The James Bond Wardrobe/Style Thread

1356757

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I just watched TB yesterday @CrabKey and I get what you're saying. Connery wore it effortlessly but it didn't look overly fussy. Almost unpressed in a way. Yet he looked great in it. Difficult to pull off. I definitely noticed that yesterday.

    It's like some of these new guys are trying too hard in a way.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,135
    Yeah, that's why Connery is king because he made everything look and seem natural...effortless; like he wasn't even trying. I saw YOLT the other day and although it's never been a favourite of mine, I just couldn't help but be drawn into the film and Connery's effortless charisma can't be denied, despite opinions claiming that he looked bored. He just made everything look so easy.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Saw ken Adams footage of you only live twice on the DVD and connery is goofing around and has his shirt off and looks in good shape, too. Wow. So much for the people who called him fat in that movie
  • No question that Connery got it absolutely right in the first three.
    Terence Young had great personal style and played a massive role in styling Connery for the screen - he got it absolutely right, as sleek as a leopard and completely unfussy.
    With minor adaptations, the wardrobe would pass muster today and the Spectre team would do well to take a new look at things and to look at their relationships with product companies afresh.
    Frankly anybody will pay to be in a Bond movie and it's up to the team to dress Bond and then to do the deal with the brand of their choice and not the other way around. They shouldn't compromise 007's image in the process.
    One thing they have certainly got right during the Craig era is their relationship with Sunspel. They make fabulous polo shirts that fit beautifuly and are made with a great weave that allow them to breath.
    In general, apart from that appalling shirt in the CR opening chase scene and the inappropriate and thuggish leather jacket at Miami airport, they've done a pretty good job with Craig's casual wardrobe. It's really the suits that need the most work and also that all important Barnet. Indeed who chewed poor old Daniel's hair for SF is one of the great mysteries of our time. Villier's53 hopes he never finds himself in their chair!
    The hair is so important and the dodgy Barnet coupled with the chintzy watch did give a certain oligarch feel on occasion. If our hero had been going undercover as a Smersh operative that might have been appropriate but that withstanding it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to find Daniel a decent barber. There are some good ones in London and certainly my man Brent Pankhurst would see him right.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Controversial opinion: the fewer suits Bond is wearing, the better. This is 2015, it's possible to be stylish and elegant without resorting to suits.
    That has always been possible. Suits are cool nonetheless.

    Given the history of Connery allegedly being sceptic of suits until Terrence Young made him wear a tailored suit day and night just to feel how comfortable it is, which then apparently made Connery a defender of suits, it seems only fair to also nowadays demand suits that look comfortable on the one wearing them.
    To argue that a fashion designer and/or a costume designer has more knowledge about clothes than any one of us here is like saying fashion always makes sense.

  • If, as is much touted, Christopher Waltz is going to morph into Blofeld, this could represent an amazing wardrobe opportunity to offer an alternative man's look in 'Spectre'.
    Waltz himself is a bit of a clothes horse and one could easily imagine him throwing a counterpunch to Bond's hopefully cool but unfussy look by rocking up in something from Chittleborough and Morgan. Perhaps taking some style inspiration from the immaculate Charlie Watts. A little dandified in velvets and corduroys with great scarfs maybe?
    Could be fun?
  • doubleoego wrote: »
    Omega abominations? Fleming was neither an horologist nor a watch expert. One should take a close look at the history of both rolex and omega before making typical misinformed perceptions of brand.

    Hellzapoppin @doubleoego - Villieurs53 was expressing his own view not that of the late, great Fleming.
    Of course, there will always be a market for Omega amongst those that can't afford a Rolex or indeed those that prefer the more garish oligarch look. It's just important that James avoids these taste faux pas and reverts to the more refined Rolex.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,135
    @villiers the fact that you think its about affordability proves my point. Bond literary or movie incarnation isn't going to and never would wear a Rolex in excess of £8K. I'm 29 and have owned, purchased outright a Rolex deep sea sea dweller and the Rolex explorer 1 but my preference looks into many factors as to why I now wear Omega at least fir the time being and imo alongside that of many watch enthusiasts, Rolex is without question a great brand, it's not even debatable but it's most certainly not the best in the market and they've got more aesthetically unappealing models than Omega has so your oligarch comment is quite ironic to me. All that said, do your research, Omega was pissing all over Rolex up until the late 70s. Since then Rolex managed to easily warp the minds of many people like you regarding brand perception with the help if the Swiss crisis that happened and now so many people who know nothing or very little about the history of watch brand and manufacturing are casualties of advertising and viral misconceptions.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 4,619
    @doubleoego I couldn't agree with you more. I'm not a watch expert, but my perception is that Rolex watches are generally far more garish than Omega timepieces (although both brands produce some incredibly garish watches).

    When I hear the word Rolex, I think of a watch like this one: http://tinyurl.com/peft6mn
    When I hear the word Omega, I think of a watch like this one: http://tinyurl.com/q4yxdgu
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,135
    You're right @Panchito, both brands like every other brand have their fair number of unappealing looks but in terms of aesthetic design Omega for the most part are doing a wonderful job. Aesthetics aside there's a reason why Omega is the only watch Brand to make it to the moon.
  • AVBAVB
    edited January 2015 Posts: 97
    I didn't find Craig's leather jacket thuggish at all. I think some people are just on nostalgia trips with Bond. Moreso than ever, Bond is an action man and therefore it's coming to the point where his penchant for suits whilst on mission is looking out of place. I just think,'Dear me, he must spend a fortune on getting new £5000 Tom Ford suits every other week'. Bear in mind he is not a wealthy man, and also Bond rarely refreshes his wardrobe. He actually wears the same thing year in year out. He is practical in his clothing.

    I think he should definitely wear suits in specific situations, but what I liked about Connery is that he totally dressed for the occasion. Of course, it was more common to wear a suit in his day but he wore casual slacks and so on, even the shortest shorts in the universe. Can we update Bond please? In an aesthetic sense I did love craigs suits in SF, the exception being the one he wore in the whole London scene. the tight fit didn't work in pinstripe. He looked very uncomfortable.

    I'd like a more casual attire for Craig. His outfit in the Madagascan scene in CR was fitting, albeit a little weird on the shirt front. His suit in SF's Istanbul scene was slightly out of place. He should save his suits for less 'fighty' scenes. His Macau outfit was great. I'd advocate more casual slacks and more polo shirts. Perhaps a more casual sports jacket like Craig wore in the M apartment scene in CR. And also, why have we never seen Craig in a sleath-suit? This bond is crying out for a tactical/commando Bond-infiltration scene!

    I'd love longer hair too on him, they always cut it too short on Craig.
  • Posts: 260
    doubleoego wrote: »
    @villiers the fact that you think its about affordability proves my point. Bond literary or movie incarnation isn't going to and never would wear a Rolex in excess of £8K. I'm 29 and have owned, purchased outright a Rolex deep sea sea dweller and the Rolex explorer 1 but my preference looks into many factors as to why I now wear Omega at least fir the time being and imo alongside that of many watch enthusiasts, Rolex is without question a great brand, it's not even debatable but it's most certainly not the best in the market and they've got more aesthetically unappealing models than Omega has so your oligarch comment is quite ironic to me. All that said, do your research, Omega was pissing all over Rolex up until the late 70s. Since then Rolex managed to easily warp the minds of many people like you regarding brand perception with the help if the Swiss crisis that happened and now so many people who know nothing or very little about the history of watch brand and manufacturing are casualties of advertising and viral misconceptions.


    I am quite puzzled over the assertion that Rolexs are somehow more premium than Omega. Generally, Rolexs are a worse value initially, though the long term investment in them is quite good due to resale. The Omega is basically the same class of watch these days.

    Personally I'd take an Omega in a heartbeat as I think Rolexs look terrible, but I understand the appeal to others.


    I think the other line of argument against the divers watch is silly too. A classic divers watch is an excellent visual cue with a suit that informs to someone who is capable and hands on. I generally only wear divers or aviators watches myself.
  • Posts: 260
    AVB wrote: »
    I didn't find Craig's leather jacket thuggish at all.


    I don't think it's thuggish either, but unless you are a WWII pilot, I don't think anyone should be in a leather jacket, they just look terrible all the way around.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    doubleoego wrote: »
    You're right @Panchito, both brands like every other brand have their fair number of unappealing looks but in terms of aesthetic design Omega for the most part are doing a wonderful job. Aesthetics aside there's a reason why Omega is the only watch Brand to make it to the moon.

    I do like a lot of the old Omega watches. Particularly like this old Seamaster chronograph.

    lomega321f02.jpg

  • Posts: 1,314
    I dont really get the criticism of the tailoring in SF. The suits are tight and slightly shorter in arm and leg than traditionally, but thats the fashion these days anyway. Its like saying Roger Moors flares were ill fitting because they're baggy at the bottom.

