Is it an over simplification to point out that every enemy that Bond faces is an uber-rich megalomaniac that only takes and continues to want more. Bond, in the interest of determing motive, plan and a method to stop both, he must approach said party as an equal, which cannot be done without the respective trappings, you need to look the part to play the part. We never are given an indication that Bond uses the car, suits and tastes for any other reason but that end.
Is it an over simplification to point out that every enemy that Bond faces is an uber-rich megalomaniac that only takes and continues to want more. Bond, in the interest of determing motive, plan and a method to stop both, he must approach said party as an equal, which cannot be done without the respective trappings, you need to look the part to play the part. We never are given an indication that Bond uses the car, suits and tastes for any other reason but that end.
Yeah, it's like Bond is always playing a part. I think, like any actor, he enjoys the nice bits of it, but that's clearly not what motivates him.
I honestly feel this thread is moreso a political one than a James Bond one
What? ) A discussion of the world situation and how it does or might affect the reception of future films that involve a version of our real world are (or should be) entirely non-political. And anyway, the comments my question generated have been excellent, and I thank you all! Very cool. {[]
Your welcome )
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
Is it an over simplification to point out that every enemy that Bond faces is an uber-rich megalomaniac that only takes and continues to want more. Bond, in the interest of determing motive, plan and a method to stop both, he must approach said party as an equal, which cannot be done without the respective trappings, you need to look the part to play the part. We never are given an indication that Bond uses the car, suits and tastes for any other reason but that end.
Yeah, it's like Bond is always playing a part. I think, like any actor, he enjoys the nice bits of it, but that's clearly not what motivates him.
Thank you for clarifying my rambling. To build upon my thoughts, Bond is dedicated to Duty and Honor, which, I would argue, makes him a role model that one should aspire to, which would be far easier given the benefits of the cars, suits, exotic locals and beautiful women that come along as a result
Is it an over simplification to point out that every enemy that Bond faces is an uber-rich megalomaniac that only takes and continues to want more. Bond, in the interest of determing motive, plan and a method to stop both, he must approach said party as an equal, which cannot be done without the respective trappings, you need to look the part to play the part. We never are given an indication that Bond uses the car, suits and tastes for any other reason but that end.
Yeah, it's like Bond is always playing a part. I think, like any actor, he enjoys the nice bits of it, but that's clearly not what motivates him.
I love it, but that's partly because I can afford Tom Ford attire and such. Bond as a character has one feet in reality and one in fantasy, as others said, its a man and lifestyle we aspire too, and without that lifestyle Bond is just another drab spy.
Bond is unique because he mirrors Fleming's extravagant lifestyle. Fleming used his tastes and likes in food and material things to be Bond's because like any good writer, he was writing about what he personally experienced. Most other spies or detectives live rather humdrum existences, so only their exploits give their stories interest. Bond's lifestyle and tastes also add interest (which is why Sherlock Holmes is so fascinating). What elevates the novels even higher is Fleming's added elements of exaggeration and fantasy. His villains and their plots come from his years of reading the novels of Jules Verne, Sax Rohmer (Arthur Henry Ward), H. C. McNeile, etc.. He merely introduced them within a cold war setting.
I love to refer back to the Fleming novels, especially in these days of austerity. Looking back at Bond as a character in the post war years he is not so extravagant and I take a lot of inspiration in how to live in the modern day from his lifestyle.
At home, he eats modestly - 1 boiled egg, 2 slices of toast for breakfast. Grilled sole and potato salad for lunch. Dinner may be scrambled eggs or lamb cutlets maybe. Only when he's on a mission does he push the boat out - when someone else is paying!!
He dresses well but to me it appears that he buys expensive clothes that are going to last. His yellowing grey dogtooth suit suggests that he's had it for a while.
These are the standards by which I am trying to navigate my own way through the hard economic times. Spend only when you have to.
Of course, being frugal is not exciting and we need our bit of escapism so Bond will always look good in the films with the best designer kit, staying at the most glamorous locations and it's nice to dream about living that lifestyle.
I suppose what I'm trying to say, amongst my ramblings, is that whether you're loaded or not there is still a way for you to embrace a bit of Bond in the age of austerity.
I love to refer back to the Fleming novels, especially in these days of austerity. Looking back at Bond as a character in the post war years he is not so extravagant and I take a lot of inspiration in how to live in the modern day from his lifestyle.
