Did the later Bond films take anything away from Goldfinger?

Absolutely_Cart

Goldfinger practically established the Bond formula for many of the future films. Does this take away from Goldfinger's uniqueness.

I saw a lively thread on colognes/fragrances on here, so some of you might get this. But in 1985 a luxury perfumer Creed released a $200 fragrance called Green Irish Tweed. Then Davidoff, a few years, later released Cool Water for the general public at a much more affordable price point. It became a best-seller. Undoubtably, the quality of GIT is much better and it had a profound influence on the market. Nothing can take away from that. But one would be lying if they said the mass availability of Cool Water took absolutely none of the luster away from GIT.

And that's kind of how I feel like Goldfinger.

AlphaOmegaSin

In my Opinion, no it does not {[]

Goldfinger is still one of a Kind. Because like you said, it was the first Film in the Series to introduce all of the later Elements. It will remain unique for that

Absolutely_Cart

It's all relative though. Not that Goldfinger was in anyway lacking but If the future films didn't copy Goldfinger so much, it would've been more unique.

Gassy Man

What distinguishes Goldfinger, aside from arguably being the first, is that it did it so well -- everything in the film, from the characters to the plot to the dialogue to the music to the cinematography unifies for that over-the-top, fun ride that is flawless for what it was trying to do. That can't be said as much for other Bond films, where one or more elements will seem off.

Take A View to a Kill. It is, essentially, Goldfinger retold. It is not the only Bond film that does so -- Octopussy and Tomorrow Never Dies borrow heavily from Goldfinger, too, for instance. But A View to a Kill takes so many elements from the previous film, it is almost a remake.

But A View to a Kill gets so many things wrong. For starters, the production isn't nearly as lush or visually interesting. The characters seem worn out, and some of the actors playing them -- Tanya Roberts being the biggest offender -- are underwhelming. The theme of gold resonates throughout Goldfinger -- he is, essentially, a lunatic version of King Midas, but he also smuggles it, paints a disloyal mistress to death in it, cuts it in two with a laser beam, extracts it from Mr. Solo, and ultimately attacks Fort Knox. But there is nothing along those lines in A View to a Kill because the McGuffin isn't gold, it's microchips. Yawn.

Everything in Goldfinger is big. The villain, the plot, the gadgets. Even Shirley Bassey's powerful, brassy title song. The color is explosive. The stakes are high. The sets are big and visually interesting. There's an actual battle, but even the smaller ones -- like the golf game -- crackle because ultimately the real battle is one of wills between Bond and Goldfinger. In A View to a Kill, they seem too often to just be going through the motions -- and it gets pretty tired pretty fast, not just because of Moore's age but because the film feels more like a series of formula elements than a unified story. Zorin might be crazy, but he doesn't have the grandeur of Goldfinger; Zorin seems more like a spoiled child -- he's who that creepy blond kid in Harry Potter will grow up to be.

Goldfinger has laughs that grow out of the characters and story; A View to a Kill tries for laughs to disguise the fact that it doesn't have interesting characters or story -- thus, we get cheesy moments like "California Girls" playing while Bond snowboards or throwaway lines like "There's a fly in his soup" or the car split in half driving around. None of these "gags" are integral to the story -- not the way "Shocking, truly shocking" or "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die" both are integrally tied to the moment and to the characters.

So, the real issue is the other way around. Goldfinger is so well done, it takes away from the pale imitations that follow. They could make another Goldfinger if they wanted to, but it would take all of the pistons firing at once, and a combination of factors -- the workmanlike writing of modern Bonds being the biggest hurdle -- to work together. I'm hoping that Spectre might be that film, but truthfully, I think that era of moviemaking is long over.

chrisisall

Gassy Man wrote:

So, the real issue is the other way around. Goldfinger is so well done, it takes away from the pale imitations that follow.

Yes, quite.

Barbel

Gassy Man wrote:

ultimately the real battle is one of wills between Bond and Goldfinger.

That's it in a nutshell. Richard Maibaum saw GF as a duel between two supermen, and wrote the script that way.

Gassy Man

That's what it should be, right? We need another Richard Maibaum to work on the scripts.

77007

The Bond formula thing can be a curse. I really dont care for Goldfinger. Bond basically doesn't do much for most of the film. Goldfinger himself isnt that great of a villain. The boring US location doesnt help.

Gassy Man

Ha, you just described A View to a Kill.

AlphaOmegaSin

Like Gassy Man said, GF can only be made once -{

002

I can only echo the thoughts expressed here. Goldfinger is gold, pun or not.

