciously, as a measuring stick for EVERY SINGLE OTHER BOND FILM, save perhaps OHMSS. Further, to Flemingists, it's always near the top of the list but rarely actually sitting atop it.

This begs a question. Are those who like GF and put it in second or third doing what the Negro League batters did, also subconsciously attempting to find a better Bond for whatever reason? Our "managers" would be the people that introduced us to Bond; in many cases, we started out thinking GF was the best. But no, we had to go and find something better. For some, it was OHMSS for the simple reason that it was true to the book. That I get. But sometimes it just seems to wind up in third or fourth while the rest of the list (save perhaps number one) changes around it. That would indicate trying to rationalize another film as being better than it and not succeeding in the long run. Much as one ballplayer (I know the name, won't say who since while he is no longer with us, I really respected him) went from saying "Dick Redding was the fastest" to "Hilton Smith was the fastest" while keeping Paige at number two, we're rotating out Bond films ahead of GF and then dropping them behind. I wonder why that is; why GF is always afforded such a high status but never the top spot, even if the top spot consistently rotates ahead of it?

Objectively, putting personal taste aside (since I LIKE FRWL better), I would probably say that GF is probably the best Bond film ever made. It had every ingredient and satisfied virtually everyone who saw it. It was the film a majority of people who didn't start out on DN (like Dad...) got their intro to Bond to on TV. What does that say about it?

chrisisall

Dalkowski110 wrote:

This begs a question. Are those who like GF and put it in second or third doing what the Negro League batters did, also subconsciously attempting to find a better Bond for whatever reason?

Not liking the analogy much here, but the simple truth for ME is that I LIKE other Bonds better. -{

Mr_Osato

I think Dalkowsky raises some interesting point. It is maybe considered too much middle of the road to put GF on top of the list, because 'everyone else already does.' so to stand out, it is much more cool, to select either an odd ball Bond movie, like for example TMWTGG to show of their own individuality. Or choose TLD or LTK, since it is all of a sudden a cool thing to praise Dalton as the ultimate Bond.

Well, I stand by my choice: Goldfinger IS my favourite Bond. It is perfection. Connery never looked more comfortable in his role. Goldfinger is the best villain. The music is fantastic, including title song by Bassey. It introduces the coolest car ever displayed on the cinema screen. The plot is over the top, but therefore totally Bond. It has a classy Bond girl, with a fabulous name. It is perfection, it started the Bond phenomena.

Maybe FRWL is more a spy thriller. Maybe OHMSS is more Fleming. Perhaps. They are both great and complete my top 3. But Goldfinger is my favourite. Always was, always will be.

Firemass

Mr_Osato wrote:

it is much more cool, to select either an odd ball Bond movie, like for example TMWTGG to show of their own individuality. Or choose TLD or LTK, since it is all of a sudden a cool thing to praise Dalton as the ultimate Bond.

OHMSS has benefited greatly from this "cool thing" phase. No way is it better than Goldfinger.

Firemass

Mr_Osato wrote:

Especially if you compare it to the appreciation topics of movies like Moonraker, DAF, OP or even DAD. weird. But maybe it is a compliment; GF is so good, it does not need an appreciation topic, since everyone loves it? Than again I read more that it is overrated which makes me sad. It is iconic in every way; cinema perfection. Wished I could have seen it in the cinema when it was released.

I agree completely. Personally I find Goldfinger has such overwhelming support that it overshadows most other Bond films. So it's like hey don't forget about Moonraker, DAF, OP because they have merits too.

If Goldfinger truly is your #1 favorite Bond don't be afraid to admit it! Keep in mind that most fans would agree that Goldfinger is the BEST Bond in the series, they might select a Dalton film as their personal favorite.

Mr_Osato

Yes, I love OHMSS also, especially because it is so loyal to the book. But I did not like Lazenby and at times it was a bit overlong. Goldfinger was much more 'fun', it had success written all over it and it showed.

but you know, to each its own. I do respect the choice of others that prefer other Bond's of course. But I also think that perhaps having watched GF so many times, they decide that other Bonds are the flavor of the week. But calling GF overrated, than you simply do not understand what James Bond is all about I think.

Thunderpussy

I don't think I'm cool because I love OHMSS, I'm Cool because I'm ME ! )

BIG TAM

It's interesting that most lists of best action/adventure films choose GOLDFINGER as the series representative. I can see why. It's undoubtedly the template for all spectacular Bonds that followed & to the casual viewer includes all ingredients that conjur up what is James Bond. Only three films in, it's definitely the turning point. That's what's joyful about the '60s era. You can clearly see a franchise evolving over a seven year period.

chrisisall

I think part of the reason some people feel it's overrated might be due to simple over-watching. ) -{

Thunderpussy

To be honest, I think those who think Goldfinger as overated are wrong.
It became the benchmark for all Bond films until CR.