At home, he eats modestly - 1 boiled egg, 2 slices of toast for breakfast. Grilled sole and potato salad for lunch. Dinner may be scrambled eggs or lamb cutlets maybe. Only when he's on a mission does he push the boat out - when someone else is paying!!
He dresses well but to me it appears that he buys expensive clothes that are going to last. His yellowing grey dogtooth suit suggests that he's had it for a while.
These are the standards by which I am trying to navigate my own way through the hard economic times. Spend only when you have to.
Of course, being frugal is not exciting and we need our bit of escapism so Bond will always look good in the films with the best designer kit, staying at the most glamorous locations and it's nice to dream about living that lifestyle.
I suppose what I'm trying to say, amongst my ramblings, is that whether you're loaded or not there is still a way for you to embrace a bit of Bond in the age of austerity.
Exactly. Also in regards to his attire, it was customed tailored and paid for by the Service to fit his particular lifestyle and needs - his suits had to accomodate him carrying weapons (throwing knife strapped under the sleeve, a holstered pistol and as in LALD, steel capped shoes), so the Service naturally used the best Saville Row tailors and shoemakers to ensure a proper fit and have long lasting qualilty (why kit him out in something cheap you'd have to keep replacing?).
None of his attire had labels as well - another way of concealing his identity.
If you have a handfull of special spies who would need to blend into luxurious surroundings undercover and interact with wealthy meglomaniacs, kitting them out in cheap attire and having them stay in two star hotels or suppling them with a Morris Minor would not exactly work well.
I was once dobbed to look after some one very high up ,ie the top man .I was chosen as due to my love of good clothes, shoes ,ect
it was deemed ,by my guvnor ,that I would be the best man to fit in . I know and accept ,that a lot of guys are as not as anal as me when it comes to ,say having the bottom button on my suit jacket un done having the pocket square just so .But that's what makes Bond different ,
The 60's was a time not too far after WWII, and fairly prosperous. Seeing a gentleman agent in a sports car was not too far out there given the excesses of the period.
The 70's started out rather lean, and the energy crisis later on loomed, but there was still enough money flowing to make a Lotus sub seem feasible in the comic book reality of the day.
The 80's was a party, and Bond movies catered appropriately.
The 90's was smooth sailing, and Bond gave us big & crazy once more.
The new Millennium brought bigness and silly (DAD), and then a scaled-down version; SF amped up the glamour a few notches though.
And now, today, when we are seeing the death of physical stores, and the crap selection of the ones surviving, the cheap knock off garbage and the poorly made clothes and throw away furniture offered to us by chains employing virtual slaves in the so called 'Third World', isn't the excess in Bond movies reaching the near end of the general public's ability to accept?
If the Bond franchise continues the casual flirtation with the world of the 1%, does it risk losing the fandom of the 99?
Or, is Bond so securely linked to fantasy in such a way that it's impervious to economic relevance?
I guess my basic question is: In ten or twenty years when the rich achieve the feudal lord status that they are today constructing the political & economic means to target, will Bond still be driving a car that costs as much as a modest home or wearing suits that cost an average workers monthly pay...?
Or will Bond become small, somewhat indie under-the-radar films? Like Doctor No.
Full circle?
What's funny about this thesis -- and some of the comments that follow it -- is that I said pretty much the same thing in the plastic 1980s. Bond seemed destined for extinction as the world slid away from disco and lurched toward hair bands and hip hop.
It isn't so much that the world has changed geopolitically that is the threat but the fact that what once stood in for style and panache -- a crisply ironed white shirt, a stately Rolls Royce, a well-appointed leather attache -- has been replaced by the ubiquitous cell phone, jelly bean sports car, off-the-rack suit and designer sunglasses. In other words, the trappings of wealth have become rather common, and for all their wealth, the wealthy seem shabby and unimpressive. A lot of the 1% look rather like the rest of the 99%, except they spend more money.
When one lives in an age where billionaires have long hair and stubbly faces and run around in Levis blue jeans, the elements of sophistication are rather ordinary, as easy to acquire at the local shopping mall as anywhere else.
