28 replies to this topic

[MHazard]

This grows out of comments made on another thread (Should Bond Always be Set in the 50's/60's) which suggested that there was a difference between an actor playing Ian Fleming's Bond and a "movie" Bond and discussing which actors seemed to be playing which. It was pointed out by another (I believe Plank Attack) that everything began to change in GF, which was where the "movie Bond" as opposed to the literary Bond really took shape.

In any event, it would seem that GF was really a turning point in the movies where a "movie Bond" was really formed and the movies began to break away from the Fleming source materials until we hit the end of the Moore era where there doesn't seem much Fleming in the Bond.

On the other hand, many fans, particularly casual ones, who haven't read the books think GF was the best movie and it was certainly incredibly successful. I will also confess that it's one of my favorites, Fleming purist though I am. So I propound the following question:

Goldfinger: Road to Doom or Savior of the Franchise?

[00Twelve]

I wonder how many "well, not really either" posts are coming.

Me, I see it (in terms of the script and heavier reliance on gadgets and overall "bigness") more on the doom side. It's a hard question. While it is relatively faithful to the book, and actually improves in terms of the Fort Knox plan and overall pacing, there is so much wonderful stuff missing from the book and what we get in its place is Bond becoming a superspy, which wasn't what he was originally intended to be. Some fans love the superspy, some don't. But this topic is a good litmus test for separating one from the other.

[MHazard]

Actually, it's not just "superspy" it's "superhero" which would, of course be a road to doom argument.

[Mister Asterix]

I wonder how many "well, not really either" posts are coming.

Count me as one.

Actually, it's not just "superspy" it's "superhero" which would, of course be a road to doom argument.

I’ve seen the Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman films. Bond is not a superhero. Goldfinger turned Bond into the prototype of the International Superspy™. And I don’t think that was a bad thing.

[Royal Dalton]

Goldfinger: Road to Doom or Savior of the Franchise?

I'd say it's a bit of both.

[Hotwinds]

I have to say that the question is a bit flawed.

The "road to doom" can be argued, but there was nothing to "save" at that point.
FRWL did better than DN so thing were looking up.

However, I would say "Savior" because it was "the movie to see and more" at the time.

YOLT would be a better choice for "Doom"




Goldfinger: Road to Doom or Savior of the Franchise?
[/quote]

[Judo chop]

YOLT would be a better choice for "Doom"

I would agree that YOLT is the destination of doom, not the road to it. The road I do believe was set with GF.

I also agree with Mr * that GF set the bar for the Superspy, later copied all up and down the block.

So, I guess the way I see it, what we've got in Goldfinger is a fork in the road. It was a pivotal moment for the franchise, no doubt. I think from a shared starting point, Bond could have gone, and did go down paths to different destinations. Surely TB and TLD were results of GF's Superspy trend set? Surely YOLT, TSWLM, MR were results of the formula that GF established as well? Though surely camp A and camp B are abundantly distinct?

[Hotwinds]

I always wondered what Goldfinger would have been like had T. Young directed it?
Would it have had the ejector seat?
We know the Aston Martin would not have revolving plates for sure.








I would agree that YOLT is the destination of doom, not the road to it. The road I do believe was set with GF.

I also agree with Mr * that GF set the bar for the Superspy, later copied all up and down the block.

So, I guess the way I see it, what we've got in Goldfinger is a fork in the road. It was a pivotal moment for the franchise, no doubt. I think from a shared starting point, Bond could have gone, and did go down paths to different destinations. Surely TB and TLD were results of GF's Superspy trend set? Surely YOLT, TSWLM, MR were results of the formula that GF established as well? Though surely camp A and camp B are abundantly distinct?
[/quote]

[Stuart]

I cannot remember where I read and/or saw it, but someone commented on something along the lines of this thread.

They noted that as soon as the guy was ejected from the DB5 and the audience roared with laughter, the path towards comedy/gadgets/other non-Fleming crap) was set.

[plankattack]

Hazard, thanks for starting this discussion.

I definitely feel GF set the franchise down a road that it struggles to escape from. Its ghost hangs over nearly every other film in the franchise. It clearly is the film that non-fans gravitate to when they think of the 60s films and therefore it has set in the mind of the filmgoer, and many a critic, of what the stereotypical Bond picture should be.

EON for years used GF as if were some vein of miracle dust - if they could replicate something from GF in the latest movie (whether if be villain or car, or henchman or a golf game) there was a belief that it would make that film a winner. The script to screen history of DAF is the most obvious example of a belief by EON that by just rehashing whatever they could of GF, they would be on to a winner. Goldfinger's brother with a giant space laser? Are you kidding me?

