27 replies to this topic

[MHazard]

A nagging question has always been why does Goldfinger go to the trouble of explaining his Ft. Knox scheme to a room full of gangsters only to immediately kill them (we'll put aside why he lets Mr. Solo leave to be driven to his pressing engagement rather than killing him with the rest). Why, in other words, doesn't he just kill them? I believe the answer is that he wanted to see if any of these criminal minds saw any flaw in his plan that he needed to correct-sort of a gangster focus group. Once he'd gotten their cricisms and confirmed he had taken them into account he could kill them, Perhaps also the reason he discusses his plan with Bond. Now, before someone suggests Goldfinger is to much of an egotist to feel the need to doublecheck his plan, I'd suggest many if not most egotistical people are really quite insecure. So, that's my explanation for what of course was undoubtedly really done so that the screenwriters would have an excuse for having a GF explain his scheme to the audience. So perhaps a better question is why did the screenwriters feel the need to kill the gangsters rather than letting them help him, except for Solo, as in the book? What do folks think?

[LadySylvia]

A nagging question has always been why does Goldfinger go to the trouble of explaining his Ft. Knox scheme to a room full of gangsters only to immediately kill them (we'll put aside why he lets Mr. Solo leave to be driven to his pressing engagement rather than killing him with the rest). Why, in other words, doesn't he just kill them? I believe the answer is that he wanted to see if any of these criminal minds saw any flaw in his plan that he needed to correct-sort of a gangster focus group. Once he'd gotten their cricisms and confirmed he had taken them into account he could kill them, Perhaps also the reason he discusses his plan with Bond. Now, before someone suggests Goldfinger is to much of an egotist to feel the need to doublecheck his plan, I'd suggest many if not most egotistical people are really quite insecure. So, that's my explanation for what of course was undoubtedly really done so that the screenwriters would have an excuse for having a GF explain his scheme to the audience. So perhaps a better question is why did the screenwriters feel the need to kill the gangsters rather than letting them help him, except for Solo, as in the book? What do folks think?

I just don't see it. Why not consider it as a lame attempt on the screenwriters' part to allow Bond to find out what Goldfinger's plot was?

[MHazard]

I wouldn't argue that it was a lame attempt, etc.... and doubt that the screenwriters had my justification in mind. But, as an after the fact rationalization, I think it works pretty well. What is perhaps, lamer, would be the decision that they needed to gas the gangsters, except for Solo, because it looked cool rather than making any plot sense. Having GF explain his plans was a tricky plot problem and for all my Fleming fandom, even Ian's solution (having Bond hired by GF to work for him and be present at the meeting) doesn't work very well either. I think the movie could have had the same scene with Bond escaping and overhearing GF's plans which GF shares with the gangsters because as in the book he wants their help, wouldv'e worked better. But no one asked my opinion at the time, which was good, because I hadn't learned to read yet.

[RJJB]

Instead of calling it lame, why not just concede that the scene was written to give the audience the details of Operation Grand Slam in a manner that allow for some spectacle and out and out villainy from Goldfinger? Is it perfect? No. But it allows the movie to flow at a good clip and provides some decent entertainment. Having seen the movie when it was first released in 1964, I had no questions about the validity of the scene. It was just part of pure entertainment and did not insult my intelligence. And that, more than anything else, is what I got from the movie. And let's be honest, movies often do not make perfect sense. And I think we can all use an occasional respite from "perfect sense."

[Judo chop]

[Let's try to have some fun and put aside the glaring evidence that it is

[Publius]

That's a damn good explanation, actually, but I still think it was just the beginning of the "let me tell you my plan in excrutiating detail for no apparent reason other than to stroke my own ego when I know full well I'm just giving you another opportunity to ridicule me and extract information you can use in your eventual escape and my ultimate demise when I could just as easily kill you right now and assure my victory" Bond villain cliche.

[Judo chop]

That's a damn good explanation, actually, but I still think it was just the beginning of the "let me tell you my plan in excrutating detail for no apparent reason other than to stroke my own ego when I know full well I'm just giving you another opportunity to ridicule me and extract information you can use in your eventual escape and my ultimate demise when I could just as easily kill you right now and assure my victory" Bond villain cliche.