In the 1960s, while ordinary men were still doing extraordinary things, a unique blend of a good tan, rough-hewn skin, and hair that was combed rather than blow-dried or crew-cutted (unless you were 12 or a college basketball player) define masculinity. Now, it's about going to the gym and putting moisturizer on your face. Style and class were further defined by posture, breeding, eloquence, manners, knowledge. Today, the wealthy are just as likely as the masses to cuss, belch, slouch, be ignorant, drink cheap beer, make home-made porn videos, and eat ice cream out of buckets.
And actors don't look particularly comfortable in suits anymore. I watched two early Connery Bonds the other day. While he is impeccably tailored, Connery's Bond looks quite relaxed in his suit. But both Craig and Brosnan seem to always pose in their clothes, as though they are actors positioning themselves before the camera. The cumulative effect is that they seem less believable as people who naturally inhabit the world of the films. It is not as convincing.
The 60's was a time not too far after WWII, and fairly prosperous. Seeing a gentleman agent in a sports car was not too far out there given the excesses of the period.
The 70's started out rather lean, and the energy crisis later on loomed, but there was still enough money flowing to make a Lotus sub seem feasible in the comic book reality of the day.
The 80's was a party, and Bond movies catered appropriately.
The 90's was smooth sailing, and Bond gave us big & crazy once more.
The new Millennium brought bigness and silly (DAD), and then a scaled-down version; SF amped up the glamour a few notches though.
And now, today, when we are seeing the death of physical stores, and the crap selection of the ones surviving, the cheap knock off garbage and the poorly made clothes and throw away furniture offered to us by chains employing virtual slaves in the so called 'Third World', isn't the excess in Bond movies reaching the near end of the general public's ability to accept?
If the Bond franchise continues the casual flirtation with the world of the 1%, does it risk losing the fandom of the 99?
Or, is Bond so securely linked to fantasy in such a way that it's impervious to economic relevance?
I guess my basic question is: In ten or twenty years when the rich achieve the feudal lord status that they are today constructing the political & economic means to target, will Bond still be driving a car that costs as much as a modest home or wearing suits that cost an average workers monthly pay...?
Or will Bond become small, somewhat indie under-the-radar films? Like Doctor No.
Full circle?
What's funny about this thesis -- and some of the comments that follow it -- is that I said pretty much the same thing in the plastic 1980s. Bond seemed destined for extinction as the world slid away from disco and lurched toward hair bands and hip hop.
It isn't so much that the world has changed geopolitically that is the threat but the fact that what once stood in for style and panache -- a crisply ironed white shirt, a stately Rolls Royce, a well-appointed leather attache -- has been replaced by the ubiquitous cell phone, jelly bean sports car, off-the-rack suit and designer sunglasses. In other words, the trappings of wealth have become rather common, and for all their wealth, the wealthy seem shabby and unimpressive. A lot of the 1% look rather like the rest of the 99%, except they spend more money.
When one lives in an age where billionaires have long hair and stubbly faces and run around in Levis blue jeans, the elements of sophistication are rather ordinary, as easy to acquire at the local shopping mall as anywhere else.
In the 1960s, while ordinary men were still doing extraordinary things, a unique blend of a good tan, rough-hewn skin, and hair that was combed rather than blow-dried or crew-cutted (unless you were 12 or a college basketball player) define masculinity. Now, it's about going to the gym and putting moisturizer on your face. Style and class were further defined by posture, breeding, eloquence, manners, knowledge. Today, the wealthy are just as likely as the masses to cuss, belch, slouch, be ignorant, drink cheap beer, make home-made porn videos, and eat ice cream out of buckets.
And actors don't look particularly comfortable in suits anymore. I watched two early Connery Bonds the other day. While he is impeccably tailored, Connery's Bond looks quite relaxed in his suit. But both Craig and Brosnan seem to always pose in their clothes, as though they are actors positioning themselves before the camera. The cumulative effect is that they seem less believable as people who naturally inhabit the world of the films. It is not as convincing.
The 60's was a time not too far after WWII, and fairly prosperous. Seeing a gentleman agent in a sports car was not too far out there given the excesses of the period.
The 70's started out rather lean, and the energy crisis later on loomed, but there was still enough money flowing to make a Lotus sub seem feasible in the comic book reality of the day.
The 80's was a party, and Bond movies catered appropriately.
The 90's was smooth sailing, and Bond gave us big & crazy once more.
The new Millennium brought bigness and silly (DAD), and then a scaled-down version; SF amped up the glamour a few notches though.