    IMO Bonds attire is always classic, but with a nod to the contemporary time the films were made.

    And Bond should always ALWAYS wear a suit as much as possible.
  • Posts: 260
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I dont really get the criticism of the tailoring in SF. The suits are tight and slightly shorter in arm and leg than traditionally, but thats the fashion these days anyway. Its like saying Roger Moors flares were ill fitting because they're baggy at the bottom.

    Those two things aren't equivalent. Things like trouser flare and lapel width are stylistic choices. Whether the waist is the right size is actual fit.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,135
    @doghouse well said and I agree and @RC7 the de ville is a wonderful piece and fortunately Omega 's vintage stuff are mostly exquisite.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,135
    Matt007 wrote: »
    And Bond should always ALWAYS wear a suit as much as possible.

    I agree with this.
  • doubleoego wrote: »
    @villiers the fact that you think its about affordability proves my point. Bond literary or movie incarnation isn't going to and never would wear a Rolex in excess of £8K. I'm 29 and have owned, purchased outright a Rolex deep sea sea dweller and the Rolex explorer 1 but my preference looks into many factors as to why I now wear Omega at least fir the time being and imo alongside that of many watch enthusiasts, Rolex is without question a great brand, it's not even debatable but it's most certainly not the best in the market and they've got more aesthetically unappealing models than Omega has so your oligarch comment is quite ironic to me. All that said, do your research, Omega was pissing all over Rolex up until the late 70s. Since then Rolex managed to easily warp the minds of many people like you regarding brand perception with the help if the Swiss crisis that happened and now so many people who know nothing or very little about the history of watch brand and manufacturing are casualties of advertising and viral misconceptions.

    @doubleoego,
    Villiers53 is delighted that you've bought all these watches outright. He doesn't know how else one would do it ?
    Furthermore,he doesn't want to be misunderstood. Omega is a fine brand. They tell the time very well. In fact, his car mechanic wears one together with a matching neck chain and a huge 'Mr T' medallion. His mechanic thinks they go well with his tattoos and look fabulous when he sports his John Travolta white suit. He is probably right.
    Villiers53 mentions this because everything has its place. It's just that Bond should wear a 1953 Rolex Oyster Perpetual with a white face on a stainless steel bracelet as Ian intended.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I have worn Omega since 1994, but Rolex is unquestionably the more premium brand.

    Premium in the following ways:
    -1. better and higher resale value of their most well known lines (particularly the newer designs),
    -2. command a higher new price (less discounting),
    -3. bigger collectible market,
    -4. more well known amongst those who know nothing about watches due to very good advertising,
    -5. preferred by more wealthy people, including Craig (he sports Rolex much more on a personal basis than he does Omega, and has been seen wearing a Migauss, Daytona & Submariner on many an occassion),
    -6. does not sit as a sub-brand within a larger congromerate (eg. Omega is part of Swatch Group that includes lesser brands like Tissot). Rolex exists on its own (like BMW) rather than a sub-brand (like Jaguar within Tata). For those in the know, that matters.

    In terms of history, Omega is actually more prestigious than Rolex. As mentioned, they had excellent automatic movements, sent the first watch to the moon and are a marginally older brand. They lost their way in the 70's with the battery craze and disgraced themselves. It's been a long way back. Rolex on the other hand, stuck mainly with the automatic movements during that era, and refined the movements and materials they used, increasing their premium appeal. They sold quartz too but did not push it like Omega did.
    ----

    In terms of style, it's a matter of taste. I personally believe that the Omegas from about 5 years ago (pre-8500 movement) were their peak in terms of classic design. The aqua-terra, railmaster, planet ocean, and seamaster from that era were beautiful watches and very proportional. However, at some point they decided to create their own movements (in order to go upmarket and chase Rolex) and came up with the 8500 movement. Apart from the aforementioned 8500 aqua-terra 38.5 (which is a work of art) with that movement, I cannot comfortably wear any of their watches and I have told them so, in writing. They are just too bloody thick and bulky looking. I think that is what @Villiers53 was referring to. Even the 8500 Planet Ocean looks like a beast on one's wrist (close to 16mm height). Craig himself insisted on wearing an 8500 aqua-terra for much of SF since he was not comfortable with the PO (he just wore it for that embarrasing CGI closeup on the bike and for promotional photos). He did not do that in QoS btw, where he wore the now discontinued, slimmer 2500 movement PO for the whole movie, because it is a more proportional watch. When they put the 8500 movement in, the prices went up and the proporations started to look odd on many models.