Obviously GF is not a portent of doom for the franchise - it helped the franchise become what it has become, but I don't doubt that for many years, it was a stone around the series' creative neck. As MW once said "We always start out trying to make FRWL, but down the line we always end up somewhere else."

As for Fleming, it's the road to doom without a doubt. Like many I used to think it was the ejector seat that is the defining moment but it's not. The PTS, from the moment SC pulled the duck off his head, to getting out of his wetsuit with dinner jacker resplendent underneath, the PTS is when the franchise stopped taking it's lead character seriously. Everyone's tongue was firmly in cheek at that moment - the sense of self-parody beginning, albeit in a very funny, inspirational way. Bond was no longer human, he was officially indestructable. The Aston Martin I can live with - I have no issue with a plot based in the fantastic (be honest with ourselves - how "realistic" is MR the novel?) - it's when the character goes there that I take issue with it all.

I think what is a mistake is the free critical ride that GF gets because of it's iconic status. Yes, it's stylish, witty, at the time very fresh, but it's also lazily plotted (there is actually more to the unoffical re-make AVTAK), quite slow (yet I think it has the shortest run-time in the series) and as Watkin and Smith point out in their great book, Bond Films, Bond is almost peripheral to events - just along to wisecrack the plot to keep moving.

As I've got older, I've found GF harder and harder to stay with throught the entire film. I can dip in and out without problem (who doesn't love the golf game? or SC "don't forget to write") but all the way, it dramatically doesn't hold my attention. On the other hand, the oft-maligned TB grows in my eyes everytime I watch it.

But I for one don't feel that icon or touchstone are the same thing as being the best. The wonderful thing about the films is that they've veered all the over the stylistic map, so every single one of us finds something that we like. I hear people say all the time that you couldn't keeping making FRWL-type "serious" thrillers and be a success over forty years. Fortunately you can't keep making comedies, either.

[LadySylvia]

I would probably say neither. I don't think that GOLDFINGER symbolized the "Road to Doom" or "Savior of the Franchise". But I do believe that the movie really introduced the "Bond elements" to the franchise. Most people would view this as a positive thing. Certain Bond fans feel differently.

Personally, I don't really like the "Bond elements". I find them childish and cliched. But, I don't mind seeing them in a story, as long as that story was well-written . . . like "THUNDERBALL" or "THE SPY WHO LOVED ME". My personal problem with "GOLDFINGER" is that not only did it contained the "Bond elements", it also possessed some gaping plot holes and certain scenes that eventually made the movie even more intolerable to me. But many moviegoers did not mind and the movie became one of the franchise's biggest hits.

But did it set the Bond franchise down the road to doom? No, I don't think so. Nor do I believe that it was the franhcise's savior, considering that both "DR. NO" and "FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE" were very successful and that the franchise did not need saving. Also, there have been some Bond films that were successful without the overt use of the "Bond elements" first introduced by "GOLDFINGER", including the wildly successful recent movie, "CASINO ROYALE".

[Scottlee]

For me GF is still a relatively down-to-earth Bond movie. Compare it to its predecessor and obviously it seems a tad O.T.T. Compare to the rest of the series though and it seems relatively short of overblown spectacle. YOLT was the film (if any) that set a slightly alarming precedent, with practically nothing taken from the novel and poetic license abused to the maximum.

[Fiona Volpe lover]

I would say neither. I don't think Goldfinger was the road to doom,as I enjoy the over-the-top Bond filsm as much as the more down-t--earth ones. I wouldn't say it was saviour of the franchise either-both the previous films were big hits. Of course Goldfinger WAS even more popular!

I've never understood why it's generally regarded with such reverance. I think it's one of Connery's weakest-in fact I prefer Diamonds Are Forever! It certainly had great things in it such as the Aston Martin and the golden girl which have become iconic,and justifiably so. But as a film I think it dates badly now-there's very little action,hardly any suspense,has Bond locked up for most of the second half and is alarmingly sexist. Best of Bond?-naaaah,not in my opinion. If you want the best of Bond out of the Connery movies,I think From Russia With Love,Thunderball and You Only Live Twice are all more worthy.

[stamper]

Actually, the first hour or so, is still the original bond.

The last half shapes the transformation.

FRWL is much better. So is TB.

Or OHMSS

OK, TJ ?