And now, today, when we are seeing the death of physical stores, and the crap selection of the ones surviving, the cheap knock off garbage and the poorly made clothes and throw away furniture offered to us by chains employing virtual slaves in the so called 'Third World', isn't the excess in Bond movies reaching the near end of the general public's ability to accept?
If the Bond franchise continues the casual flirtation with the world of the 1%, does it risk losing the fandom of the 99?
Or, is Bond so securely linked to fantasy in such a way that it's impervious to economic relevance?
I guess my basic question is: In ten or twenty years when the rich achieve the feudal lord status that they are today constructing the political & economic means to target, will Bond still be driving a car that costs as much as a modest home or wearing suits that cost an average workers monthly pay...?
Or will Bond become small, somewhat indie under-the-radar films? Like Doctor No.
Full circle?
What's funny about this thesis -- and some of the comments that follow it -- is that I said pretty much the same thing in the plastic 1980s. Bond seemed destined for extinction as the world slid away from disco and lurched toward hair bands and hip hop.
It isn't so much that the world has changed geopolitically that is the threat but the fact that what once stood in for style and panache -- a crisply ironed white shirt, a stately Rolls Royce, a well-appointed leather attache -- has been replaced by the ubiquitous cell phone, jelly bean sports car, off-the-rack suit and designer sunglasses. In other words, the trappings of wealth have become rather common, and for all their wealth, the wealthy seem shabby and unimpressive. A lot of the 1% look rather like the rest of the 99%, except they spend more money.
When one lives in an age where billionaires have long hair and stubbly faces and run around in Levis blue jeans, the elements of sophistication are rather ordinary, as easy to acquire at the local shopping mall as anywhere else.
In the 1960s, while ordinary men were still doing extraordinary things, a unique blend of a good tan, rough-hewn skin, and hair that was combed rather than blow-dried or crew-cutted (unless you were 12 or a college basketball player) define masculinity. Now, it's about going to the gym and putting moisturizer on your face. Style and class were further defined by posture, breeding, eloquence, manners, knowledge. Today, the wealthy are just as likely as the masses to cuss, belch, slouch, be ignorant, drink cheap beer, make home-made porn videos, and eat ice cream out of buckets.
And actors don't look particularly comfortable in suits anymore. I watched two early Connery Bonds the other day. While he is impeccably tailored, Connery's Bond looks quite relaxed in his suit. But both Craig and Brosnan seem to always pose in their clothes, as though they are actors positioning themselves before the camera. The cumulative effect is that they seem less believable as people who naturally inhabit the world of the films. It is not as convincing.
It's true..times have changed and celebrities and the wealthy do look an awful like every other person on the street when not attending an event or in a formal business situation. One is just as likely to see a billionaire or wealthy singer or actor in torn jeans and undershirt and sandals as they would in one of their £2000 suits (and be unshaven). Before the counterculture movement of the 60's, this class of people may have yearned to be able to have a culture relaxed enough to allow this, but due to the attitudes of the day the least they could get by with were casual pants and polos or plaid shirts with loafers. Even Cary Grant, the style icon of the day who was always photographed in impeccable attire, said his favorite film was Father Goose, because he loved just wearing jeans, no socks, deck shoes and not having to shave. Culture has changed a huge amount since then. It's another reason why even though it was a little surprising to see Craig in so many casual clothes in CR, it was done as a new awareness of the reboot towards the realities of our modern era. For example, had this been done in the sixties with Connery, he would have been wearing a tie in the fight scene in the loo and the beginning of the film. It may seem a trifle nuance - but it's there. In the jungle chase, Moore would have been in a tailored safari outfit, not the casual attire Craig wears.
As far as the manners of this class of people - before 24 hour news and the internet and such easy access to mass media images, there was little chance for someone to see such people engaging in the crass behavior you mentioned. As there is no privacy anymore, it would be impossible for someone like this to not be caught at some point doing something along those lines (it's why all the tabloids exist) - though somehow there are a few like George Clooney who still seem to escape it.
I suppose there is an upside to all this - since the trappings of wealth have become so common as you state, it makes it even more noticeable to see those who really do still have some sense of style, taste and manners.
Great on all points. I will add that the "look" of our betters has changed, too. Someone like Fleming himself would likely have been perceived as upper crust just by his appearance, and I don't just mean clothes, but his physiognomy and demeanor. Today, the superwealthy tend to look pretty much like everyone else, too.