Dalkowski110

chrisisall wrote:

but the simple truth for ME is that I LIKE other Bonds better.

Purposely avoided putting everyone into that category, though I do firmly believe some people fall into it.

chrisisall wrote:

I think part of the reason some people feel it's overrated might be due to simple over-watching.

You might not like my analogy, but I do agree with this and a great deal of what Mr_Osato has to say.

The Domino Effect

I love Goldfinger. My favourite Connery film is Thunderball, but that's because of a personal connection with the Vulcan. Tied for second are Dr No and Goldfinger. Dr No because of the delicious Jamaican-ness of the film. The wonderful slice of the 1960s. The fantabulous Ursula Andress. It's just a feast for the senses...and the first Bond film. But I believe that Goldfinger is the most perfect 1960s Bond film. It's a great story, nice and tight. It moves quickly, has plenty of action. So many iconic scenes and lines...almost too many for one film. Everyone's entitled to their opinions and everyone has their own favourites, likes and dislikes, but Goldfinger is as close to Bond perfection as the 1960s gets.

Peppermill

Although it is a ‘Fact’ that Goldfinger is the best Bond movie ever (I never understood how an opinion about something that does not have a definite answer because it all depends on taste could be considered a fact, but I guess that is just the way this forum is) in my opinion there are a lot of Bond movies that I think are better. Too be honest, all of the Guy Hamilton movies rank pretty low on my list except for Live and Let Die.

Blackleiter

Dalkowski110 wrote:

Except maybe Blackleiter since he was impressed I knew anything about baseball, you might have forgotten my old analogy to a very good friend of mine's research conducted on the Negro Leagues (i.e. segregated baseball, but it was MLB quality) during the 1980's and 1990's (that's when he conducted the research, I mean). He quickly came up with something he called "Faster Than Satchel Syndrome" after an all-time great pitcher (indeed one of the greatest of all time and a Hall of Famer) named Leroy Robert "Satchel" Paige. Satchel Paige threw hard. As in 95+ mph in his prime with loads of movement. I have no doubt of that. But he was runner-up on practically everyone's list of "top three fastest" that they had faced. You might be asking why.

Well, when somebody would go out and play one of the two primary teams Paige played for in his prime, the Pittsburgh Crawfords and the Kansas City Monarchs, they were told by their managers, "this guy is the fastest pitcher in the league...he can get by on his fastball alone, he doesn't even throw much of a breaking pitch*, so stay on your toes!"

*Satchel Paige developed a terrific curveball in 1941 following an arm injury (supposedly during a rainy afternoon where he'd thrown well over 200 pitches the previous game), but before that, he relied on heat.

Well, the NeL hitters went out, saw Satchel Paige (and probably got blown away or beaten on one of his fastballs) and then they did something that was either conscious or subconscious: they went back into their memories or perhaps played around the league a bit more and looked for someone...anyone...who was faster. As such, you have a myriad of people named as "the fastest pitcher in Negro League Baseball"...Dick Redding, Bill Foster, Smokey Joe Williams as per a lot of the really old guys (although notably NOT Hall of Famer Pop Lloyd, who was a very level-headed student of the game; he believed Paige was the fastest he faced, apparently), Slim Jones, Frank Wickware, Jose Mendez, Plunk Drake (if you guessed he intentionally threw at a lot of batters, you would be right), Leon Day, Hilton Smith, and even Bill Jackman. But on all these lists, there were two commonalities...

1) Neither the first nor the third pitcher, in cases of guys who faced Paige prior to his 1941 arm injury, was the same from ex-ballplayer to ex-ballplayer. Paige was, however, a constant as being in second.

2) The first name that came up as a measuring stick by which all of the other pitchers was Satchel Paige. In other words, a conversation might start out with "Well, everyone says Satchel Paige was the fastest. He was close...I'd put him in second...but the fastest was [and there you have the rest of the conversation]."

So what does Satchel Paige have to do with Goldfinger? Well, for one thing, look at how many people use it, consciously or unconsciously, as a measuring stick for EVERY SINGLE OTHER BOND FILM, save perhaps OHMSS. Further, to Flemingists, it's always near the top of the list but rarely actually sitting atop it.

