The James Bond Wardrobe/Style Thread

1161719212257

Comments

  • Posts: 4,619
    Sark wrote: »
    I hope villiers never stops posting ITT. when he sees something he likes he says so, and vice versa. Hes better informed on this matter than nearly everyone else ITT combined, even if he is overloverly traditional (wearing a watch from the 50s ;) ).

    He *is* overly traditional. The guy is 62, he may know one or two things about suits of the 70s and 80s, but he is clearly out of touch with recent developments in the world of fashion.
  • Villiers53 wrote: »
    doghouse wrote: »
    Never seen bond in M's office without putting his coat on the stand. Would be very suprised if there is no scence fliting with Money penny before he goes in to the office. Pretty sure that the suit jacket from the suit he is wearing under the coat. We know already the boat ride is to the new entrance to MI6 which is like a cavern in the rock, so Bond is likely on his way to MI6 when on the boat with Tanner.

    I have never seen Bond in a velvet collared suit jacket before that I can recall. It's not the suit under the overcoat in the other shot, as that is a mid grey, but I supposed it could be another one.

    Who knows, maybe he isn't even in his office, maybe he's at home — his apartment is supposed to feature in SP and that's something I'm really looking forward to. I hope they stick with a Chelsea mews and don't stick him in one of those new fangled high rise jobbies!

    daniel-craig-naomie-harris-filming-for-the-new-bond_4509064.jpg
    daniel-craig-filming-for-the-new-bond-movie_4509066.jpg
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,036
    @Villiers53, I'm sure we have things to discuss in private.
    For now, I expect this thread back on course without the constant childishness of "Irma Bunt and Blofeld are..." when referring to other members.
  • Posts: 14,666
    Okay here's my two cents on it: I have found nothing wrong with the clothes Bond wear so far, from what we have seen. I expect Bond to be elegant, but not overly so. There should be a certain sobriety about what he wears and the way he wears it. In other words, he is not a male model and should not be.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Craig looks amazing these pics.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Okay here's my two cents on it: I have found nothing wrong with the clothes Bond wear so far, from what we have seen. I expect Bond to be elegant, but not overly so. There should be a certain sobriety about what he wears and the way he wears it. In other words, he is not a male model and should not be.

    I think thats the exact problem some have. The suit from Italy in particular is anything but sober.

    Words that should never appear next to Bond: trendy and fashion-forward.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,462
    I have to wonder, when what is now considered "classic" fashion was first introduced was it considered trendy by some who's idea of "classic" was from 30 years prior. Fashion is not stagnant, it evolves; new "classics" are born, at times from what some initially see as trendy or a fad. If that was not true then we would all be wearing animal pelts , from the same animal, cut exactly in the same manner.

    I like what I see Bond wearing in SPECTRE. For me it's both bold and classic and that is Bond.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,628
    talos7 wrote: »
    I like what I see Bond wearing in SPECTRE. For me it's both bold and classic and that is Bond.
    That's a big YEP.
  • Posts: 267
    Really? Name calling and bitchiness and total rudeness is okay with you, Bentley? I am surprised. Villiers' behavior is not okay.


    Germanlady wrote: »
    Its one thing to ridicule me and others (and not only in this thread, as I have heard). Bad enough, BUT being respectless to a mod, whose job it is to keep the forum rules, is even less acceptable.

    Sorry guys but it won't work.
    You were the one's that ganged up on @villieurs53.
    You @Germanlady were first off the block with a range of insults and even some bad language then you @4EverBonded piled in with your childish tantrum.
    Everybody can see that Villiers53 didn't respond other than to tag you as Irma Blunt and Blofeld which personally, I think is hilarious!
    Beyond that, this mod should write to Villiers53 and apologise for his complete misinterpretation of events (deliberate or not) and you two should take a powder.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    No, we shall just disagree with that. At least I will.
    I said exactly what needed to be said. End of.
  • edited February 2015 Posts: 6,601
    I believe, we are nicely back on track with the last comments and Dimi and Villiers will work it out behind the scene and we should be good again.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    talos7 wrote: »
    I have to wonder, when what is now considered "classic" fashion was first introduced was it considered trendy by some who's idea of "classic" was from 30 years prior. Fashion is not stagnant, it evolves; new "classics" are born, at times from what some initially see as trendy or a fad. If that was not true then we would all be wearing animal pelts , from the same animal, cut exactly in the same manner.

