Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a29105848b3315db

Jump to content

Talk:Oddjob

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 11 months ago by 2607:FEA8:FF01:4FA6:88FE:164:381C:5B7E in topic His death

Discussion

[edit]

Revert vandalism. No oddjob discussion yet, so I'm starting it off.SBHarris 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The picture...

[edit]

Did somebody search hard to find the one picture of him without his trademark hat? Given how important the hat is to his character, it would be nice if we got a picture of him wearing (or perhaps throwing) it. Anybody? --Lurlock 15:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Due Mafiosi Contro Goldginger

[edit]

It says here that Moloch (actually Molok) was played by Alejandro Barrera. Not onis is this wrong, he was played by a peruvian actor named Dakar, but its impossible as the Alejandro in the linked entry was born in the 1980s.  Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.89.63 (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC) This is confirmed by the wiki entry on the Italian movie, so I've corrected it.Reply

Revised novel?

[edit]

We need a source for this. I've never heard of a revised version of Goldfinger being published and Wikipedia's own article makes no mention of such a thing. I've left a question at the novel's article too. Not saying the info is wrong, but it's certainly not a widely known fact and should be sourced. 50.66.121.20 (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Inaccurate passage about 'inaccuracies'

[edit]

″He is also described as having a black belt in karate, although, since he was Korean, this may well have been taekwondo, often inaccurately referred to as 'Korean karate' at the time that the novel was published (1959).″ - Actually 'Korean Karate' is an absolutely correct term by that time. The name 'Taekwondo' did not exist before 1959. The martial art at that time was either named 'Tang Soo Do' (唐手道), 'Soo Bahk Do' (수박도) or 'Tae Soo Do' (跆手道) - depending on the school. 唐手 (Tode - meaning 'Tang hand') is the name Karate went along before 1937. Then it was changed to actual 空手 (Karate). Those korean arts consisted mostly of Karate (Shotokan by a great part, General Choi - the founder of 'Taekwondo' - was a direct student of Gichin and Gigo Funakoshi in Japan), Tang Soo Do and Soo Bahk Do having their Pyong-An forms (Pinan in Okinawan, Heian in Japanese) pretty much taken from Shotokan and were actually introduced by korean karate black belts after 1945. So yes, at his time Ian Fleming was actually right: Oddjob might have most probably been a 'karate black belt' - doing 'korean karate'. 2003:D4:A728:3A00:AD85:FBD6:1AAE:262C (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yep, Phlegm was actually right about a lot of things...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bruce Cumings

[edit]

History professor Bruce Cumings has labelled the portrayal of Oddjob as a symptom of anti-Korean racism. While I don't exactly agree, I think this is notable enough to be included. But where to put it?--Jack Upland (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

His death

[edit]

how many times did he die? and how? 2607:FEA8:FF01:4FA6:88FE:164:381C:5B7E (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply