Tom Ford - Too Much? Too Far?
Asp9mm
Over the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
Has anybody else got this overriding feeling of nausea about the OTT branding on Tom Fords behalf in QOS? We've now got Tom Ford copies of Oliver Peoples and Sunspel, and probably, more yet to come. He's become like a high level Magnoli X-( I would'nt mind so much if they were original designs, but copies of the originals, come on.
..................
...............
...............
Comments
But generally you could find something that was worn in the film to suit your budget. Brioni suits and John Lobb shoes were always going to be out of the financial reach for most, but the Sunspel Polo shirt and Tee-shirts a real posibility. Even the Turnbull and Asser shirts were affordable if you took into account the quality. But $1800 for a cardigan, $400 for a polo shirt that isn't even his own design. (I wonder how Sunspel feel about that one)
Please don't get me started on the Sunglasses debacle, I just feel bad for all you guys that paid out your hard earned for the Oliver Peoples.
What next a Tom Ford phone, Tom Ford badged Aston Martin or even the newley designed Tom Ford Walther PPK!
Yes, I believe Mr Ford is locating his new operations in Thailand and Malaysia....
Apparently, he wanted Bond's gun - that we seem to have identified as the Walther PPK - to be named in the film as a "Tom Ford PPK" to tie in with the launch of Ford's new armaments division, but Walter threatened to sue for copyright...
If Ford defined a new image of women in the 90s, what does the success of his label, with its $17,000 jackets and $4,000 blazers, say about 21st-century men? Well, it certainly says something economically. As Ford puts it, "Because of the increase of wealth in this world, it is possible to have a new business model where you can reach a very healthy scale of business catering only to a smaller percentage of people - people with, let's be real, a lot of money."
Yes, Mr. Ford, your clientele has a lot of money...but slapping a lable on a cotten cardigan and charging $1800 for it when it would otherwise be less than $100 seems a bit pretentious. I am all for fit and fashion but...well, maybe I am just sour because this time out the wardrobe seems a bit pretious in price.
BTW, the full interview can be found here: http://commanderbond.net/components/quicknews/index.php?action=item&item=49542
I think Mantis has it right with his "Bond On A Budget" series. Perhaps EON will get the message if we don't fall in line and buy all this TF crap. The fans can ultimately right this ship by not buying.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
My issue, however, is with the blatant lack of creativity on the part of Ford and, potentially, that items that appeared in the film might not actually have been his but are being identified as such now.
As in: Eon to Costume Designer - "When you speak to those nutters over at ajb, tell them the shirts we used were Ford's, not the Sunspel's we received, 'cos Ford's gonna release his copy to tie in with the film. No, those ajbers can't prove otherwise, can they!"
No, I'm not a cynic.
Most importantly - Bond should be a man of conservative, eclectic and occasionally unconventional taste. Hemming captured this well and it reflected in her choice of wardrobes. Stylistically speaking, it wouldn't even make sense for Bond the character to ONLY shop at Tom Ford.
I know I am in the minority and I can certainly see where you are coming from, but....
The producers owe us nothing. If they decide to use something in the film and it makes it more difficult for collectors to afford authentic pieces..well, i just dont see why that should be part of the producers thought process. its not like brionis were the most affordable suit out there, aston martins affordably priced cars, rolex watches the most affordable time pieces, etc. Nobody expects us to be collecting these items or, perhaps better stated, nobody really cares whether we do or not. So, affordability isnt really a concern on anyones' minds.
Yes, Tom Ford seems to lean heavily on others for his creative inspiration (though, it should be said he is quite creative in terms of design in many of his pieces) but so what. Fashion houses pilfer from each other pretty much every season. this is nothing new - the only difference is since we are fanatic bond fans we have more visibility into what is happening than how similar dolce & gabbana, armani, zegna, and prada are to each other (or some other lesser known brand for that matter). Moreover, argue about the relative merits of Ford's business model if you like but surely you cant begrudge an entrepreneur his own model in a free market economy, despite disagreeing with it. Give his quote above, I would think dressing James Bond is a perfect fit for what he is trying to achieve and the image he is trying to convey. AND, it appears this is also aligned with the filmmakers (AND DC's) intended style image of James Bond.
Obviously, I dont know for sure because I have no information but given the history of DC and Ford's relationhip I would highly suspect that DC was the one who chose Ford in the first place to contribute to the film (factor in his apparent input on many other aspects of the film and this becomes a no brainer to me). So, rather than blaming Ford or EON or anyone else...if we really dont know like what Ford brings to the film we really should point some of the criticsm to DC (painful as that is for me since I love what he has brought to the franchise thus far).
Didn't mean to rant but just wanted to express my own view for what it is worth - no offense intended for those that disagree:)
I'm not speaking from a collector's perspective... I have no expectation for EON to make things affordable for me. My MAIN issue with the Ford thing is that the actions taken do not reflect either a) creativeness on the part of the costume designer or b) the uniqueness and styling of the marketing partner in question.
Brioni, Omega, Rolex, Turnbull & Asser, Aston Martin etc all were chosen either because they worked from specifications and designs by the costume designer (ex. Brioni, T&A with the ties), or were chosen because they represented a type of elegance and luxury.
However, there is something fundamentally different when the costume designer goes shopping, sees a polo or a pair of sunglasses and goes "That's PERFECT! That's *exactly* what Bond should wear in this movie!" and then takes that item to a marketing partner who then copies it almost identically and takes credit for it. That fails to reflect the creativity or ideas of either party involved. Or as one person jokingly said in another thread, it's like "Tom Ford IS Sunspel".
http://s274.photobucket.com/albums/jj258/monza860/
Well, I can certainly understand Daniel Craig picking Tom Ford for his suiting. According to Bond's legacy it should be a Saville Row tailor, but I get that EON needs dozens of suits and a Brioni or Tom Ford is better suited for that. Moreover, the suits are not what most Bond fans buy, so no problem there.
