6 replies to this topic

[General Koskov]

I've heard that the film Goldfinger 'improves' on the books logic by having Goldfinger make the gold 'useless' rather than stealing it, which would require far more manpower than is realistic.

However there's the thread of 'Goldfinger Logic (or lack thereof)' which shows how rediculous the film made the 'Hood's Congress', which seemed to be sensible in the book.

Personally, the book makes a hell of a lot more sense to me and the film just ruins all of Fleming's 'realistic audacity' that makes the plot palatable. Some examples:

1. I do not pretend to know the ins and outs of the protocol at Fort Knox and its bullion depository. However, I never hear of bullion being transferred either in or out of the depository. If the gold is stationary--and for all intents and purposes of the general public: not there at all--then how does irradiating it for 57 (or 55?) years do...anything? I would assume the US army would keep the radioactive gold out of the press and the economy would go on as usual.

2. To back up the book's plot, I'll mention that Goldfinger had a freight train, hundreds of men and their trucks and he had an idea to commandeer aircraft. A train can carry a lot of gold, I am sure of that. Also Goldfinger never planned to get all of the gold away, just most.

3. Following up on #2: Has anyone stepped back and looked at every single James Bond film? Look at the end result and think about who looses. Why do the villains loose? Well, their plans are completely off-the-wall for one. Why does Goldfinger's plan have to be feasible if he's going to fail? It doesn't, that's why Fleming wrote such a rediculous plot: because it won't work and it's not supposed to or else Bond would fail and the Soviets would have America's gold (though I don't think Bond cared about that, it was 60 000 dead that bothered him).

4. Goldfinger enlisted help from the six largest American gangs to help him rob Fort Knox. They thought they'd get away with a billion each (I think) and let Goldfinger keep five billion because he was the man who thought of the plan and it was right of him to take more. Mr Helmut Springer (not Mr Solo as in the film) decides he wants out, but Goldfinger cannot risk Springer ratting them out, so he and his bodyguard are 'hit'.

The others know he's been hit, but they still think that Goldfinger is just a 'super' version of themselves and have no inkling of the Soviets or the mass murder that is going on. The important think from all this is that the gangsters stick together until well after Goldfinger's train escapes Fort Knox. Then, and only then, does Goldfinger kill them, exept Pussy Galore (who is leader of 'The Cement Mixers') because he needs her in his escape operation.

In the film, Pussy is not a gangster, but that really doesn't change anything. However the Hoods are killed rather prematurely and where Fleming had tied up loose ends, Maibaum unthreads them and makes the audience turn the otherwise-straightforward plot into a conversation piece. Also, you can't figure this mystery out after repeated viewings like The Living Daylights, or the money-bomb in The World is not Enough. This problem is there to stay.



So that's my take on why the book makes more sense, but what does everyone else think? It seems as if most think the 'dirty little atom bomb' the more realistic path, rather than the 'clean but powerful atom bomb' of the book.

[Jim]

True, true.

Although there is an argument that in the novel, Bond's life is spared because of the canasta game with Mr Dupont, which runs thus:-

1. Bond humiliates Goldfinger, pinches his companion Jill Masterton,leading to her death
2. Jill Masterton would (arguably) have been Goldfinger's secretary otherwise. Goldfinger would have had more reason to trust her than to trust Bond.
3. Ergo, Bond sets up his own rescue, unwittingly. One wonders whether it is an utterly cynical act on his part to offer his services to Goldfinger knowing that Jill M is dead. Hmm.

Wonder what his typing speed is.

Seems to follow...ish. Although I tend to agree that the film makes it more convincing.

[Hardyboy]

Actually, Jim, I think Goldfinger's reasons for sparing Bond make a lot more sense in the film than they do in the book. Goldfinger's purpose in sparing him is revealed when Felix Leiter and that other CIA agent (who shouldn't be operating inside the US, but nevermind. . .) are snooping around his stud farm. He trots Bond out, encourages Pussy to romance him, and--voila!--Felix thinks Bond has everything under control and drives away. Bond, indeed, is worth more to Goldfinger alive than dead.

[MicroGlobe One]

It's interesting you should raise this subject as two days ago I just finished reading Ian Fleming's Goldfinger for the third or fourth time and I've been in the midst of writing something of a review of the novel. In any event, I agree with most of your thoughts...

I'm one of those who believes that the film version of Goldfinger manages to correct a number of minor flaws in Fleming's original plot. To be perfectly honest, I much favor the irradiation of the gold to the theft of the gold. This is not to mention the relocation of the final battle from the Ft. Knox railway station to inside the famed gold vault itself, which is also an improvement. I don't particularly feel that Fleming's hoods' congress is any more realistic than the one featured in the film. In fact, the meeting of gangsters in the book seems a bit sloppier. Of course, the film is based on Ian Fleming's enticing original plot. All of its strongest elements are the result of his writing.

You mention Goldfinger's Russian support in the novel. This helped to strengthen his scheme. Of course, in the film version this support was shifted to China. It's interesting.

Perhaps the only major element of the novel which is more realistic and logical than its film translation, from the villain's perspective, is the means by which the population of Ft. Knox is incapacitated. I've always detested the foolish gas used in the film to make the soldiers simply faint dead away in unison. The cruel murder of hundreds by poison which Goldfinger plans in the novel is far more chilling, far more dramatic, and far more believable.

Those are my thoughts on the subject.

[Hardyboy]

I think that the film takes it in a walk. The book is actually one of Fleming's weaker efforts: it's long, there isn't a lot of action, and more than just the plan to steal Ft. Knox's gold doesn't make sense. . .why would a committed lesbian like Pussy Galore magically fall in love with Bond and switch sides? Why is a committed capitalist like Goldfinger in league with the commie Russians? (In the film, we know that he's using the commie Chinese in a scheme that will help HIM get richer--he's not going to use gold to bankroll their efforts.) Why does Goldfinger drag Bond and Tilly Masterson with him to America to serve as his SECRETARIES?? The book is fun, but Fleming clearly wasn't putting a lot of effort into a logical plot. The film does indeed straighten the story out, and it also puts the story more into modern times by adding an atomic bomb and a futuristic laser. Give me Goldfinger the movie any day. . .and this is the only Fleming title I say that about (well, with the possible exception of The Spy Who Loved Me, but that's another argument. . .)

[Jim]

I've never been that convinced by Goldfinger's reasons for sparing Bond's life in the book. The richest man in the world, and he can't get anyone to work for him? I'd've kept that buzzsaw going. The reason in the film is only marginally better, but better, and makes more logical sense.

[Sir James]

Here IMO is the main reason why the film makes more sense. In the Book Godlfinger actually wants to steal the Gold. I will quote Sir Sean on this one:

"15 billion dollars in gold bullion weighs 10,500 tons. 60 men would take 12 days to load it on 200 trucks. Now at the most u are going to have 2 hours before the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines move in and make u put it back. "