Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Why did the filmmakers shorten the end of Goldfinger?


3 replies to this topic

#1 General Koskov

General Koskov

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1862 posts

Posted 20 June 2002 - 04:40 AM

In Ian Fleming's book, Goldfinger, Goldfinger hijacks a BOAC Stratocruiser and plans to take Bond to Russia with his miniscule amount of gold. This compromises a few chapters (two, I think); yet in the film Goldie just ties up the crew of a private jet (which might as well be his own Lockheed) and pulls a gun on Bond (who has been drinking for three rather than drugged).

I know that I'm asking for it to say the book Goldfinger is better than the film, but why does everyone think the scene was cut so short?

Yes, Oddjob wasn't around to be sucked out because he had a cooler death, and I know there's a scene of Goldfinger firing his gold-plated revolver (wonder where that came from?), but this doesn't add up to the 'messages-back-and-forth between Pussy and Bond; and yet another megalomaniac speech by Goldfinger' portion of the book?

And would this have made the film better?

#2 Hardyboy

Hardyboy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 472 posts

Posted 20 June 2002 - 05:12 AM

In a word, no. You're right that Oddjob got a sizzling sendoff (so to speak); but I think that Goldfinger getting sucked out of the airplane is much more dramatic--and far less repulsive--than Bond strangling him to death with his bare hands. Really, what I like about the ending is that it delivers a great kick at the end. . .here we thought the mission was over and Bond was safe, and Goldfinger reappears to get his revenge. It's a thing of beauty.

#3 Donovan

Donovan

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 974 posts

Posted 07 July 2002 - 04:55 PM

I think the end of "Goldfinger" (and the rest of the film) is expertly handled . You can't have the big battle at Fort Knox and then almost immediately go to a long, drawn-out fight scene. It doesn't work in movies. The "sting-in-the-tale" ending is really tying up a loose end. It is short, sweet, and directly to the point.

I like the book very much. I miss Fleming-esque villains in the Bond films. The "larger than life" types in stature and physique. These days, we've been getting a lot of 5' angry twerps. The story of "Goldfinger" as presented in the film version is much more streamlined and fun. Fleming's Goldfinger really was planning to steal gold. And the idea that he hires Bond and Tilly as secretaries is thin. The card-plying scene works better in the film, and we actually see Jill covered in gold paint. All-in-all, although the book has some wonderfully-conceived scenes, the film is stellar---credibility warts and all.

-Joe

#4 Bryce (003)

Bryce (003)

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10110 posts
  • Location:West Los Angeles, California USA

Posted 07 July 2002 - 05:21 PM

and let us not forget, the "model" for all the teasers to follow. One of the best to date.

"Shocking"