    I like what I see Bond wearing in SPECTRE. For me it's both bold and classic and that is Bond.

    If you're responding to me, I believe you've misunderstood what I've written. I have not said that Bond should be a time capsule, only wearing suits from the 60s or only wearing what Fleming put him in. I said that Bond should never be trendy or try to be on the cutting edge of fashion. I hope you can see the difference.

    Earlier in this thread I suggested at test: if something has been considered to be in good taste for someone in Bond's position for a decade it should be adopted. This allows Bond to change with times but avoids the sort of sartorial mistakes we saw in Roger's tenure. I firmly believe that in 20 years time people will look on the suits from QoS much more favorably than the ones from SF.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,462
    @Sark not specifically you, more of a general observation based on the overall tone of much of this thread. ;)
  • edited February 2015 Posts: 5,767
    Sandy wrote: »
    I've been thinking about the suit Craig is seen wearing coming out of the Aston in Rome. I wouldn't be surprised if the coat was modified on purpose for it to look better on screen in the car and he was wearing a differently shaped one in the rest of the scenes. As an example, a man who spends the day behind a desk (such as a lawyer) should ideally have two coats for each suit, one for sitting and another with a regular cut for other circumstances. The cut and shaping will be different, the "sitting coat" will have a modified length in the back, width of shoulders and length (and cut) of the sleeves (even one sleeve will be slightly different from the other, depending on whether he is right- or left-handed). Those coats usually only look optimal when sitting, not standing nor walking. Badly tailored "sitting down" coats are very common in television, my father calls the almost universal bunching in the back the "news-anchor syndrome" (by the way, my father used to be a tailor, and a good one at that /:-) ).
    I had similar thoughts, but I wasn´t aware that there really is the concept of double suits in reality!




    I thought it was just a suit jacket as well, but the sleeves especially really seem to indicate that it's an overcoat. Weird.
    Maybe it´s a gadget from Q? Kinda like Moore´s hat at the beginning of OP ;-)?




    Bentley wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Villiers53,

    Reading your posts a few scrolls back, I wonder why you find it necessary to turn against respected veteran members, unprovoked I might add, in such an unpleasant manner. If you have a quarrel with someone, either avoid further conflict or PM a mod. Also, we're adults here so it's best to let a one time conflict fizzle out without much fuss. Your not so subtle punches, a mere display of bitterness and frustration, have no place here.

    We expect our members to avoid flaming up dying candle lights. Social pyromania should be beneath you, @Villiers53.

    Thank you for taking this into consideration.

    This beggars belief.
    I'm no clothes expert but I've been following and enjoying this thread from the get go and @Villiers53 has been informative, amusing, well informed and good tempered throughout - despite multiple provocations.
    Frankly, he deserves a medal - not this abuse. I hope he finds his flame thrower!
    As a follower of this thread, I tend to very much agree with @Bentley, apart from the flame thrower idea, I think this is not the place for such tools.



    Really? Name calling and bitchiness and total rudeness is okay with you, Bentley? I am surprised. Villiers' behavior is not okay.

    I am no clothes expert either. The details and information given by Villiers and others are appreciated. The attitude he has even more recently shoved down our throats is not.
    I absolutely don´t get why some people think @Villiers53 is trying to shove something down their throat. If he´s being repetitive, dear me, most of us are, but hardly anyone in such an amusing fashion. In fact, I find this thread to be far more informative and entertaining than most of the other threads, because there are some individuals here who give the impression they are talking on a professional level, which is not very common on an internet forum.

    Germanlady wrote: »
    Its one thing to ridicule me and others (and not only in this thread, as I have heard). Bad enough, BUT being respectless to a mod, whose job it is to keep the forum rules, is even less acceptable.
    I agree that the Irma-Blunt repetitiveness is neither clever nor appropriate. But I recall the first instance being a response to a pretty aggressive scolding by you, @Germanlady. Please correct me if I´m wrong!

  • edited February 2015 Posts: 14,666
    Sark wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Okay here's my two cents on it: I have found nothing wrong with the clothes Bond wear so far, from what we have seen. I expect Bond to be elegant, but not overly so. There should be a certain sobriety about what he wears and the way he wears it. In other words, he is not a male model and should not be.

    I think thats the exact problem some have. The suit from Italy in particular is anything but sober.

    Words that should never appear next to Bond: trendy and fashion-forward.

    It didn't strike me as outlandish though. And people should take a grip: you have a tight suit, it is too tight and Bond looks like a bodyguard or a security agent. You have a suit a bit loose and well, now he suddenly looks like a dwarf? Should the suit have two buttons, three buttons? How many holes in the buttons, two or four?
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    @Ludovico even the harshest critics of the suits in SF and SP have pointed out suits and outfits Craig has worn to great effect. Don't make it out that people are just being negative for its own sake.
  • edited February 2015 Posts: 5,767
    Exactly, there has been much constructive, informed criticism, not just random bitching.


    Sark wrote: »
    I hope villiers never stops posting ITT. when he sees something he likes he says so, and vice versa. Hes better informed on this matter than nearly everyone else ITT combined, even if he is overloverly traditional (wearing a watch from the 50s ;) ).

    He *is* overly traditional. The guy is 62, he may know one or two things about suits of the 70s and 80s, but he is clearly out of touch with recent developments in the world of fashion.
    And he has many times expounded on some of the differences between fashion and style, stating his opinion (and naming it as such, not shoving it down anyone´s throat) that Bond should be more about style than about fashion.



    Bentley wrote: »
    ... which personally, I think is hilarious!
    ....) and you two should take a powder.
    I don´t believe such comments, from whichever side, justified or not, are constructive to this thread.


  • Posts: 14,666
    Sark wrote: »
    @Ludovico even the harshest critics of the suits in SF and SP have pointed out suits and outfits Craig has worn to great effect. Don't make it out that people are just being negative for its own sake.

    Not negative for its own sake, but sometimes nitpicking.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    That's a fair criticism. However with Bond his clothing is such an important part of the character. No one remembers what Jack Reacher or Ethan Hunt wears, everyone remembers what Bond wears.

    An honest question: what do people here think will be said about the very tight look of Craig's SF suits in 20 years time?
  • edited February 2015 Posts: 6,601

    Germanlady wrote: »
    Its one thing to ridicule me and others (and not only in this thread, as I have heard). Bad enough, BUT being respectless to a mod, whose job it is to keep the forum rules, is even less acceptable.
    I agree that the Irma-Blunt repetitiveness is neither clever nor appropriate. But I recall the first instance being a response to a pretty aggressive scolding by you, @Germanlady. Please correct me if I´m wrong!

    Really just very short, because I think, we are behind this now and only to answer you.
    My first post addressing Villiers and his way of commenting:

    Germanlady wrote: »
    @Villiers - you can, of course, say what you want, but you would be well advided, if you would throw in an "IMO etc" and not state your "facts" as god given truth. Like this, its less lecturing.

    Thank you. Consider me "well advided".
    Germanlady wrote: »
    In a way, we can be glad, that we came this far and all people find a reason to complain about are clothes. Seems, they have done great so far. =D>
    You see, my post was polite and respectful. His answer sarcastic. He has a way of hiding his aggression behind well phrased words. but its still there. If you care to have a look back, many of those posters are gone, most likely due to his lectures, that won't allow other opinions.

    My next post was harmless, too.Then he started praising Mc.Queen for having elegance and whatnot and DC - NOT, which is just plein wrong,. I gave an example of his elegance and we went from there.



  • edited February 2015 Posts: 1,552
    Sark wrote: »
    That's a fair criticism. However with Bond his clothing is such an important part of the character. No one remembers what Jack Reacher or Ethan Hunt wears, everyone remembers what Bond wears.

    An honest question: what do people here think will be said about the very tight look of Craig's SF suits in 20 years time?
    No one can say? We have no idea what will be fashionable/stylish in 20 years time. What constitutes a fashion faux pas today could be common place and the hight of fasion/style in 2035.

    You say the way to judge a Bond film's outfits is how they stand the test of time, the only way of knowing that is to look back at them in the future, you can't judge how they'll be seen then, now.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Personally, I don't see any nitpicking here.