I think you're right that privacy is nothing like it once was, but the elite also invite us into their sordid worlds. The Profumo scandal was shocking enough to end a political career, but nowadays the wealthy and powerful release videos of themselves having sex for no other reason than to generate publicity. The notion of candor and restraint -- at least to the degree of keeping personal foibles out of the public eye -- has eroded, though they have always been some people who are reckless or consider themselves "above it all." It's tougher to imagine the blackmail scheme in From Russia with Love working at all in this day and age.
When I take Mrs T out for a drink or whatever, I refuse to dress down. I see lots of young blokes and not-so-young blokes trying their hardest to look cool when, in actual fact, they become nothing more than walking billboards for crass designer labels.
I buy the best clothes I can afford that look good on me. I don't buy clothes that have a particular label in the hope that they make me look good. That's the difference.
There is too much casual dressing going on. On those rare occasions where I am allowed to wear my own clothes at work I make sure that I look smart. Usually a classic cut suit or blazer.
Why should I lower my standards to fit in with the rest of society? Or am I being a snob?
I agree. It could be that I do not have to do it everyday, but i very much look forward to putting on a suit when needed. and i still wear slacks and "sport" Coats when I need to go into my home office.
Great on all points. I will add that the "look" of our betters has changed, too. Someone like Fleming himself would likely have been perceived as upper crust just by his appearance, and I don't just mean clothes, but his physiognomy and demeanor. Today, the superwealthy tend to look pretty much like everyone else, too.
I think you're right that privacy is nothing like it once was, but the elite also invite us into their sordid worlds. The Profumo scandal was shocking enough to end a political career, but nowadays the wealthy and powerful release videos of themselves having sex for no other reason than to generate publicity. The notion of candor and restraint -- at least to the degree of keeping personal foibles out of the public eye -- has eroded, though they have always been some people who are reckless or consider themselves "above it all." It's tougher to imagine the blackmail scheme in From Russia with Love working at all in this day and age.
+1. That FRWL scheme would definitely have to be changed if it were done today. Of course, so would the whole code machine MacGuffin. It was based on the ENIGMA, which is archaic in today's digital world. Same with the one in FYEO.
Comments
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Your welcome
Thank you for clarifying my rambling. To build upon my thoughts, Bond is dedicated to Duty and Honor, which, I would argue, makes him a role model that one should aspire to, which would be far easier given the benefits of the cars, suits, exotic locals and beautiful women that come along as a result
+1
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OrNKrUvtbHg
At home, he eats modestly - 1 boiled egg, 2 slices of toast for breakfast. Grilled sole and potato salad for lunch. Dinner may be scrambled eggs or lamb cutlets maybe. Only when he's on a mission does he push the boat out - when someone else is paying!!
He dresses well but to me it appears that he buys expensive clothes that are going to last. His yellowing grey dogtooth suit suggests that he's had it for a while.
These are the standards by which I am trying to navigate my own way through the hard economic times. Spend only when you have to.
Of course, being frugal is not exciting and we need our bit of escapism so Bond will always look good in the films with the best designer kit, staying at the most glamorous locations and it's nice to dream about living that lifestyle.
I suppose what I'm trying to say, amongst my ramblings, is that whether you're loaded or not there is still a way for you to embrace a bit of Bond in the age of austerity.
Exactly. Also in regards to his attire, it was customed tailored and paid for by the Service to fit his particular lifestyle and needs - his suits had to accomodate him carrying weapons (throwing knife strapped under the sleeve, a holstered pistol and as in LALD, steel capped shoes), so the Service naturally used the best Saville Row tailors and shoemakers to ensure a proper fit and have long lasting qualilty (why kit him out in something cheap you'd have to keep replacing?).
None of his attire had labels as well - another way of concealing his identity.
If you have a handfull of special spies who would need to blend into luxurious surroundings undercover and interact with wealthy meglomaniacs, kitting them out in cheap attire and having them stay in two star hotels or suppling them with a Morris Minor would not exactly work well.
it was deemed ,by my guvnor ,that I would be the best man to fit in . I know and accept ,that a lot of guys are as not as anal as me when it comes to ,say having the bottom button on my suit jacket un done having the pocket square just so .But that's what makes Bond different ,
He'd never be handsome but he could be clean and well dressed.
