34 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

I got the idea for this discussion in the "How can they 'Bond up' Craig more?" over in the Craig forum. In it I argued that the character of Bond should speak for itself, not the image of Bond. In other words if the character is there, that's all that is required.

Removing the tuxedo's and suits completely is a bit drastic. But just for the sake of argument, could they make it work? To answer my own question, I believe they could. Because as stated above, Bond is more than just an Englishman in a dinner jacket (or at least he should be), I mean we go for almost an hour and a half before we glimpse Bond in a dinner jacket in Casino Royale, does that make it any less of a Bond film?

[TheSaint]

Well, Bond doesn't wear a tux in YOLT, and only wears two suits before going native so, I think your question has been answered.

[dee-bee-five]

I got the idea for this discussion in the "How can they 'Bond up' Craig more?" over in the Craig forum. In it I argued that the character of Bond should speak for itself, not the image of Bond. In other words if the character is there, that's all that is required.

Removing the tuxedo's and suits completely is a bit drastic. But just for the sake of argument, could they make it work? To answer my own question, I believe they could. Because as stated above, Bond is more than just an Englishman in a dinner jacket (or at least he should be), I mean we go for almost an hour and a half before we glimpse Bond in a dinner jacket in Casino Royale, does that make it any less of a Bond film?

Of course they can make a film in which Bond doesn't wear a suit...

...if they want to vulgarise the character and contribute to the general dumbing down of Western society.

[Dell Deaton]

... Removing the tuxedo's and suits completely is a bit drastic. But just for the sake of argument, could they make it work? To answer my own question, I believe they could ....

Of course they can make a film in which Bond doesn't wear a suit...

...if they want to vulgarise the character and contribute to the general dumbing down of Western society.

LOL!

[00Twelve]

As fashion and status aren't high priorities for Bond, but his general knowledge and awareness of the subject was introduced through Fleming, I think the removal of such elements entirely might be a slight mistake. Still, Bond is a civil servant, so too much of the good life would be entirely unrealistic, such as having 10 or more Saville Row suits in his closet, and if he were to find himself in another Crab Key locale, I would hope to see clothing similar to Sean's in the film rather than Moore's well-starched safari suit.

[dodge]

I liked the blend of casual and elegant attire in CR. Off-duty wear by (Ralph Lauren) Polo would seem to fit his lifestyle. Nothing too "rad" like Kenneth Cole or Tommy Bahama. Casual, tasteful, flatteringly fitted.

[Dell Deaton]

... Still, Bond is a civil servant, so too much of the good life would be entirely unrealistic, ....

While I don't disagree w/ you on the safari suit concern, the "civil servant" reference a'la James Bond has never fit w/ me. At this point in the character's development, while Mr. Fleming must certainly be credited for creation of the character (and thus, whatever characterizations that might have involved), the 007 of today is defined not only by many actors who've played him since, but the directors, producers, costume designers and so forth who have helped him evolve. To me, then, "civil servant" does not apply to any recent incarnation of James Bond.

[00Twelve]

I understand that, and by civil servant, I simply mean that Bond, Craig's Bond especially, would never make enough to be able to afford multiple suits, ties, and shoes on his own. He works for the government, and I'm sure he would be paid somewhat well considering it to be compensation for his own personal risk, but nothing approaching 50,000 pounds (there's no symbol for "pounds" on my keyboard...).

[JimmyBond]

Of course they can make a film in which Bond doesn't wear a suit...

...if they want to vulgarise the character and contribute to the general dumbing down of Western society.

See, this is the sentiment I don't agree with. 40 years of Bond films has conditioned us to expect an English Man in a dinner jacket, and anything less is crap. However, with Craig's new Bond being introduced in CR, I think Bond is more than just dinner jackets and fancy dress balls now, Bond is much more a character than he was before, and if Craig can bring across Bond's personality as well as he does in CR, than all of a sudden suits and dinner jackets seem a tad...well cheesy.

There will always be a time and a place for a suit and/or dinner jacket, we arent losing these staples, writers will make sure of that. But why are a lot of people so quick to want to adhere to the Bond formula?

[plankattack]

Great point. As much as the formula has been responsible for the series success, it's also been the reason for some of the failures of the years. We have an actor who seems capable of really doing some exciting and original (well, as original as you can get) stuff with the character. Why not let him?