<head down, kicking at dirt>

Aw, you

[dodge]

That's a damn good explanation, actually, but I still think it was just the beginning of the "let me tell you my plan in excrutating detail for no apparent reason other than to stroke my own ego when I know full well I'm just giving you another opportunity to ridicule me and extract information you can use in your eventual escape and my ultimate demise when I could just as easily kill you right now and assure my victory" Bond villain cliche.

Yeppers, the Talking Villain. Or, I should say, Blabbering Villain.

[Mister Asterix]

I put it all down to the fact that Goldfinger was a nut job.

[Santa]

I'd say each theory expounded here has merit. I prefer to stick with suspension of disbelief and ignore such glaring inconsistencies and I have my own little theory too:
Back then, in the 60s, I think the quality of suspension of disbelief was much easier to come by. Movies still had a magical quality for people, they didn't sit around picking apart every dodgy scene over the internet, they didn't have DVDs with their freeze-frame technology and 'making of' documentaries, and they usually didn't get to see the same film over and over again with the attendant error-spotting possibilities that presents. People then went to the cinema for a bit of good old escapism, glamour and, probably, snogging in the back row. So while Goldfinger's exposition scene is unacceptably clumsy to us, back then it probably hardly noticed and maybe that's why there is no one sensible explanation? They simply assumed that under such circumstances no-one would ever realise the plot was so iffy?
To the expectation of poo thrown at my head, I'll admit here that I appear to be from the 60s. I have never, ever watched any of the extra features on a DVD. Once or twice I remember watching the odd making of Bond documentary on telly, back before we had DVDs, but I soon realised that made it too hard for me get that suspension of disbelief. As soon as I saw how a stunt had been done, every time I saw it in the movie afterwards, it took me out of the film. So while I understand that the Bond UEs have some very interesting features including commentary from Roger, I just don't use them. Not the deleted scenes, the director interviews, none of it. I know, I'm quaint.

[col_007]

dunno if it was just me but i found the gangsters arguing very cringeworthy

[Major Tallon]

dunno if it was just me but i found the gangsters arguing very cringeworthy

I agree. I made a tape recording when it first played on television, and I was surprised at how lame the dialog was, with things like "Hey, what's with that trick pool table?" and "Turn those lights back on." This was much less noticeable when watching the movie, as the audience, too, wondered (among other things) about the lights and the pool table, elements of the scene that were purely visual.

[DaveBond21]

dunno if it was just me but i found the gangsters arguing very cringeworthy


I agree. I made a tape recording when it first played on television, and I was surprised at how lame the dialog was, with things like "Hey, what's with that trick pool table?" and "Turn those lights back on." This was much less noticeable when watching the movie, as the audience, too, wondered (among other things) about the lights and the pool table, elements of the scene that were purely visual.

LOL, yes I agree. I counted 7 inane comments from the gangsters during that scene!! But it's still a fun scene, and also we must remember that actors talked like that a lot in movies in those days (a number of actors all throwing in their opinions in quick succession is a really old tradition, going back to Shakespeare plays).

[Turn]

Here's yet another take. The gangsters were obviously there to collect their $1 million in gold in person and maybe dropping off their goods, such as the Delta 9 and what not. They also were probably curious as to just what this was for and may have wondered if there were other jobs Goldfinger could employ them for in the future.

Notice some of the gangsters seem surprised to see the others - "Goldfinger, why weren't we told New York and the west coast were in on this?" Otherwise some of the hoods may not have shown up. Just getting them to show up is something; GF was counting on their greed to bring them in and he could destroy them all at once.

Another question I've brought up before is how did he expect to escape retribution from these mobsters' families. A successful Operation Grand Slam would have made him that much richer, but could he really be able to avoid the associates of that many people who had been rubbed out?

For futher fanwanking, I wonder if Marc Lawrence's hood from DAF and TMWTGG worked for any of the mob leaders rubbed out in GF.

[Major Tallon]

For futher fanwanking, I wonder if Marc Lawrence's hood from DAF and TMWTGG worked for any of the mob leaders rubbed out in GF.

Interesting question. In the novel, one of the gangsters represented The Spangled Mob, the gang that Bond took on in DAF. I thought it was interesting that the gang's represenative, Mr. Jack Strap, didn't appear to have heard of Bond, who was responsible for its founder's demise.

