Goldfinger film better than the novel?
Son Of Barbel
Posts: 227MI6 Agent
I love the book of GF but it seems the film has made alot of different choices that have turned out for the best.
1)You see the golden girl instead of being told
2)Tilly dies earlier providing more time for pussy galore
3)A laser not a buzzsaw(To be fair there wasn't such a thing as lasers back then)
And so on
Do you think any other films might be better than the novel
1)You see the golden girl instead of being told
2)Tilly dies earlier providing more time for pussy galore
3)A laser not a buzzsaw(To be fair there wasn't such a thing as lasers back then)
And so on
Do you think any other films might be better than the novel
Comments
Normally The Man With The Golden Gun would have had a decent shot at being better than the novel, as Scaramanga is made into a cool hitman rather than a dodgy hoodlum, but it's one of the worst films. Other than that, most of the books don't have much to do with the novels except name of villain and locale, so you're restricted to the first three or four movies. OHMSS had the potential to be better than the book, but imo it's better to have Bond narked off with the mission to find Blofeld, as in the book, rather than how it is in the film when it's his personal mission to get him. Some better humour with the heraldry stuff in the book, imo, too. Almost written with the films in mind, and then omitted from the film when it comes round. Bizarre.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Re: Goldfinger, the only part the film improved upon was the tainting of the gold, which makes more sense than its removal.
The charecters of Bond, Tilly and Pussy as well as Goldfinger are more fully exploited in the book.
A buzz saw while rather a cliche, is alot more scary to me than a laser, which wouldn't even warm Bond's privates much less cut them in half. My understanding is that laser's must be precisely focused to do anything (burn,cut) and the film laser was focused on the table not on oo7.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I love the movie version where Bond cleverly talks his way out of death. In the book Goldfinger lets him live to keep Bond on his staff as an unpaid secretary. (Wow. That has to be one of the dumbest mistakes ever made by a super villain.)
EDIT: I think Alex beat me to that post!
Well, not that making gold radioactive for 58 years would really happen:
"Though a good amount of the gold in the vault would most likely be turned into gold leaf covering the walls, some of the gold would gain an extra neutron from the streams of subatomic particles let out by the bland and turn radioactive. The radioactive form of gold is extremely unstable however, and it would turn to liquid mercury within a few days. So much for the gold becoming radioactive for fifty-eight years, a number no scientist has ever been able to explain" (Gresh and Weinberg The Science of James Bond).
Of course, the plan would still work, just not how they think it would. So yes, perhaps more plausible than stealing all that gold.