    Just an element of finesse when discussing the outfits that James Bond should be wearing. This is the thread for such discussion and I personally would be very surprised and disappointed if there wasn't such detailed & deliberate conversation about Bond's wear. Clothing and tailoring is all about the little details. Bond himself is all about details and finesse. That is what some fans enjoy about the man. He has taste. In clothes, in food, in drinks, and in women.

    Kingsman made a whole issue out of the clothes thing for a reason while homaging Bond, and to a lesser degree, Avengers.

    An English hero should have a sense of timeless understated style, to avoid being dated. He is first and foremost English and secondly timeless. That does not mean being old fashioned but it inevitably means avoiding being deliberately flamboyant or contemporary and 'of the moment'. @sark has made some very good comments as to how to determine what is appropriate for Bond.

    I'm not complaining about what I've seen so far because he was in Italy at a funeral and may have been trying to fit (no pun intended) in. It seemed appropriate enough for the circumstance retrospectively, and actually very Italian (sort of an homage to the villains in the original Italian Job in a way, down to the gloves and glasses, - sans the hat). However, for scenes in London, I'd love a more English look.

    Also, once everyone cools off and we get more photos to discuss, I would like to see @Villiers53 posting again.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,036
    Interesting, @Bentley, that you tell me what I should write to Villiers... I did PM Villiers. We both know you know that. /:)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Then he started praising Mc.Queen for having elegance and whatnot and DC - NOT, which is just plein wrong,.

    Do you not see this as exhibiting double-standards on your part, though? You called out Villiers on confusing opinion with fact, when this is precisely what you're doing here? I personally agree with Villiers that stars such as McQueen possess an inherent élan, the way they move, the way they carry themselves and their clothes. I don't think Dan is in this strata of actors, only Connery is regard Bond actors. I would place Moore, Lazenby and Brosnan in a second strata, with Craig and Dalton below that. That's not having a pop at Dan. He's arguably the best actor of the bunch, that's his talent.
  • Posts: 260
    bondjames wrote: »
    Personally, I don't see any nitpicking here.

    Just an element of finesse when discussing the outfits that James Bond should be wearing. This is the thread for such discussion and I personally would be very surprised and disappointed if there wasn't such detailed & deliberate conversation about Bond's wear. Clothing and tailoring is all about the little details. Bond himself is all about details and finesse. That is what some fans enjoy about the man. He has taste. In clothes, in food, in drinks, and in women.

    Kingsman made a whole issue out of the clothes thing for a reason while homaging Bond, and to a lesser degree, Avengers.

    An English hero should have a sense of timeless understated style, to avoid being dated. He is first and foremost English and secondly timeless. That does not mean being old fashioned but it inevitably means avoiding being deliberately flamboyant or contemporary and 'of the moment'. @sark has made some very good comments as to how to determine what is appropriate for Bond.

    I'm not complaining about what I've seen so far because he was in Italy at a funeral and may have been trying to fit (no pun intended) in. It seemed appropriate enough for the circumstance retrospectively, and actually very Italian (sort of an homage to the villains in the original Italian Job in a way, down to the gloves and glasses, - sans the hat). However, for scenes in London, I'd love a more English look.

    Also, once everyone cools off and we get more photos to discuss, I would like to see @Villiers53 posting again.


    My sentiments exactly.

    I always thought we were discussing and debating Bonds clothing, which I believe is the whole point of the thread.
  • Posts: 6,601
    RC7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Then he started praising Mc.Queen for having elegance and whatnot and DC - NOT, which is just plein wrong,.

    Do you not see this as exhibiting double-standards on your part, though? You called out Villiers on confusing opinion with fact, when this is precisely what you're doing here? I personally agree with Villiers that stars such as McQueen possess an inherent élan, the way they move, the way they carry themselves and their clothes. I don't think Dan is in this strata of actors, only Connery is regard Bond actors. I would place Moore, Lazenby and Brosnan in a second strata, with Craig and Dalton below that. That's not having a pop at Dan. He's arguably the best actor of the bunch, that's his talent.


    I don't see it as having a pop at DC. Its just that - for me - part of my fascination comes from his way of moving, the swagger, the whole "moving package" and I never got the idea, other wouldn't see it. For proof I remembered the balústrade scene in QOS.
    BTW - I am really surprised and pleased, how you and me can communicate on this pleasant level. For some time now.

