LIFE Magazine 1964--GOLDFINGER preview

Reading the Nov. 6 1964 LIFE Magazine profile on GOLDFINGER, I was flummoxed to discover that whomever was in charge of publicity (Tom Carlisle, perhaps?) thought it was fine-and-dandy to give away 70% of the film:

So we discover that Goldfinger cheats at cards with a "transistor radio"...that one of Bond's companions is "gilded to death" after a "torrid love scene"...that Goldfinger is targeting Fort Knox with a nuclear bomb and "nerve gas" (it's not revealed that he doesn't want to steal the gold)...that Oddjob fights Bond in Fort Knox, then is electrocuted...that another of Bond's companions has her neck broken by a "hat with a steel brim"...that Goldfinger is "sucked to his reward through a broken window in a jet."

Only the secrets of the gadgets are preserved!

The goal is to get people excited about the movie. I get it. But isn't there a point where they're not going to be excited, because they've been told too much? I know that moviegoers were more casual back then (even today some people just enjoy the ride and don't seem to mind being told half the plot). But weren't there any serious Bond fans back then, fans who didn't appreciate the flippant, jokey tone of puff-pieces like this one? Did Saltzman and Broccoli even care?


  • RevelatorRevelator Posts: 515MI6 Agent

    I think Saltzman and Broccoli only cared that their upcoming film was the cover story on one of the most popular magazines in America.

    Casual moviegoers, instead of thinking they were being told too much, probably thought "That's wild! How on earth can they pull off all that in a movie? I need to see it!" Considering how well Goldfinger did in America, Life probably helped rather hurt its box office. It's also worth remembering that movie trailers back then were just as guilty of giving away most of a movie as they are now.

Sign In or Register to comment.