My girlfriend’s nephew is named after that stuntman.
But since he will have made huge investments in Gold Futures, the sudden crash of the gold market will make him billions in paper money, so he’ll be able to afford more real physical gold.
This is one of the best examples ever of the movie being better than the book. In the book, he was just going to rob Ft. Knox. The movie’s idea is much more clever.
(Also, in the book, he was so stupid, he kept Bond alive…to help him with the detailed planning of the raid! And, maybe worst of all, in the book, it was Bond’s seduction/rape of Pussy Galore that caused her to betray Goldfinger. In the movie, it was shown that she had reservations regarding the deadliness of the gas attack on the civilian population in the area. She wanted out of the whole deal…but saw what happened to the other guy who tried to leave.)
As high concepts go, robbing or nuking Fort Knox is at least feasible (for extremely generous definitions of the word), in contrast to the near-identical The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, where the plan was exterminate humanity and rule the post-apocalyptic Earth.
The Fort Knox attack wouldn’t cause the gold market to crash, it would skyrocket. It would make all the gold there unsafe and unusable, essentially cutting the world’s supply. Demand would stay the same (or, in such a time of economic turmoil, increase) and so the price would go up.
But Goldfinger doesn’t want the price of gold to go up. I love chocolate; I want it to be cheap so I can buy more of it. Maybe there’s an infestation that devastates the cacao trees, and the price goes up. I can sell some of the stock from my chocolate warehouse and buy a Rolls Royce. But I don’t love Rolls Royces, I love chocolate.
Well, okay. But it would put millions of jewelers out of work. The small consumer market for gold would vanish.
True. This is a valid gripe. It only really works if Goldfinger wants money.
(It makes me think, a little, of the collateral investments the WTC attackers made in shorting airline futures, knowing that airline travel would be severely curtailed right after the attack, and that airline travel, in general, would be depressed for the first few months after. They not only got in a nasty terrorist strike…they also made a load of money on it too. The ultimate in “insider trading.”)
Compare this to the scene in Casino Royale where D. Craig chases that African guy across town and over a crane. I subsequently thought of Moore as the “work smarter” Bond and Craig as the “work harder” version.
Indeed. I wonder (haven’t actually checked YouTube yet) if there’s a compilation of just the opening scenes – which rarely have any bearing on the plot of the main movie – of all the JB movies. It would have to run over an hour and might make for a special film all its own. I know I’d watch it just for the razzle-dazzle and for how much must have been spent to produce those teasers.
You want a “work smarter, not harder” Bond? Sean Connery spent movie after movie failing to kill Blofeld before Roger Moore did it in the opening teaser.
::d&r::
Yep.
- That’s been the Bond family motto for several movies now.
- What profits a man should he gain the whole world but lose his soul?
In the books (well, book… On Her Majesty’s Secret Service), it’s a motto of a Bond family, but whether or not James Bond is related is, to him, a matter of complete indifference.
They really did that, or you’re speculating on IF they had?
Now I’m not sure. I did some searching, but all I find are conspiracy sites, nothing that looks legitimate. I may have fallen for an UL.
Given that OBL came from a rich family, it is certainly something within his capability. If I were about to launch a hellish attack on the airlines, I’d short airline futures to get that extra leverage out of the event.
But did it happen that way? I had thought so, but am now starting to wonder.
It’s funny - M herself said that happened in Casino Royale. So whether it’s true in real life, it’s true in the movie world.
I’ve read a lot about 9-11, and I’d never heard that they did that. I think it’s a UL.
The Roger Moore ones became increasingly, um, comedic, IMHO. The Daniel Craig ones should probably be watched in order.
Except for FYEO which was a return to realism (more or less) following the excesses of Moonraker.
I still stand by Moonraker as a novel. It has little to do with the film, no space station, no plan to exterminate the human race. Just a great story.
I preferred this one:
Actually, I think Moore’s best action/adventure role was in ffoulkes, where he plays the Anti-Bond.
And Pierce Brosnan’s best role was in The Taylor of Panama, where he plays the Anti-Bond.