Talk:Oddjob

	Film: British / American
This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Oddjob's hat was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 31 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Oddjob. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

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

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]

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]

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]

″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]

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]