    Rolex have a way of picking a classic design and sticking with it, with minimal updates over time. Somewhat like a Porsche 911. The Submariner, as worn by Connery, Lazenby, Moore & Dalton, has seen minimal changes over the past 50 years. The same goes for the Explorer and the vaunted Daytona. All timelessly classic styles. Moreover, their bracelet designs are quite flat and sit nicely on the wrist in a pseudo dressy way without being overly bulky. Only the aqua terra does that from Omega IMO. Furthermore, Rolex watches are not as thick as the new Omegas. Rolex also did not chase the big watch craze so much, which is a good thing, as that is winding down now. Keep in mind that the Rolex Submariner is the most imitated watch design of all time.

    In the open market, Omega is seen as trendier, design wise and Rolex more classic. Rolex is an older man's brand and Omega a younger one. Old money vs. new money if you like.

    In terms of engineering, Omega is arguably ahead at this point with their superb in-house movements, but those in the know are aware that their pricey new watches are not holding up too well on the used market, unlike Rolex. It's the older line that has proven to be a better investment in terms of relative depreciation, to date.

    So at the end of the day, I have only worn Omega, but I respect Rolex (especially the Submariner, Datejust, Explorer, Milgauss & lovely Daytona) as the more aspirational pieces.

    I personally believe the Submariner is the only watch suitable for a man of action like Bond. An understated, classic diver & looks perfect under a well tailored suit, or in the pool. Check out any of the Bond movies from the 60's to the 80's and you'll see what I mean.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    I just watched TB yesterday @CrabKey and I get what you're saying. Connery wore it effortlessly but it didn't look overly fussy. Almost unpressed in a way. Yet he looked great in it. Difficult to pull off. I definitely noticed that yesterday.

    It's like some of these new guys are trying too hard in a way.

    Absolutely!
    It should look like you are wearing the suit and it's part of you not like it's wearing you - Connery really mastered that under Young's guidance. He also moved like a cat - that helps too!


  • Posts: 260
    bondjames wrote: »
    I have worn Omega since 1994, but Rolex is unquestionably the more premium brand.

    Premium in the following ways:
    -1. better and higher resale value of their most well known lines (particularly the newer designs),
    -2. command a higher new price,
    -3. bigger collectible market,
    -4. more well known amongst those who know nothing about watches due to very good advertising,
    -5. preferred by more wealthy people, including Craig (he sports Rolex much more on a personal basis than he does Omega, and has been seen wearing a Migauss, Daytona & Submariner on many an occassion),
    -6. does not sit as a sub-brand within a larger congromerate (eg. Swatch Group). Rolex exists on its own (like BMW) rather than a sub-brand (like Jaguar within Tata). For those in the know, that matters.

    In terms of history, Omega is actually more prestigious than Rolex. As mentioned, they had excellent automatic movements, sent the first watch to the moon and are a marginally older brand. They lost their way in the 70's with the battery craze and disgraced themselves. It's been a long way back. Rolex on the other hand, stuck mainly with the automatic movements during that era, and refined the movements and materials they used, increasing their premium appeal. They sold quartz too but did not push it like Omega did.
    ----

    In terms of style, it's a matter of taste. I personally believe that the Omegas from about 5 years ago (pre-8500 movement) were their peak in terms of classic design. The aqua-terra, railmaster, planet ocean, and seamaster from that era were beautiful watches and very proportional. However, at some point they decided to create their own movements (in order to go upmarket and chase Rolex) and came up with the 8500 movement. Apart from the aforementioned 8500 aqua-terra 38.5 (which is a work of art) with that movement, I cannot comfortably wear any of their watches and I have told them so, in writing. They are just too bloody thick and bulky looking. I think that is what Villiers was referring to. Even the 8500 Planet Ocean looks like a beast on one's wrist (close to 16mm height). Craig himself insisted on the 8500 aqua-terra since he was not comfortable with the PO in SF (he just wore it for that embarrasing CGI closeup on the bike). He did not do that in QoS btw, where he wore the slimmer 2500 movement PO for the whole movie, because it is a more proportional watch. When they put the 8500 movement in, the prices went up and the proporations started to look odd on many models.