[MHazard]

Some very interesting insights. I was intrigued by Plank's notion that GF was when the series stopped taking Bond seriously and by Judo's notion that GF is a fork in the Bond movie road where you could go in either direction. I was also trying to reconcile this with the fact that I, an unashamed Fleming purist, really enjoys GF.

Here's what I think was going on. GF is the movie where the director, screenwriters and producers stopped taking the character seriously. But, I think Sean still gives a performance in which he takes the character seriously. There's no violating the third wall, smirking at comments that make no sense except as asides for the movie audience. He seems as nonplussed as Fleming fans that his car has an ejector seat ("you must be joking") and has the same reaction I think I'd have if I woke up and a beautiful girl told me her name was Pussy Galore. Sean's still trying to sell it and it allows Fleming Bond fans to suspend their disbelief and overlook just how fantastic and outrageous some of this stuff is. We also need to keep in mind that GF, along with DN is the most outrageously plotted and over the top Fleming novel. Let's face it, Fleming wrote a villain who robbed Ft. Knox, had a female accomplice named Pussy Galore and a Korean manservant named oddjob with a dangerous derby. So even for us who always want the character taken seriously, you need a good enough actor to allow a lot of suspension of disbelief.

Fleming did not, however, write the duck on the head, the tuxedo under the wet suit,the atomic bomb stopping at 007, an ejector seat (or auto machine guns or oil slicks) or a Felix Leiter who is a complete dufus.

I think the movies that take one fork are the ones where the actor takes the character seriously, which I think Sean did until DAF. I agree that YOLT is incredibly disappointing, but I just watched it last night and although I agree he's mailing it in, he's still trying to sell the character.

Two other points in this disjointed essay. First, I didn't mean to imply that the movies were going to go down the tubes if GF was never made ("the savior" part) but would we really have had over 20 films if this somewhat annoying formula hadn't caught on?

And my second point, which is that although Fleming wrote many over the top stories, he always took his character seriously (maybe the Obit in YOLT comes close to violating the third wall). So, let me close with this illustration. GF the movie starts with the duck on the head, tuxedo under the wet suit. GF the book, begins as follows,"James Bond, with two double bourbons inside him, sat in the final departure lounge of Miami Airport and thought about life and death."

The character deserves to be taken seriously.

[Major Tallon]

I like YOLT, but, that apart, I join wholeheartedly in MHazard's excellent analysis of Goldfinger.

Edited by Major Tallon, 14 May 2007 - 02:26 AM.

[LadySylvia]

I think the movies that take one fork are the ones where the actor takes the character seriously, which I think Sean did until DAF. I agree that YOLT is incredibly disappointing, but I just watched it last night and although I agree he's mailing it in, he's still trying to sell the character.

You really thought so? Huh. Okay. I do believe that he was trying to sell the character in GOLDFINGER, I thought the movie's plot made it impossible for me to take it seriously.

[Odd Job]

Firstly let me say this is my favourite Bond movie (if you didn't guess by my user name).

As to whether it is the 'Road to Doom' or 'Saviour of the Franchise' well I tend to side with the latter but it's not as simple as that. As a number of other posters have pointed out, the franchise hardly needed 'saving' in 1964. Both DN and FRWL were very successful and even if GF had bombed, I am sure there would have been a fourth movie. However there is no doubt in my mind that GF set the franchise on it's path to long-term succes (for long-term read 21 movies). If EON had continued to make films in the vein of DN and FRWL, I have no doubt the series would have continued to do well for a while but probably ended with 5 or at most 6 films at the end of the sixties. GF, by introducing the 'fantastic' elements and broadening the humor aspect, expanded the potential audience for Bond and took him from popular spy-hero to iconic status (IMHO).

I have read and enjoyed a number of Fleming's novels and I absolutely love FRWL and am very fond of DN but to me 'Film Bond' came of age in GF.

[MarcAngeDraco]

I wonder how many "well, not really either" posts are coming.

Well, not really either. But, at the same time, a little of both...

[spynovelfan]

I always wondered what Goldfinger would have been like had T. Young directed it?

Perhaps not so different.

'One of the big problems with Goldfinger was that Bond got captured and put in jail very early in the film. I went back and I did a little work on it with Peter Hunt, and what we did was try to take some of the scenes that came later, and put them before, so that he wasn't captured until about the fifth reel. In the films that we'd made to date, he got into the villains hands in the last reel or two of the picture, but certainly an hour had passed before he was in jeopardy. But in that one he was captured in the first thirty minutes. I thought it was a defect in the storyline...'