It isn't so much that the world has changed geopolitically that is the threat but the fact that what once stood in for style and panache -- a crisply ironed white shirt, a stately Rolls Royce, a well-appointed leather attache -- has been replaced by the ubiquitous cell phone, jelly bean sports car, off-the-rack suit and designer sunglasses. In other words, the trappings of wealth have become rather common, and for all their wealth, the wealthy seem shabby and unimpressive. A lot of the 1% look rather like the rest of the 99%, except they spend more money.
When one lives in an age where billionaires have long hair and stubbly faces and run around in Levis blue jeans, the elements of sophistication are rather ordinary, as easy to acquire at the local shopping mall as anywhere else.
In the 1960s, while ordinary men were still doing extraordinary things, a unique blend of a good tan, rough-hewn skin, and hair that was combed rather than blow-dried or crew-cutted (unless you were 12 or a college basketball player) define masculinity. Now, it's about going to the gym and putting moisturizer on your face. Style and class were further defined by posture, breeding, eloquence, manners, knowledge. Today, the wealthy are just as likely as the masses to cuss, belch, slouch, be ignorant, drink cheap beer, make home-made porn videos, and eat ice cream out of buckets.
And actors don't look particularly comfortable in suits anymore. I watched two early Connery Bonds the other day. While he is impeccably tailored, Connery's Bond looks quite relaxed in his suit. But both Craig and Brosnan seem to always pose in their clothes, as though they are actors positioning themselves before the camera. The cumulative effect is that they seem less believable as people who naturally inhabit the world of the films. It is not as convincing.
It's true..times have changed and celebrities and the wealthy do look an awful like every other person on the street when not attending an event or in a formal business situation. One is just as likely to see a billionaire or wealthy singer or actor in torn jeans and undershirt and sandals as they would in one of their £2000 suits (and be unshaven). Before the counterculture movement of the 60's, this class of people may have yearned to be able to have a culture relaxed enough to allow this, but due to the attitudes of the day the least they could get by with were casual pants and polos or plaid shirts with loafers. Even Cary Grant, the style icon of the day who was always photographed in impeccable attire, said his favorite film was Father Goose, because he loved just wearing jeans, no socks, deck shoes and not having to shave. Culture has changed a huge amount since then. It's another reason why even though it was a little surprising to see Craig in so many casual clothes in CR, it was done as a new awareness of the reboot towards the realities of our modern era. For example, had this been done in the sixties with Connery, he would have been wearing a tie in the fight scene in the loo and the beginning of the film. It may seem a trifle nuance - but it's there. In the jungle chase, Moore would have been in a tailored safari outfit, not the casual attire Craig wears.
As far as the manners of this class of people - before 24 hour news and the internet and such easy access to mass media images, there was little chance for someone to see such people engaging in the crass behavior you mentioned. As there is no privacy anymore, it would be impossible for someone like this to not be caught at some point doing something along those lines (it's why all the tabloids exist) - though somehow there are a few like George Clooney who still seem to escape it.
I suppose there is an upside to all this - since the trappings of wealth have become so common as you state, it makes it even more noticeable to see those who really do still have some sense of style, taste and manners.
I think you're right that privacy is nothing like it once was, but the elite also invite us into their sordid worlds. The Profumo scandal was shocking enough to end a political career, but nowadays the wealthy and powerful release videos of themselves having sex for no other reason than to generate publicity. The notion of candor and restraint -- at least to the degree of keeping personal foibles out of the public eye -- has eroded, though they have always been some people who are reckless or consider themselves "above it all." It's tougher to imagine the blackmail scheme in From Russia with Love working at all in this day and age.
If I were wealthy I wouldn't change my lifestyle all that drastically. But I *WOULD* be driving a 70's Ford Falcon.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I buy the best clothes I can afford that look good on me. I don't buy clothes that have a particular label in the hope that they make me look good. That's the difference.
There is too much casual dressing going on. On those rare occasions where I am allowed to wear my own clothes at work I make sure that I look smart. Usually a classic cut suit or blazer.
Why should I lower my standards to fit in with the rest of society? Or am I being a snob?
Any Track suits as leisure wear etc.
+1. That FRWL scheme would definitely have to be changed if it were done today. Of course, so would the whole code machine MacGuffin. It was based on the ENIGMA, which is archaic in today's digital world. Same with the one in FYEO.