    Rolex have a way of picking a classic design and sticking with it, with minimal updates over time. Somewhat like a Porsche 911. The Submariner, as worn by Connery, Lazenby, Moore & Dalton, has seen minimal changes over the past 50 years. The same goes for the Explorer and the vaunted Daytona. All timelessly classic styles. Moreover, their bracelet designs are quite flat and sit nicely on the wrist in a dressy way without being overly bulky. Only the aqua terra does that from Omega IMO. Also, Rolex watches are not as thick as the new Omegas. Rolex also did not chase the big watch craze so much, which is a good thing, as that is winding down now.

    In the open market, Omega is seen as trendier, design wise and Rolex more classic. Rolex is an older man's brand and Omega a younger one. Old money vs. new money if you like.

    In terms of engineering, Omega is arguably ahead at this point with their superb in-house movements, but those in the know are aware that their pricey new watches are not holding up too well on the used market, unlike Rolex. It's the older line that has proven to be a better investment in terms of relative depreciation, to date.

    So at the end of the day, I have only worn Omega, but I respect Rolex (especially the Submariner, Datejust, Explorer, Milgauss & lovely Daytona) as the more aspirational pieces.

    I personally believe the Submariner is the only watch suitable for a man of action like Bond. Looks perfect under a well tailored suit, or in the pool. Check out any of the Bond movies from the 60's to the 80's and you'll see what I mean.


    I would have to disagree substantially. A lot of the stuff you mention is right out of the marketing brochure from Rolex, and is not accurate. You do make valid points about the holding of value, which I mentioned earlier, but this is a commercial pressure and not intrinsic to the watches themselves. The argument above is simply for a business transaction, not for a watch wearer, which is the only thing that matters in the context of Bond. He isn't someone buying collecting and selling watches.

    Omega is basically an ETA house brand, no question, but Rolex does nothing better than ETA, and a lot worse. The whole in house movement issue is also a complete red herring. Rolex may exist on it's own, but BMW doesn't, it's just the eponymous brand, you also have Bentley as the top marque, and Jaguar is unquestionably higher end than BMW (though I like BMW better, and drive one). The aspirational impetus for Rolex comes right from the name, the aspirational middle class. To say it's preferred by more wealthy people is just false, it's driven right from the middle by people who are susceptible to advertising. Wealthy people buy whatever watch looks good to them.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    doghouse wrote: »
    I would have to disagree substantially. A lot of the stuff you mention is right out of the marketing brochure from Rolex, and is not accurate. You do make valid points about the holding of value, which I mentioned earlier, but this is a commercial pressure and not intrinsic to the watches themselves. The argument above is simply for a business transaction, not for a watch wearer, which is the only thing that matters in the context of Bond. He isn't someone buying collecting and selling watches.

    Omega is basically an ETA house brand, no question, but Rolex does nothing better than ETA, and a lot worse. The whole in house movement issue is also a complete red herring. Rolex may exist on it's own, but BMW doesn't, it's just the eponymous brand, you also have Bentley as the top marque, and Jaguar is unquestionably higher end than BMW (though I like BMW better, and drive one). The aspirational impetus for Rolex comes right from the name, the aspirational middle class. To say it's preferred by more wealthy people is just false, it's driven right from the middle by people who are susceptible to advertising. Wealthy people buy whatever watch looks good to them.

    I stand by what I said and I know quite a bit about watches. I've owned 5 Omegas, but Rolex is the premium brand and more classic. It also fetches better resale values and is preferred by more wealthy people (whether that's a good thing or not is another matter entirely). They sell far more watches at higher average prices than Omega does (again, whether that is a good thing is another matter entirely). Those simply are the facts. I've never read a Rolex marketing brochure btw.

    Omegas had modified ETA movements until the 8500 (even the 2500 is a modified ETA with co-axial escapement). The Rolex 3135 is a reliable reknown in-house automatic movement that has been in their line for years. I'm not debating with you whether that's a good thing. It's simply a fact. Omega messed up their branding and marketing in the 70's by pushing quartz watches. That's a fact. That's something they are still living down. A huge mistake. Up until a few years ago you could buy Omegas at Costco. Even today, Jomashop (an online retailer) is selling Omega without manufacturer's warranty at 63% off. Rolex only gets 33% off. Bentley is not a good example in this case to make an argument, as they sell far fewer units than BMW. Neither is Jaguar for the same reason. I disagree that Jaguar is more premium than BMW as well. In the watch world, Zenith (owned by LVMH) is more like Bentley (owned by Volkswagen) due to the limited number of units sold by both.