This begs a question. Are those who like GF and put it in second or third doing what the Negro League batters did, also subconsciously attempting to find a better Bond for whatever reason? Our "managers" would be the people that introduced us to Bond; in many cases, we started out thinking GF was the best. But no, we had to go and find something better. For some, it was OHMSS for the simple reason that it was true to the book. That I get. But sometimes it just seems to wind up in third or fourth while the rest of the list (save perhaps number one) changes around it. That would indicate trying to rationalize another film as being better than it and not succeeding in the long run. Much as one ballplayer (I know the name, won't say who since while he is no longer with us, I really respected him) went from saying "Dick Redding was the fastest" to "Hilton Smith was the fastest" while keeping Paige at number two, we're rotating out Bond films ahead of GF and then dropping them behind. I wonder why that is; why GF is always afforded such a high status but never the top spot, even if the top spot consistently rotates ahead of it?

Objectively, putting personal taste aside (since I LIKE FRWL better), I would probably say that GF is probably the best Bond film ever made. It had every ingredient and satisfied virtually everyone who saw it. It was the film a majority of people who didn't start out on DN (like Dad...) got their intro to Bond to on TV. What does that say about it?

Once again you have blown me away, my friend! What a well thought out, intriguing analogy you have posited! While I certainly understand that everyone has their preferences and there are obviously a number of legitimate reasons for some fans not to consider Goldfinger as the "best" of the Bond films, I have always had a sneaking suspicion that for some folks it's a matter of not wanting to be seen as agreeing with the conventional wisdom. But I think it is undeniable that Goldfinger is the Bond movie that is most often referred to during discussions of the "best", even when it's referred to only for the purpose of discussing why other Bond films are better. Simply put, it's the "Gold" standard (no pun intended - I think!) by which the others are measured, and your analogy to Satchel Paige is an inventive and outstanding way of framing the discussion. Kudos to you! -{

Blackleiter

Peppermill wrote:

Although it is a ‘Fact’ that Goldfinger is the best Bond movie ever (I never understood how an opinion about something that does not have a definite answer because it all depends on taste could be considered a fact, but I guess that is just the way this forum is) in my opinion there are a lot of Bond movies that I think are better. Too be honest, all of the Guy Hamilton movies rank pretty low on my list except for Live and Let Die.

Just to be clear, my "Fact" comment was made in jest. I realize it's all a matter of personal preferences and opinions, and of course there's no right or wrong answer (unless of course someone thinks AVTAK is the best - that's absolutely wrong!!! ))

Sir Miles

Crickey...the last couple of posts are just too sensible and thought provoking - you sure you both on the right forum ?

Seriously...good stuff, guys -{

Thunderpussy

Far too sensible.

Dalkowski110

Blackleiter wrote:

Once again you have blown me away, my friend! What a well thought out, intriguing analogy you have posited! While I certainly understand that everyone has their preferences and there are obviously a number of legitimate reasons for some fans not to consider Goldfinger as the "best" of the Bond films, I have always had a sneaking suspicion that for some folks it's a matter of not wanting to be seen as agreeing with the conventional wisdom. But I think it is undeniable that Goldfinger is the Bond movie that is most often referred to during discussions of the "best", even when it's referred to only for the purpose of discussing why other Bond films are better. Simply put, it's the "Gold" standard (no pun intended - I think!) by which the others are measured, and your analogy to Satchel Paige is an inventive and outstanding way of framing the discussion. Kudos to you! -{

No worries...should you come out my way (Bloomington, IN), the beers are on me!

Peppermill

It was not directed at you directly BlackLeiter, I have come to get used to your comments by now However I can understand that Goldfinger is loved by many and set the golden (pun intended) standard for Bond movies. Connery is at his all-time best (IMHO of course), relaxed, suave and funny without being camp. The score might be the best ever.

Blackleiter

Dalkowski110 wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

Once again you have blown me away, my friend! What a well thought out, intriguing analogy you have posited! While I certainly understand that everyone has their preferences and there are obviously a number of legitimate reasons for some fans not to consider Goldfinger as the "best" of the Bond films, I have always had a sneaking suspicion that for some folks it's a matter of not wanting to be seen as agreeing with the conventional wisdom. But I think it is undeniable that Goldfinger is the Bond movie that is most often referred to during discussions of the "best", even when it's referred to only for the purpose of discussing why other Bond films are better. Simply put, it's the "Gold" standard (no pun intended - I think!) by which the others are measured, and your analogy to Satchel Paige is an inventive and outstanding way of framing the discussion. Kudos to you! -{

No worries...should you come out my way (Bloomington, IN), the beers are on me!

Thanks - I might take you up on that some day! {[]

Napoleon Plural

Goldfinger is a bit of an entry-level Bond, so in that sense purists will likely opt for another one to suggest they have moved on or developed from such 'elementary' tastes...

It is also, however, a fun movie in terms of tone and so serious fans may prefer a greater intensity as seen in FRWL or OHMSS.

Blackleiter

Peppermill wrote:

It was not directed at you directly BlackLeiter, I have come to get used to your comments by now

I'm glad you realize that I'm not to be taken too seriously (most of the time! ))