13 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

As we are currently reading Goldfinger in the Blades Library Reading Club, it's time to compare the film to the novel.

Personally, I've always thought Goldfinger to be one of Fleming's weakest James Bond novels. I won't get into alot of the details here as I'm saving those for when I'm done reading the book again and I post a review in the main thread. Actions and the plot just seem to get pushed around to make them work for the story, rather than them working fine on their own.

The film on the other hand, is great. While sometimes overrated in my book, there's no denying it's a very good Bond film. Connery is pretty much spot on in the role and the supporting cast is top notch.

When it comes down to it, the film Goldfinger gets my vote.

Which do you choose and why?

[zencat]

It's a rare case where the film is better than the book.

[DLibrasnow]

Disagree with you Qwerty. I know I am in the minority but I always kinda like the novel Goldfinger. I especially liked the golfing sequences.

The novel also has a nice, tight structure to it.

[Qwerty]

Disagree with you Qwerty. I know I am in the minority but I always kinda like the novel Goldfinger. I especially liked the golfing sequences.

The novel also has a nice, tight structure to it.

The golfing sequence, I'll give ya. That is top-notch in both the film and the novel.

[Genrewriter]

I enjoy the novel up until the end of the trip to Goldfinger's house. After that it sort of plods along for me. The ending on the plane is good though. The first half of the book and the first half of the film are just about equal but the second half of the film is considerably better than tyhe second half of the book.

[JKD68]

[quote name='Genrewriter' date='5 February 2005 - 20:19']I enjoy the novel up until the end of the trip to Goldfinger's house.

Edited by JKD68, 06 February 2005 - 04:09 AM.

[Turn]

The film. It just takes more care to explain things better (not it all cases, but most) whereas Fleming leaves it to the reader to just accept what he says.
It has been a few years since I've read it, but a few things stood out along with reviews like Benson's that said pretty much the same things I thought.

The plot to rob Fort Knox is just such a stretch, even for Fleming. To think up a plot to use a bomb to irradiate the gold is a master stroke by Maibaum and Dehn. There's even a nice tip of the hat to the impossibility of that in the film. And just killing off Tilly was better without the plain goofy idea of sparing her and Bond's lives and hiring them as PR people.

Another sloppy claim Fleming makes was claiming Odd Job is one of three martial arts black belts in the world. Maybe he just left out what degree of black belt, because there had to be more than that by the 1950s. I also think Fleming really stretches it a bit near the end with leaving the note for somebody to contact Leiter. And then there is the matter of his "turning" Pussy to his side. The film Bond you can understand, the literary one not so much.

I still like the book as it is kind of fantastic and kind of fun. But not as strong as Fleming usually is with other developments. Like he was tiring a bit of Bond by this point.

[Hitch]

Yes, the first half of the book is definitely stronger than the second. Apart from plot problems (Goldfinger not bumping off Bond - surely the origin for Dr Evil's son complaining to his father about letting Austin Powers live), Oddjob's demise is handled much better in the film. It's one of the rare cases where I prefer much of a Bond film to a Fleming book.

However, the book is still chockfull of undiluted Fleming:

"As Bond handed his club to Hawker and strolled off in the wake of the more impatient Goldfinger, he smelled the sweet smell of the beginning of a knock-down-and-drag-out game of golf on a beautiful day in May with the larks singing over the greatest seaside course in the world."

Bliss.

[Qwerty]

It's one of the rare cases where I prefer much of a Bond film to a Fleming book.

Exactly. Odd that they turn it into what is publically regarded as one of the best/most well known Bond films.

[00Twelve]

I also cast my vote for the film, though I truly miss the sequence in Goldfinger's house. I loved the security camera ploy, and Bond's solution. I think the film introduction to Oddjob does just as fine a job as the novel, and it is not as overly dramatic. The crushed golf ball and beheaded statue are all I need to know that Oddjob is inhuman and very dangerous.

While I liked Fleming's risks, Pussy works much better in my opinion as a straight girl. Much better.

Again, I cast my vote for the film.

[David Schofield]

I echo everything that's been said here. Most reviews consider Goldfinger the best Bond movie because it contains all the prototypical elements of classic Bond- car with gadgets, mega villain, girls, big set piece finale. While that may be true, the real reason Goldfinger succeeds as a movie is because it is a perfect translation of a classic novel to the screen. Connery just about nails Flemings Bond AND the movie improves on the novels shortcomings - Goldfinger's ludicrous reason for employing Bond and Tilly, Pussy as a gansgster never seems credible and the ending of the book far too slow. I do think the movie missed a trick by not having Bond's message getting to Leiter still being in some doubt as the attacck on Fort Knox began: I would have felt happier if the movie Bond had hidden the note in the plane loo and hoped it was found rather than shagging assistance out of Pussy. The tension would have been quite unbearable.

[DLibrasnow]

Disagree with you Qwerty. I know I am in the minority but I always kinda like the novel Goldfinger. I especially liked the golfing sequences.

The novel also has a nice, tight structure to it.

The golfing sequence, I'll give ya. That is top-notch in both the film and the novel.

Right, both are highlights in my opinion.

[B007GLE]

Without a doubt the film.

The reason he saves Bond's life, Pussy's character, the plan to irradiate the gold rather than steal it, the battle at Fort Knox, the death of Odd-job all are so much better in the film, the book is just a pale cousin by comparison.

[K1Bond007]

The film. I enjoy both, but I think the film has more believability. Nuking the gold to increase your the worth of your stock vs actually stealing from Fort Knox is just smarter.