The trappings will always be there - he's Bond, but Jimmy Bond is right, there's no reason for them to be the guiding principles of future stories.

[Santa]

I understand that, and by civil servant, I simply mean that Bond, Craig's Bond especially, would never make enough to be able to afford multiple suits, ties, and shoes on his own. He works for the government, and I'm sure he would be paid somewhat well considering it to be compensation for his own personal risk, but nothing approaching 50,000 pounds (there's no symbol for "pounds" on my keyboard...).

I would say it would be more than 50,000. It's not possible to live decently in London otherwise.
Surely it has to be a combination of both character and image? While running through the jungle in a tuxedo is taking the suave Bond image a little too far, Fleming's Bond was excessively anally retentive (even I think so, and I tend to iron socks and underwear...). I wouldn't like to see film Bond as that much of a nerd, but I'd like to see an element of personal fastidiousness in him. For me it's one of the things to identify him as James Bond as opposed to generic action hero. There must be a middle way, allowing for realism and modernity but also keeping such traditional, Bondian elements as the tux.

[DamnCoffee]

The Tux, yes. The Suits no.

[erniecureo]

I think the dinner jackets are disposable...if it makes sense. In other words, if there's no real reason to have Bond in a tux, he shouldn't be. But if there is, he should.

One of the fun things about the movies is living vicariously through Bond. We enjoy seeing him move through all levels of society and kinds of experiences...and if he's in a high-stakes European casino, he should be in a tux. If he's skiing in the French Alps, he should be in a snow suit.

The trick, I think, is not to turn him into a parody of himself by having him overdressed simply because "James Bond wears a tuxedo."

[Santa]

I think the dinner jackets are disposable...if it makes sense. In other words, if there's no real reason to have Bond in a tux, he shouldn't be. But if there is, he should.

One of the fun things about the movies is living vicariously through Bond. We enjoy seeing him move through all levels of society and kinds of experiences...and if he's in a high-stakes European casino, he should be in a tux. If he's skiing in the French Alps, he should be in a snow suit.

The trick, I think, is not to turn him into a parody of himself by having him overdressed simply because "James Bond wears a tuxedo."

That's right. That's what I wanted to say but you said it better.

[Shadow Syndicate]

Craig can get by wearing boots, jeans and a hooded sweatshirt. Why? Cause he's not like any of the other actors that seem like supermen. I loved Casino Royale Beacuse it made Bond seem so real. Like i mean I could imagine seeing Craigs Bond the next time I go to SEATAC, him at one of the Many Airport bars having a double burbon in between assignments. So its no problem for me at least. Bond dosent need to constantly be wearing suits and tux's. But when he does, yes, he needs to know what the hell hes doing and look good

[Single-O-Seven]

I can easily see Bond going without a tux - we've seen it several times before. But I think he should be wearing at least one suit at some point in the film. Especially if he meets M in her office (but those scenes appear to be lacking lately).As for when he's roughing it, it depends on where and why. To see him fighting in a suit works, but it depends on the circumstances. If they can go without, then so be it. As long as he's not wearing a space suit instead.

[JimmyBond]

Especially if he meets M in her office (but those scenes appear to be lacking lately).

Not to take this off topic (but it is my thread, so I guess I can do what I like ), but I'd really love to see Craig's Bond be involved in an old fashioned briefing in M's office. Especially since the remodeling they did to the set for CR, I'd love to see more of it utilized.

[Humphrey Bogart]

Well, if a Bond wearing a clown suit worked, why not?

[erniecureo]

Thanks, Santajosep.

And as to the briefing scenes, I'd like to see them too--and not just where M's bitching him out about something, but where he's really getting a briefing, offering input, etc. They were favorites of mine, and helped get you into the whole experience, IMO.

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Craig can get by wearing boots, jeans and a hooded sweatshirt. Why? Cause he's not like any of the other actors that seem like supermen. I loved Casino Royale Beacuse it made Bond seem so real.

I think this is the funniest defense of Craig I always hear. In CR, he was a giant, buff and chiseled Aryan strongman who can burst through walls, swing from giant cranes relatively unharmed, take on an embassy's secruity single handedly, and survive an impossible car crash. Wow, doesn't sound like a Superman at all....