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,462
    The degree of knowledge displayed when it comes to fashion has been impressive. For me it's been very enlightening and informative. The match that seems to have ignited this existing discord was the rather extensive comparing Bond attire for SPECTRE to that of a homosexual funeral and the bitter name calling that followed. I would love to continue reading this thread as long as it's civil; otherwise, I'll just avoid it
  • DrShatterhandDrShatterhand Garden of Death, near Belfast
    Posts: 805
    bondjames wrote: »
    Personally, I don't see any nitpicking here.

    Just an element of finesse when discussing the outfits that James Bond should be wearing. This is the thread for such discussion and I personally would be very surprised and disappointed if there wasn't such detailed conversation about Bond's wear. Clothing and tailoring is all about the little details. Bond himself is all about details and finesse. That is what some fans enjoy about the man. He has taste. In clothes, in food, in drinks, and in women.

    Kingsman made a whole issue out of the clothes thing for a reason while homaging Bond, and to a lesser degree, Avengers.

    An English hero should have a sense of timeless understated style, to avoid being dated. He is first and foremost English and secondly timeless. That does not mean being old fashioned but it inevitably means avoiding being deliberately flamboyant or contemporary and 'of the moment'. @sark has made some very good comments as to how to determine what is appropriate for Bond.

    I'm not complaining about what I've seen so far because he was in Italy at a funeral and may have been trying to fit (no pun intended) in. It seemed appropriate enough for the circumstance retrospectively, and actually very Italian (sort of an homage to the villains in the original Italian Job in a way, down to the gloves and glasses, - sans the hat). However, for scenes in London, I'd love a more English look.

    Also, once everyone cools off and we get more photos to discuss, I would like to see @Villiers53 posting again.

    Brilliantly put @bondjames. I too have enjoyed hearing @Villiers53's comments on a subject he clearly is an expert on and would be sad to see that stop.
  • edited February 2015 Posts: 188
    Last post here ...
    I feel uneasy when I come to this thread. I don't blame either one side of the argument exclusively - both seem not interested enough in compromise to make this thread nice again. Maybe it's gone too far and now it's about standing your ground. I dunno.

    As it is I think I'll lay off trying to post any opinions here. Not that anyone will mind. I'm new, I'm not a knowledgeable person when it comes to style (and fashion - but then I'm told fashion doesn't matter), and while I had a few nice and enlightening exchanges with some of you, I've not exactly contributed much. Maybe this thread just isn't for me. Maybe I shouldn't talk about what I know nothing about.

    But there is this one thing I would like to explain to Villiers and his uncritical supporters, just maybe to make you think.
    I'm a person who doesn't know much about Savile Row. I judge clothes on whether I like them on the person that is wearing them, on whether I like the color etc. When I first got here, I thought: "Cool, I can learn something, maybe contribute an opinion and find people agreeing or gently disagreeing."

    Instead I was unsettled by unkind and/or sarcastic wording (whatever the knowledge behind them) and not-so-subtle barbs directed towards people who didn't meet your standards. I felt people were condescending and disrespectful. They seemed not to care to phrase things respectfully, since this was, obviously, their playground, and they dictated the rules of what was ok (like homophobia) and what was not (like fangirling over DC). It's as if some people feel that they (or their friends) are beyond reproach due to the superior knowledge they (and others) feel they possess. It's probably only due to a few people and remarks, but whenever I see the title of this tread now, I feel uneasy instead of excited.

    I had hoped people would respect the broad masses, explain instead of judge, engage in friendly banter etc., but that didn't seem to be everyone's approach around here. And while both sides of the argument are involved in the volatile atmosphere, I always felt that the superior attitude mentioned above was where it all started. Whatever knowledge and elan you possess, in activley ridiculing less "informed" opinions you make me as a newby feel unwelcome.

    Having said that: I do hope Villiers keeps commenting. Obviously he knows a few things. Just please, try to be a bit more open about other people's views and a little less disrespectful and sarcastic when talking to them. You may be the more knowledgeable person here, but would you talk like that to or about your colleagues at work (where they can hear you, no less)?
  • Posts: 1,552
    @roko wrote: »
    I judge clothes on whether I like them on the person that is wearing them, on whether I like the color etc.
    This is how it should be, and is how I personally judge whether I believe an outfit on Bond, or any of the characters, works or not.

Sign In or Register to comment.