Jarvio

Gassy Man wrote:

Ha, you just described A View to a Kill.

Max Zorin is the best villain in the series! And the US locations are memorable in AVTAK - GG bridge is a great finale.

BIG TAM

Gassy Man wrote:

Goldfinger has laughs that grow out of the characters and story; A View to a Kill tries for laughs to disguise the fact that it doesn't have interesting characters or story -- thus, we get cheesy moments like "California Girls" playing while Bond snowboards or throwaway lines like "There's a fly in his soup" or the car split in half driving around. None of these "gags" are integral to the story -- not the way "Shocking, truly shocking" or "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die" both are integrally tied to the moment and to the characters.

Nice points well made Gassy Man. GOLDFINGER is the undoubted template for most Bonds that follow. Even more 'realistic' Bonds still have the identifiable henchman shadowing the main villain, echoing the Oddjob/Goldfinger pairing.

What GOLDFINGER (and I'd say the Connery era generally) did is to balance comedy & drama. Bond's wooing of Jill Masterson is a perfect example of this - a scene that starts playful & flirtatious, ending up deadly & eerie. It knows when to switch tones. The humour & seriousness compliment each other but never intrude upon one another.

Absolutely_Cart

avtak with a better writing editor (and a better female lead) could have been just as good as goldfinger. all the key concepts were there.

Gassy Man

Concepts, maybe, but it's not just about that -- the quality of the ingredients must also be taken into account. In this regard, A View to a Kill is to Goldfinger what a Big Mac is to Kobe Beef.

AlphaOmegaSin

The original Script called for Zorins Plan to change the Course of Haileys Comet and crash it into Earth.

Gassy Man

BIG TAM wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Goldfinger has laughs that grow out of the characters and story; A View to a Kill tries for laughs to disguise the fact that it doesn't have interesting characters or story -- thus, we get cheesy moments like "California Girls" playing while Bond snowboards or throwaway lines like "There's a fly in his soup" or the car split in half driving around. None of these "gags" are integral to the story -- not the way "Shocking, truly shocking" or "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die" both are integrally tied to the moment and to the characters.

Nice points well made Gassy Man. GOLDFINGER is the undoubted template for most Bonds that follow. Even more 'realistic' Bonds still have the identifiable henchman shadowing the main villain, echoing the Oddjob/Goldfinger pairing.

What GOLDFINGER (and I'd say the Connery era generally) did is to balance comedy & drama. Bond's wooing of Jill Masterson is a perfect example of this - a scene that starts playful & flirtatious, ending up deadly & eerie. It knows when to switch tones. The humour & seriousness compliment each other but never intrude upon one another.

{[]

Matt S

Gassy Man wrote:

Concepts, maybe, but it's not just about that -- the quality of the ingredients must also be taken into account. In this regard, A View to a Kill is to Goldfinger what a Big Mac is to Kobe Beef.

Brilliant analogy!

Blackleiter

I don't really need to say anything, do I? )

Barbel

Blackleiter wrote:

I don't really need to say anything, do I? )

No, Mr Blackleiter, we don't expect you to talk.

Blackleiter

Barbel wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

I don't really need to say anything, do I? )

No, Mr Blackleiter, we don't expect you to talk.

) ) )

AlphaOmegaSin

We don't expect him to listen either )

Blackleiter

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

We don't expect him to listen either )

Huh? What did you say? I can't hear you! )

Absolutely_Cart

Barbel wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

I don't really need to say anything, do I? )

No, Mr Blackleiter, we don't expect you to talk.

hahaha -{

chrisisall

Barbel wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

I don't really need to say anything, do I? )

No, Mr Blackleiter, we don't expect you to talk.

) Funniest post all month! )

Blackleiter

Well..............at least you don't expect me to die, right? Right? Hellooooo........

Barbel

...crickets chirp... wind blows....

Higgins

AlphaOmegaSin

Oh I'm sorry, was that a Joke BL? )

Oakvale

I recently re-watched AVTAK, and boy, it's essentially the same movie as Goldfinger. It's a solid remake, really. I'm just surprised that I've just now noticed how similar, and in all honesty identical, the two movies are.

Matt S

Oakvale wrote:

I recently re-watched AVTAK, and boy, it's essentially the same movie as Goldfinger. It's a solid remake, really. I'm just surprised that I've just now noticed how similar, and in all honesty identical, the two movies are.

You should watch Roger Moore's movie Gold. It's a remake of Goldfinger, and A View to a Kill is more a remake of Gold.