Terrence Young and Goldfinger
hegottheboot
USAPosts: 327MI6 Agent
After listening to the "banned" Criterion laserdisc commentary (on listentoamovie.com)-the fact that Young worked with Richard Maibaum on the original story treatment seems ripe for discussion. What would this have been like? The film and novel differ in tone so violently that I feel Young would have not gone so rich like Hamilton. (No rubber seagull!!) Another interesting part of the commentary is Peter Hunt's apparent disdain of the film's tone-he seems to resent Young leaving and having to do all the over the top stuff.
Young supposedly left over contract issues (wanted a percentage I think.). Isn't this the same reason why Connery became withdrawn and decided to leave? The ironic bit is that both came back once more.
Young supposedly left over contract issues (wanted a percentage I think.). Isn't this the same reason why Connery became withdrawn and decided to leave? The ironic bit is that both came back once more.
Comments
Gert Frobe had already been cast before Hamilton's involvement, according to the book, and Richard Maibaum's script, though "very good" he felt to be too American before Paul Dehn's rewrite. The seagull was originally an inflatable dead dog in Dehn's version; Maibaum thought the idea "repulsive" and Hamilton changed it to the seagull. And Dehn was the man who came up with "Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die!"
Hope that helps!
I liked the fact that they had witty writers come in and add a certain sparkle to things, of course all had Fleming's excellent first draft novels to work from.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
They were kind of like that in the book too, though I think Gary Marshall riding a hobby horse went a bit too far.
No. It was rather frank about what happened during the production of Goldfinger, a bit too frank for EON.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The novel is a bit more cartoony in spots-this is where Fleming really started to go into fantasy. Yet it has the most detailed look into Bond's mundane existence-the tail job especially. The book begins in the Miami airport with Bond musing over death and his killing of Capungo. The film could care less. This is a classic example of how the films and books differ.
GF the film captures the spirit of the book as well as could be done in the moralities of 1964. It is by no means a bad film, but it did set up many formulaic points that the series has had to live up to ever since.
I never understood this criticism. Even if one doesn't like the Bond formula, and I accept that not everyone does, to blame GF for one's dislike of the later films is ridiculous. One may not like some of the more formulaic Bond films, but to blame GF for YOLT, for example, is like blaming The Godfather for The Godfather Part III. The Godfather Part III may not exist if it wasn't for The Godfather but it doesn't alter The Godfather's status as a masterpiece.
Anyway, YOLT resembles Thunderball more.
It seems that one meee-lee-on dollars in 1970 had the power to overcome common artistic objections.
Don't get me wrong though. I would've much preferred a more Young feeling GF, it would probably be one of my favorites in the series instead of being one of the most overrated. (IMO) 8-)