    I have a personal preference for Bond to wear a Submariner because I think it's the perfect watch for Bond. Timelessly classic with minimal changes over time. That has nothing to do with whether rich people buy it or whether it's like a BMW. I made those comments because people were debating the brand value of Rolex vs. Omega above.

  • @bondjames, you are clearly a man of distinction who understands a thing or two.
    I hope the less well informed take note although I would respectfully disagree on the model of Rolex for 007. It should definitely be a 1953 Oyster Perpetual with a white face on a stainless steel bracelet. Understated elegance personified!
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 260
    bondjames wrote: »

    I stand by what I said and I know quite a bit about watches.

    I never intimated otherwise.

    I will continue to disagree that more wealthy people own Rolexs though. I don't mean in relation to Omega, I mean in general. And further that Rolex is only more valuable on a commercial scale, not a enthusiast scale. Almost all of you arguments are commercial in nature.

    I wish my BMW was as valued as a Jag, but alas, it isn't happening. I don't think Bentley's volume numbers have anything to do with it? We are talking absolute value, and not brand sectors. Or maybe you are and I'm not and that's the issue.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The Omega lines (particularly the new ones, including the brand new Seamaster 300M Master that has just been released -and which may in fact be Bond's new watch for SP) can be obtained from watch dealers for well under the retail price. The Rolex watches for the most part, cannot. The retailers and used watch dealers that I talk to (and I do spend more time than I should wasting their time with silly questions) tell me that Rolex can be sold for close to asking price, the demand is that large. Omega has to be pushed, except for some limited edition models. There is a huge organic Rolex collectible market (and I mean huge). The Omega one is much smaller and concentrated on a few models.

    Omega has come a long way upmarket since the 90's when you could buy them at Costco for less than half the price of what they are selling for now. However, it's a little 'forced' to those who follow these things closely - since it takes time for a brand to move upmarket again. The Bond marketing definitely helps, as does Clooney. The huge Chinese market also helps.

    I'm not questioning the quality of Omega. I think quality wise they are better than Rolex. As I said, I only wear Omega (although I aspire to a Rolex one day). Relative brand value is another thing though. There is no doubt, Omega is catching up to Rolex very fast, particularly over the past few years and competition is good for all. I watch the used resale market to gauge the real worth though.
  • Posts: 260
    bondjames wrote: »

    I'm not questioning the quality of Omega.

    Then we are pretty much in agreement. I am not using the resale value to position the brand is or it's applicability to Bond as I think the construct of Bond isn't really concerned with such things as the general populace.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Does @Villiers53 always talk in the third person?
  • Posts: 5,767
    AVB wrote: »
    I think some people are just on nostalgia trips with Bond. Moreso than ever, Bond is an action man and therefore it's coming to the point where his penchant for suits whilst on mission is looking out of place.
    That´s why he should wear his suits comfortably. As for being up to date, the point that suits look out of place on a mission was already used as a joke in the opening of a Bond film in 1987.

    Suits in movies look cool, just look at Inception.

    Suits never look out of place on James Bond. The more he fights in a suit the better.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    AVB wrote: »
    I think some people are just on nostalgia trips with Bond. Moreso than ever, Bond is an action man and therefore it's coming to the point where his penchant for suits whilst on mission is looking out of place.
    That´s why he should wear his suits comfortably. As for being up to date, the point that suits look out of place on a mission was already used as a joke in the opening of a Bond film in 1987.

    Suits in movies look cool, just look at Inception.

    Suits never look out of place on James Bond. The more he fights in a suit the better.

    I'd agree but to a point. I think part of what defines Bond is his masculinity. It's ingrained. Inbred if you will. It's not the clothes that make Bond. Bond makes the clothes. That feeling has to come across on the screen.

    In my opinion, Connery, Dalton and Craig do it best, but Connery is far and away ahead of the pack in this regard. The man oozed machismo in a suit without being a thug and that's why he's #1 to many.

    The problem here is not everyone is Connery. Therefore, the producers have to find outfits that fit the image of the actor they have. As I said earlier, I really like Craig's look for most of CR (except for the patterned shirt in Africa, although given the location, it could be forgiven - one thing's for sure - he pulled that abomination off better than I could!).

    I'm ok with Bond in a suit and fighting in a suit, but not too much. I found that was the case with Brosnan (it was taken too far in some of his movies). I prefer the Connery TB balance between well tailored (but not mannequined suit) and smart casual when the situation calls for it. But that's just me.
Sign In or Register to comment.