[MHazard]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='772060' date='12 September 2007 - 14:24'][Let's try to have some fun and put aside the glaring evidence that it is

[Judo chop]

[quote name='MHazard' post='772529' date='13 September 2007 - 12:22'][quote name='Judo chop' post='772060' date='12 September 2007 - 14:24'][Let's try to have some fun and put aside the glaring evidence that it is

[LadySylvia]

All I did was state that I didn't like this particular scene in GOLDFINGER and considered it to be a badly written attempt for Bond to find out about Goldfinger's scheme against Fort Knox and the next thing I know, I find tons of posts defending the scene. If you liked it, I'm happy for you. I just don't think it was all that hot.

[quote]My filler script is that Goldfinger simply does not find that the gangsters are juiced up enough for his satisfaction. He was hoping that these great criminal minds would be in awe of such a spectacular plan - that they would revel in his genius. However, this is not the case. They don

Edited by LadySylvia, 13 September 2007 - 07:21 PM.

[Judo chop]

RJJB, would you like to take this one, or shall I?

[RJJB]

RJJB, would you like to take this one, or shall I?

I'll let have first crack at it, JC.
You'd probably a lot nicer to LS than I would.

[Judo chop]

All I did was state that I didn't like this particular scene in GOLDFINGER and considered it to be a badly written attempt for Bond to find out about Goldfinger's scheme against Fort Knox and the next thing I know, I find tons of posts defending the scene. If you liked it, I'm happy for you. I just don't think it was all that hot.

You make the precious mistake of thinking that any of the posts in this thread have anything to do with yours. For Pete

[LadySylvia]

[quote]You make the precious mistake of thinking that any of the posts in this thread have anything to do with yours. For Pete

Edited by LadySylvia, 13 September 2007 - 09:32 PM.

[Judo chop]

I doubt your name is Lady Sylvia either.

[RJJB]

Sorry, Sylvia Honey, but your post reads:

"All I did was state that I didn't like this particular scene in GOLDFINGER and considered it to be a badly written attempt for Bond to find out about Goldfinger's scheme against Fort Knox and the next thing I know, I find tons of posts defending the scene. If you liked it, I'm happy for you. I just don't think it was all that hot."

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you are taking people to task for expressing their own views on the subject. Most of your posts are "hit and run" observations that you don't like something, but you never say why. Or else a statement is made and you drag some other topic that has nothing to do with the original discussion. If you feel you must reign supreme, I suggest you hightail back to your insipid Lady Lavonia website and wallow in the adulation you get there.
And, yes, JC's filler script was his own writing, just as your fan fiction on your website is your own. If you can do it,why can't someone else?

You are truly the most unlikeable person I have ever encountered on any of the Bond sites. Given your rampant complaining about the movies, I wonder why you bother coming here.

Lady? That's a laugh.

Edited by RJJB, 14 September 2007 - 01:57 PM.

[Mister Asterix]

All right everyone. Knock it off. Back to the topic please.

[freemo]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='772060' date='13 September 2007 - 04:24']My filler script is that Goldfinger simply does not find that the gangsters are juiced up enough for his satisfaction. He was hoping that these great criminal minds would be in awe of such a spectacular plan - that they would revel in his genius. However, this is not the case. They don

[Bondian]

I put it all down to the fact that Goldfinger was a nut job.

That's it in a nut job shell.

There's evidence to this. Would he actually be still around when his dream came to a conclusion.

[Odd Job]

Exposition is a necessary evil in many films, including Bond movies. I would love to hear from Zencat on this as he writes scripts for a living, but the fact is that sometimes you have to have some explanation of the plot to the viewing audience. Now I may be biased as GF is my favourite Bond flick, but I think that if you are going to have an exposition scene, then do it with style and that includes 'trick pool tables', 'Hood's Conventions' and throw in a touch of Delta-9 Nerve gas.

To me this scene accomplishes two things. It gives us details of Goldfinger's plans and also manages to show just how insane the man really is. It also manages to be very entertaining (IMHO). Now having Bond overhear a conversation between Goldfinger and Mr Ling (as he did in Switzerland) where Goldfinger goes into intimate detail about Operation Grandslam might have made more sense, but would it have as much fun as the Pool room scene. I doubt it, but then I only watch these films for the entertainment, not the nitpicking.