Topic: Goldfinger film better than the novel?

I love the book of GF but it seems the film has made alot of different choices that have turned out for the best.
1)You see the golden girl instead of being told
2)Tilly dies earlier providing more time for pussy galore
3)A laser not a buzzsaw(To be fair there wasn't such a thing as lasers back then)
And so on

Do you think any other films might be better than the novel


Re: Goldfinger film better than the novel?

Plus the idea of making the gold radioactive and unusable, rather than the implausible one of nicking the gold from Fort Knox.

Normally The Man With The Golden Gun would have had a decent shot at being better than the novel, as Scaramanga is made into a cool hitman rather than a dodgy hoodlum, but it's one of the worst films. Other than that, most of the books don't have much to do with the novels except name of villain and locale, so you're restricted to the first three or four movies. OHMSS had the potential to be better than the book, but imo it's better to have Bond narked off with the mission to find Blofeld, as in the book, rather than how it is in the film when it's his personal mission to get him. Some better humour with the heraldry stuff in the book, imo, too. Almost written with the films in mind, and then omitted from the film when it comes round. Bizarre.

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017


Re: Goldfinger film better than the novel?

The one thing that's interesting in the book that got left out, Bond's sense of ennui, which I think appears in GF for the first time in the novels?  At least to the extent it did in that one, it pervades the novel IMO.  It's perhaps the most dour novel in the series.  The film went 180 degrees opposite, and turned it into perhaps the most upbeat film of the series, Bond in his prime and so forth.  Like the OHMSS switch, something I think the filmmakers did purposely to lighten up Fleming's more downer Bond and keep the character that much more assessible (what 12 year old is thinking of retirement, lol?).


Re: Goldfinger film better than the novel?

Sadly, the observation that the novels and films do not relate except in title is very valid.

Re: Goldfinger, the only part the film improved upon was the tainting of the gold, which makes more sense than its removal.

The charecters of Bond, Tilly and Pussy as well as Goldfinger are more fully exploited in the book.

A buzz saw while rather a cliche, is alot more scary to me than a laser, which wouldn't even warm Bond's privates much less cut them in half. My understanding is that laser's must be precisely focused to do anything (burn,cut) and the film laser was focused on the table not on oo7.


Re: Goldfinger film better than the novel?

Bond's dictation-taking for Goldfinger was also dropped, a good idea. When encountering that part of the novel it seems rather tenous he would employ him.


Re: Goldfinger film better than the novel?

If I remember right (it's been about 20 years since I've read it), I'm also not a fan of how Bond "escapes" from the buzz saw in the book.  (Which was replaced in the film by a laser.) 

I love the movie version where Bond cleverly talks his way out of death.  In the book Goldfinger lets him live to keep Bond on his staff as an unpaid secretary.  (Wow.  That has to be one of the dumbest mistakes ever made by a super villain.)

EDIT: I think Alex beat me to that post!

Last edited by rennervision (21st Jun 2007 21:27)


Re: Goldfinger film better than the novel?

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Plus the idea of making the gold radioactive and unusable, rather than the implausible one of nicking the gold from Fort Knox.

Well, not that making gold radioactive for 58 years would really happen:

"Though a good amount of the gold in the vault would most likely be turned into gold leaf covering the walls, some of the gold would gain an extra neutron from the streams of subatomic particles let out by the bland and turn radioactive. The radioactive form of gold is extremely unstable however, and it would turn to liquid mercury within a few days. So much for the gold becoming radioactive for fifty-eight years, a number no scientist has ever been able to explain" (Gresh and Weinberg The Science of James Bond).

Of course, the plan would still work, just not how they think it would. So yes, perhaps more plausible than stealing all that gold.