Sure he was more emotional, but that doesn't make his portrayal any less fantastic (in the literal sense of the word.)

[00Twelve]

Craig can get by wearing boots, jeans and a hooded sweatshirt. Why? Cause he's not like any of the other actors that seem like supermen. I loved Casino Royale Beacuse it made Bond seem so real.

I think this is the funniest defense of Craig I always hear. In CR, he was a giant, buff and chiseled Aryan strongman who can burst through walls, swing from giant cranes relatively unharmed, take on an embassy's secruity single handedly, and survive an impossible car crash. Wow, doesn't sound like a Superman at all....

Sure he was more emotional, but that doesn't make his portrayal any less fantastic (in the literal sense of the word.)

Well, I guess it just goes to show you that you can have the character be more muscular and physical than in the past and still make us buy him as Bond when you get the emotional and psychological elements of the character right.

[Simon]

Well, Bond doesn't wear a tux in YOLT, and only wears two suits before going native so, I think your question has been answered.

And Live and Let Die?

Definitely answered.

[JimmyBond]

I think this is the funniest defense of Craig I always hear. In CR, he was a giant, buff and chiseled Aryan strongman who can burst through walls, swing from giant cranes relatively unharmed, take on an embassy's secruity single handedly, and survive an impossible car crash. Wow, doesn't sound like a Superman at all....

Sure he was more emotional, but that doesn't make his portrayal any less fantastic (in the literal sense of the word.)

Actually, the emotional aspect is what grounds Craig's portrayal as realistic. I would definately classify his Bond (and his film) as more down to Earth than any of the films then say OHMSS.

[Harmsway]

I think a Bond film without dinner jackets and suits could work - I wouldn't necessarily go after it, though. I think a suit in some capacity is just very Bondian. I would be more welcoming to a tie-less Bond film, where suits still appear, but in a slightly more informal fashion.

I do hope that in the future, Craig's Bond films keep the same ratio of suit/non-suit attire and that the tux is used sparingly (I hope it doesn't appear in BOND 22 after we got so much of it in CASINO ROYALE).

[JimmyBond]

I think a Bond film without dinner jackets and suits could work - I wouldn't necessarily go after it, though.E).

Nor would I, just putting it forth because quite frankly, the notion that Bond films have to have: this, this, and, that, to be a good film is tiring. I really hope we get away from this checklist mentality, and CR is a step in the right direction.

[tambourineman]

I dont care about the dinner suits of tuxes, its more an issue of style and sophistication. Bond can wear anything, as long as what he does wear is the best of the best of that type of clothing. Like I dont mind Bond wearing a casual polo shirt, but the polo shirt has to be the best that money can buy.

There shouldnt be any rules, like Bond has to wear a dinner suit or anything like that, but there should be a rule of thumb that whatever Bond wears, drinks, eats or stays at should be the best and most stylish thing that fits whatever situation he is in.

[SecretAgent007]

I think there is too much dressing down today. Casual Fridays, for instance, p*ss me off. It's nice to see an action hero that dresses to the nine's.

Edited by SecretAgent007, 07 February 2007 - 07:42 PM.

[erniecureo]

I agree. I'd also like to see dress codes in casinos, and on airplanes...

[SecretAgent007]

Remember when you had to wear slacks to school? Or when people dressed up on Sundays to take a drive?

[tambourineman]

I agree there, I like dressing up. I can get into my local nightclub just wearing a T shirt, but I think thats wrong, I always dress up to go out.

Back on the topic of Bond, Bonds most defining element isnt suits or martinis, its being "cool". Bond is the coolest of cool, that is his trademark. And Bond has to keep up with the times to remain cool.
In the 60's it was probably considered cool (or dashing or whatever word they used back then) to know what temperature to the nearest tenth of a degree a certain wine should be served at, or talk about "indifferently blended brandy" etc. But these days it wouldnt be considered cool, it would be considered being a pretentious .

Bond should wear and act whatever is the coolest and classiest way for the time.

In the Brosnan movies there was a lot of self referential humour making fun of Bond's old fashioned style, which was funny, but now that we have a new Bond and a new break, Bond shouldnt be tied down to the past. They should keep the core character, but updated for todays times. And I think they got it perfectly in CR.