Agreed, also we get to see T Masterton's gold coated death, rather than hearing of it later.
The famed tailing of GF is different also. In the book it goes thru France and winds up in Switzerland, but in the film it's straight to Geneva, and the location is that of the opening to The Italian Job a few years later.
One point really doesn't make sense. It's the tyre slasher scene. I mean, the gadget doesn't just cause a double blow out but gorges Masterton's car, a massive slash. I mean, where the hell would that have come from? Yet we see it happening, and she doesn't seem to notice at all afterwards.
One point really doesn't make sense. It's the tyre slasher scene. I mean, the gadget doesn't just cause a double blow out but gorges Masterton's car, a massive slash. I mean, where the hell would that have come from? Yet we see it happening, and she doesn't seem to notice at all afterwards.
Possibly a bit like my missus, who claims not to have any idea how the dents which mysteriously appear on her car have happened? )
Also, after the pts it seems that GF is the sequel to Dr No, as it picks up with Felix Leiter and references Jamaica. Okay, it's to clue us in to who he is, but Bond talks about M booking him into Miami Beach out of sheer gratitude. That seems to be a better summary of his mission against No than his near miss against Smersh in FRWL, which v nearly went wrong thanks to Bond's lecherous tendencies. I suppose he did bring back the Lector machine, though we see and hear of no beneficial pay off from that.
Agreed, also we get to see T Masterton's gold coated death, rather than hearing of it later.
The famed tailing of GF is different also. In the book it goes thru France and winds up in Switzerland, but in the film it's straight to Geneva, and the location is that of the opening to The Italian Job a few years later.
Minor point- it's Jill who gets gilded, not Tilly.
Major point- part of the transformation of GF from novel to film is the change in emphasis on the various parts of the story. Fleming spends four chapters in Miami, and the best part of three on the golf game, while covering the raid on Fort Knox in less than twenty pages. The film cuts down on the first two and stresses the third (and similarly with the tailing of Goldfinger). This is quite understandable and reasonable- a book can tell you, but a film must show you. As Kingsley Amis said it is possible to write about a golf game in an interesting and thrilling manner but showing it onscreen is different (the film version is much abbreviated from the book). This is why it works in the book for Bond to simply be told (by Tilly) about Goldfinger having Oddjob paint Jill gold, but the film has him actually discover her body so we the audience can see it. And also why the film's raid on Fort Knox is more elaborate and involving than the book's.
Off-topic for a moment- this is fairly analogous to Peter Jackson's filming of Tolkien- in the books, Gandalf and Elrond (etc) will spend entire chapters discussing the reasons for a battle, who is going to take part and who their ancestors were, etc, and then Tolkien deals with the actual battle itself comparatively quickly. While Jackson will get the talking over with as quickly as possible then happily spend half an hour showing us the audience the battle in as much detail as he can get away with.
I'm of the opinion that the changes made (mainly by Richard Maibaum, but Paul Dehn also deserves credit) to Fleming's GF novel actually improve it, which is not something that can be said for many of the other Bond stories.
I think it's because Goldfinger was the first time they found the Bond formula. Many (most?) Bond movies have followed the same formula since, some better and others not. Goldfinger was perhaps when Bondmania struck and James Bond became a phenomena and not just a series of spy flicks.
But that's kind of what makes Goldfinger not feel like one of the best, cause it just feels like a formula set up movie, doesn't it? I mean if you say that there have some that have come after, and have done it better, then shouldn't those movies be ranked higher? For example, could we argue that The Spy Who Loved Me, out Goldfinger-ed Goldfinger?
Wasn't it the first Bond film to really incorporate it's classic elements?
A Villain with an elaborate plan. A henchman with a unique intimidating quality, a Bond girl with a sexual pun name.
Couple that with big action scenes, classic Bond lines, witty banter and you've got one of the best!
Comments
The famed tailing of GF is different also. In the book it goes thru France and winds up in Switzerland, but in the film it's straight to Geneva, and the location is that of the opening to The Italian Job a few years later.
One point really doesn't make sense. It's the tyre slasher scene. I mean, the gadget doesn't just cause a double blow out but gorges Masterton's car, a massive slash. I mean, where the hell would that have come from? Yet we see it happening, and she doesn't seem to notice at all afterwards.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Possibly a bit like my missus, who claims not to have any idea how the dents which mysteriously appear on her car have happened?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
him in, as they were suspicious of Goldfinger.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Minor point- it's Jill who gets gilded, not Tilly.
Major point- part of the transformation of GF from novel to film is the change in emphasis on the various parts of the story. Fleming spends four chapters in Miami, and the best part of three on the golf game, while covering the raid on Fort Knox in less than twenty pages. The film cuts down on the first two and stresses the third (and similarly with the tailing of Goldfinger). This is quite understandable and reasonable- a book can tell you, but a film must show you. As Kingsley Amis said it is possible to write about a golf game in an interesting and thrilling manner but showing it onscreen is different (the film version is much abbreviated from the book). This is why it works in the book for Bond to simply be told (by Tilly) about Goldfinger having Oddjob paint Jill gold, but the film has him actually discover her body so we the audience can see it. And also why the film's raid on Fort Knox is more elaborate and involving than the book's.
Off-topic for a moment- this is fairly analogous to Peter Jackson's filming of Tolkien- in the books, Gandalf and Elrond (etc) will spend entire chapters discussing the reasons for a battle, who is going to take part and who their ancestors were, etc, and then Tolkien deals with the actual battle itself comparatively quickly. While Jackson will get the talking over with as quickly as possible then happily spend half an hour showing us the audience the battle in as much detail as he can get away with.
I'm of the opinion that the changes made (mainly by Richard Maibaum, but Paul Dehn also deserves credit) to Fleming's GF novel actually improve it, which is not something that can be said for many of the other Bond stories.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
But that's kind of what makes Goldfinger not feel like one of the best, cause it just feels like a formula set up movie, doesn't it? I mean if you say that there have some that have come after, and have done it better, then shouldn't those movies be ranked higher? For example, could we argue that The Spy Who Loved Me, out Goldfinger-ed Goldfinger?
Sept 17 : 55th anniversary :007)
A Villain with an elaborate plan. A henchman with a unique intimidating quality, a Bond girl with a sexual pun name.
Couple that with big action scenes, classic Bond lines, witty banter and you've got one of the best!