Terence Young, interviewed in Bondage Magazine 10, 1981. Readable online at HMSS: http://members.aol.c...le/terence1.htm

I think Road To Doom, myself - perhaps that's putting it a little strong, but I prefer the films preceding it.

[doublenoughtspy]

I cannot remember where I read and/or saw it, but someone commented on something along the lines of this thread.

They noted that as soon as the guy was ejected from the DB5 and the audience roared with laughter, the path towards comedy/gadgets/other non-Fleming crap) was set.

Tom Mankiewicz is the one that said that.

[MHazard]

I think the movies that take one fork are the ones where the actor takes the character seriously, which I think Sean did until DAF. I agree that YOLT is incredibly disappointing, but I just watched it last night and although I agree he's mailing it in, he's still trying to sell the character.

You really thought so? Huh. Okay. I do believe that he was trying to sell the character in GOLDFINGER, I thought the movie's plot made it impossible for me to take it seriously.

As you know I have a soft spot for Sean. As for the movie's plot, do you think it's a failing of the movie team or of the original source material?

[LadySylvia]

I think the movies that take one fork are the ones where the actor takes the character seriously, which I think Sean did until DAF. I agree that YOLT is incredibly disappointing, but I just watched it last night and although I agree he's mailing it in, he's still trying to sell the character.

You really thought so? Huh. Okay. I do believe that he was trying to sell the character in GOLDFINGER, I thought the movie's plot made it impossible for me to take it seriously.

As you know I have a soft spot for Sean. As for the movie's plot, do you think it's a failing of the movie team or of the original source material?

In reality, the movie wasn't a failure. But I do believe that it was a combination of the original source material and EON Productions' additions that made it a personal failure for me.

[Blabbermouth]

Some very interesting insights. I was intrigued by Plank's notion that GF was when the series stopped taking Bond seriously and by Judo's notion that GF is a fork in the Bond movie road where you could go in either direction. I was also trying to reconcile this with the fact that I, an unashamed Fleming purist, really enjoys GF.

Here's what I think was going on. GF is the movie where the director, screenwriters and producers stopped taking the character seriously. But, I think Sean still gives a performance in which he takes the character seriously. There's no violating the third wall, smirking at comments that make no sense except as asides for the movie audience. He seems as nonplussed as Fleming fans that his car has an ejector seat ("you must be joking") and has the same reaction I think I'd have if I woke up and a beautiful girl told me her name was Pussy Galore. Sean's still trying to sell it and it allows Fleming Bond fans to suspend their disbelief and overlook just how fantastic and outrageous some of this stuff is. We also need to keep in mind that GF, along with DN is the most outrageously plotted and over the top Fleming novel. Let's face it, Fleming wrote a villain who robbed Ft. Knox, had a female accomplice named Pussy Galore and a Korean manservant named oddjob with a dangerous derby. So even for us who always want the character taken seriously, you need a good enough actor to allow a lot of suspension of disbelief.

Fleming did not, however, write the duck on the head, the tuxedo under the wet suit,the atomic bomb stopping at 007, an ejector seat (or auto machine guns or oil slicks) or a Felix Leiter who is a complete dufus.

I think the movies that take one fork are the ones where the actor takes the character seriously, which I think Sean did until DAF. I agree that YOLT is incredibly disappointing, but I just watched it last night and although I agree he's mailing it in, he's still trying to sell the character.

Two other points in this disjointed essay. First, I didn't mean to imply that the movies were going to go down the tubes if GF was never made ("the savior" part) but would we really have had over 20 films if this somewhat annoying formula hadn't caught on?

And my second point, which is that although Fleming wrote many over the top stories, he always took his character seriously (maybe the Obit in YOLT comes close to violating the third wall). So, let me close with this illustration. GF the movie starts with the duck on the head, tuxedo under the wet suit. GF the book, begins as follows,"James Bond, with two double bourbons inside him, sat in the final departure lounge of Miami Airport and thought about life and death."

The character deserves to be taken seriously.

Excellent post and very very interesting subject. I believe that you have to look at a varity of things before arriving at a "savior" or "doom" conclusion.

Of all Fleming's novels Goldfinger is one of the weakest. I re-read it only a couple of months ago. It has great characters Goldfinger and Oddjob, but a weak female lead in Pussy Galore. Plotwise - as have been pointed out - it is weak and very unrealistic but highly imaginative.

I have often wondered why the producers chose Goldfinger as movie No. 3, there are well documented reasons for Dr. No and From Russia With Love being selected. Here they had a franchise that was building steadily and had been well received, so why did they choose one of the weaker novels?

