The most iconic ski suit of the Bond series would have to be the bright yellow jumpsuit from The Spy Who Loved Me‘s pre-title sequence made by Bogner. It’s an iconic ski suit because of the scene’s memorable ending with the Union Flag parachute, though bright yellow and red are not colours typically associated with Bond in any way. Yellow and red also prove to not be the most effect colours for Bond to wear since it makes him an easier target for the Soviet agents. Along with the rest of the film’s wardrobe, the skiwear is the most dated of the series and hasn’t held up as well as Moore’s 1980’s skiwear has. The Soviets’ skiwear in black with red stripes—also provided by Bogner—by contrast doesn’t look nearly as dated.
The front of Bond’s ski suit zips with the Bogner “B” zip fastener and has a turndown collar. It has a patch pocket on the left chest with a V-shaped bottom. The waist is cinched with a belt, and under the belt there’s a zip pocket on the right side seam and a patch pocket on the front left. The sleeve openings have a zip closure, and on the upper left sleeve is Bogner’s “W” logo in green, red and blue crosswise stripes. The outfit is accented in bright red with a red toque, red rucksack and red ski boots. Bond tones down the outfit with black gloves, and the gloves have the same “W” logo found on the sleeve. The ski goggles have a yellow frame to match the ski suit. Underneath the ski suit Bond wears a white poloneck.
Great stunt (best of the series), lousy outfit.
I know most people love ski/parachute scene, including the audience in the theatre where I first saw it in 1977, but I found it annoying. It is an example of some of the silliness which too often crept into many of the Moore films. The production company forgot the major principle: Bond isn’t just an agent; he is a Secret Agent.
Given his mission, he should have been wearing winter camouflage, or at least an all-white outfit like those worn by the expeditionary force in the excellent 1968 Richard Burton-Clint Eastwood film, ‘Where Eagles Dare’ when they attack a snow-bound German castle. Same for the parachute!
J. Kraus, the so called “silliness” you refer to some of us found entertaining which is another “major principle” which production companies need to consider. Judging from the box office receipts from the 1970’s Bond movies, audiences at the time agreed and “Moonraker” was the highest grosser until “Goldeneye”. They stood up and clapped this brilliant stunt at the premiere. What a bunch of troglodytes! Perhaps they just liked entertainment which didn’t take itself too seriously (unlike the current movies most cinemagoers love to laud so highly).
Please note that I never meant to infer that the movie itself, nor Roger, were silly. I quite deliberately mentioned that I “first” saw the film in 1977. That is because I have seen it many times since, because like every other Bond film, I own it, and take pleasure in its many other facets. That said, I must admit that my favorite Moore might well be described as his most ‘serious’ effort; For Your Eyes Only, one of my personal top-five of all Bonds.
As to your box office figures, your statement regarding Moonraker is accurate, but is based on unadjusted gross revenue. On a more appropriate inflation-adjusted basis, Thunderball and Goldfinger still rule the roost by a hefty margin, right up to the present day. The inflation-adjusted numbers take into account the fact that I paid $2.00 to see Diamonds are Forever in 1971, and $14.00 to see Casino Royale; the last one I saw at the cinema (I now wait for the DVD release.) The inflation-adjusted numbers are a better reflection of popularity since they basically equalize ticket prices across time.
After all, it is not revenue that determines the popularity of a film. It is, as they used to say in the business, the number of “a**es in the seats!”
In fact, J Kraus, Skyfall now rules the roost for box office figures, even taking inflation into account. The film is number 1 (with Thunderball and Goldfinger at numbers 2 & 3).
See the inflation-adjusted Box Office figures for the Bond films here: http://www.007james.com/articles/box_office.php
Even more of a shame then that it’s so sartorially disappointing! (although it was very enjoyable otherwise)
Whilst the colours of the suit are very loud, I feel they add to the iconic, almost comic-book feel of the movie. The suit doesn’t feel particularly dated to me as it’s not what I would associate with any particular era – it would look just as ridiculous in 1977 as it does in 2013. That said, I wasn’t around back then.
I’m curious why you think the ski-wear is so dated, Matt? Is it just the colours? Or are you thinking of other things?
Fantastic blog, as always!
It’s the colours to me that look dated. This ski suit was similar to what olympic skiers were wearing a year earlier and still 3 years later.
Well-said, David. While I do think some moments in the 1971-1985 films were needlessly silly, I think The Spy Who Loved Me is the best of the traditional Bonds and its energy is incredible. Not sure Bond was ever really a secret agent, From Russia With Love and For Your Eyes Only excepted. And the colors are perfect for the feel of the film, and probably necessary to pick up on film perhaps the most audacious stunt ever attempted.
Exactly. The silliness proper started in 1971 with “Diamonds are Forever” because the producers viewed “OHMSS” as a box office failure but, when you think of it, it really kicked off with “Goldfinger” and the introduction of the iconic Aston Martin DB5. For me, “The Spy Who Loved Me” is the perfect mix of all the Bondian elements and the movie where my favourite actor found his niche in the role, even if the wardrobe overall may be, arguably, the most dated .
Christian/J Kraus,
I have to say, re: all the plaudits for FYEO and the idea of it being Moore’s finest hour in the Bond role, I wouldn’t fully agree. The wardrobe from this movie was indeed faultless in my opinion and there was no item of clothing worn in the movie that I wouldn’t find admirable. Nevertheless, I would maintain that the more serious tone of FYEO didn’t sit as well with Moore’s style of portrayal as with his other movies and the fact that it was by no means a certainty that he would return to the role may have had a bearing on the mood of the movie too as a different, more serious movie may have better suited a new arrival. For me, TSWLM, the first half of “Moonraker” and “Octopussy” had the perfect balance where Roger Moore looked most comfortable and naturally suited to the role. He himself had a problem with the new grittiness of some of the scenes in FYEO and wasn’t comfortable in kicking the car with the villian over the cliff top.
I agree with some of the earlier posters – I like “For Your Eyes Only” in theory – a more serious, back-to-basics Bond film than its two predecessors – but in reality I find it rather a plain and uninteresting film.
The outfits of “The Spy Who Loved Me” do look very dated, and probably did at the time as well, but it’s hard to imagine them any other way. For many people of my generation and slightly older (I’m 33), this film remains THE quintessential Bond picture – just maximum Bond in every way.