The fact of the matter is that most Bond fans buy the other items like shirts, sunglasses, money clips etc. The expense of the items are not necessarily the problem either. Believe me, I get capitalism, what the market will bear and all that. The problem, as I see it, is that the Bond franchise will buy Sunspell shirts and Oliver Peoples sunglasses for QOS and then presto changeo they become Tom Ford brands.
We are not idiots. Furthermore, EON is very protective of their own brand and would never let anyone rip it off. So why should we tolerate it from EON/Tom Ford with the likes of Sunspel and Oliver Peoples. I'm sure they are not happy with bootleg DVD's of CR. I just think it's very bad form. If you just have to have the Tom Ford/Bond branding on your Sunspel and Oliver Peoples knock offs, knock your self out. As for me, I'm not a sucker.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Very well said.
i certainly understand where you are coming from. let me ask this, more for the sake of exploration than anything else. Do you think this thread (or the other critical comments on this issue on the forum) would have been initiated if the TF branded items were half the cost of the original items?
I have serious doubts whether it would have generated the same response...and this implies to me that it is not strictly a creative or replication argument so much as it is also an economic argument. For example, I do not see nearly the same critical vigor debating the relative merits of the suit maker who makes replica goldfinger suits (im sorry but i do not recall the name of the company that does this...magnoli or something?).
I do certainly agree with you that it IS poor form. i, also, have no intention of buying any of the Tom Ford items that have been basically replicated from other makers. But this has much to do with the perceived value proposition (i.e. cost vs quality) to me than it does anything else.
Aston Martin use their own designs, no problem there. What most people dislike about the TF branding is that they have copied other peoples designs vitually 100%, nothing to do with cost. Why no-one complained before is simple - no one knew, we all thought that the Airmans were OP and the polo's Sunspel, the information that TF copied these designs has only just in the last few days come to light. Nothing to do with fashion, just an issue with copying.
As Adam Simmonds stated in another forum, there are serious legal rammifications arising from this with OP, which is hardly surprising. It's a very interesting subject that has never arisen before, and is certainly worthy of discussion.
No, it does not matter if the Tom Ford items were half the price. Most of us who have collected Bond over the years have bought very expensive items because they were used by Bond or are related to Bond in some way. First editions of the novels, original movie posters, watches, the list is endless. These are not, perhaps, the most wise decisions in terms of our bank accounts, but we buy for the passion.
The other side of the coin is that we want the real deal. So if Sunspel was used as Bond's shirt that's what we want. If OP was used as Bond's glasses, that's what we want. To say that those items are now miraculously Tom Ford because of a licensing agreement is a fake, a cheat. We know better. Again, everybody on this forum is free to make up their own mind.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
A fair point; it's just that I'm seeing some posts taking this as some kind of swipe at Bond fans which is what I'm not really following. People seem to be taking this personally; it's just some corporate intellectual property issue between two sets of very rich people.
Also, layman's point of view, but: is there anything all that distinctive about the design of a Sunspel polo? I thought they were just very well made, non-flashy shirts.
They are, but Sunspel told us that they supplied polo's for the QOS production, it then turns out that TF copied them so that his branding took dominance, this it seems is the same story with the Peoples sunglasses and the Brioni CR pinstripe suit. It all just seems so unneccesary and OTT, that's all.
I didn't see the sniping at Bond fans side of things, I am one, and spend stupid amounts of money on branded items that have price tags higher than the value of the item (especially on the second hand market). I for one would buy the Sunspel over Ford even if the Sunspel were more.
Personally, i still hold those associated with the film much to blame. Again, i dont know for sure but i seriously doubt it was the TF people who thought it a good idea to rip off designs of previously made goods. if anything, they would have a vested interest in making more unique looking items so everyone says 'wow, what is that - oh, its TF'. My guess is that they were asked to design those specific items in a certain way (not that they shouldn't have balked but...).
It sounds like the items ARE actually Tom Ford, though, so if you want the screen used ones, those are the ones you'll have to buy.
IMO, the current situation with Tom Ford actually devalues Bond as such an ambassador, because it is now reaching exploitative levels. It's similar to the sort of backlash EON had in TND with the BMW's.
Before, it used to be that Bond would only wear the best. Now, there is a growing perception that Bond is wearing a rebranded copied version of the best. That's not good for the Bond brand image, I can tell you that.
Well hold on a sec, guys - I understand that the copying thing is very wrong, but let's not get a wrong impression of Tom Ford as a brand - their Bespoke suits are supposed to be incredible. I mean, they certainly look the part. So let's not get carried away before we have all the reasons.
Well, very few people know about it (most Bond fans probably wouldn't know what brand of polo shirt he wore in CR, let alone a film they haven't seen yet), and to be honest I'd imagine even less actually care. The clothes still look nice, they're well made and classy and from a top brand which suits Bond as a character (and which I doubt we'll even have identified onscreen) ... can't say as anything more than that worries me.
Maybe they've borrowed a design, maybe they haven't (I'm not sure where this info comes from so I won't be making any solid judgements just yet) and if they have simply nicked what he costume designer put Bond in and plonked a TF logo on them in some kind of attempt to claim that Bond is exclusively in Ford gear, that's a bit silly, but it doesn't harm Bond or the film at all for me.