However I do believe that Maibaum and Dehn improved Goldfinger and the movie - for once - turned out to be better than the novel. It seems to me that at the time the producers, screenwriters and directors looked closely at the novel at hand and went through it trying to find out where the plot was weak and what would not be easily translated to the screen. This I believe was done with Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. However this was abandonded with You Only Live Twice.

Despite the movie contained the greatest gadget of them all the DB5, it is not the gadget that prevents the movie from being my favorite. It is as others have stated the fact that Bond is captured for most of the film and is more or less a by-stander to the events that unfold.

I also think that we need to look at Thunderball the movie. It followed Goldfinger and is proof that the film, despite not looking to be Goldfinger 2, could be hugely successful and a far superior film than Goldfinger. This movie again takes Fleming's novel and improves it, but without leaving the source material.

So what do I really mean after this rant. Well Goldfinger did not start the "doom" that honor goes solely to You Only Live Twice. However Goldfinger is the movie that has the most iconic effects; Golden girl, Goldfinger, Oddjob, DB5, Fort Knox and that golf game. This IMO is why the producers always have looked at Goldfinger and not Thunderball. Goldfinger is not the "savior" either as the series was already a success, however it did lift Bond from being good films to an iconic character that is still the one that everyone tries to emulate.

[MHazard]

I'm also intrigued that a lot of folks seem to prefer TB the movie to GF. I recently bought the TB DVD and have now watched it several times and I like it a great deal, but not as much as GF. Personally, I think there are a lot of scenes where TB drags, particularly where Bond is not in the scene. And much as I prefer Terrence Young as a director everyone seems to be giving him a free pass on the rocket belt. I would agree, however, that overall, TB is a step back from the road to doom, has Sean giving a straighter (that's not for laughs) performance and some absolutely wonderful scenes and my favorite Bond line ever "you don't seem to understand, I enjoy my dancing". Perhaps there's a contradiction in my Fleming purity, but the film GF is a recognizable adaptation of the source material and Gert Frobe does a fantastic (dubbed voice)job of bringing the villain to life. I never thought of the Bond in jail idea but there's a heck of a lot of Bond prior to that: catching GF cheating at cards, the golf game, following GF in Austria, breaking into his factory, and the fight at Ft. Knox after. Plus, another of my favorite lines, "so Goldfinger are you having lunch at the White House too?".

[tambourineman]

I dont know how you could call the third movie "the road to doom" since you couldnt really establish the formula in just two movies. If anything Dr No has more in common with traditional Bond movies then what From Russia With Love does, so you could say the movies were on the road to doom since Dr No. They took a step off it for FRWL, then got back on it for Goldfinger.

I'm also intrigued that a lot of folks seem to prefer TB the movie to GF.

Im one of them. I've never been a big fan of GF. I just find it a little dull compared to the movies immediately before and after it and Im not big on the plot either and Odd Job is one of my least favorite henchmen (a hat? please). Connery does an excellent performance though. But Thunderball just feels so much more epic and grander then TB. And even though it has its share of OTT moments like the rocketpack, overall it just seems a lot less campy and silly then GF.

[Napoleon Solo]

Adrian Turner, a British film historian, summarizes the various drafts of the Goldfinger screenplay in a 1998 book about the film. It was a real trial (separately) for Richard Maibaum and Paul Dehn.

The main problem for the writers was figuring out a way for Goldfinger to not kill Bond on the laser table (it was Maibuam who first suggested getting rid of the novel's buzzsaw). Each writer felt the novel's method (Bond talking Goldfinger into hiring him) was ridiculous.

In one draft it was suggested Goldfinger had a crush on Bond. That didn't last long, apparently.

Separately, another draft had Pussy Galore dancing semi-naked and painted in gold for the entertainment of the gangsters. Maibuam's drafts paid more attention to the gangsters (Turner attributes this to Maibaum being an American). Maibuam wrote the early drafts and Dehn the later ones. One of Dehn's drafts apparently had an ending scene where curtains (yes, curtains) would "close" over the picture. Luckily, this notion never saw the light of day.

Turner was able to access all this because Maibaum's papers are at the University of Iowa, where he graduated in 1931.

[Bond Maniac]

Not really a Road to Salvation since the Bond series at that time was succefull already. But i do believe that if things were not as they were in GF, we probably would never had Bond till today. I think that people would want more action, more glamour, more insane villains....i don

[Santa]

I think I'll join the neither/both camp.