Spectre - what next? ***SPOILERS***

IanT

So, the ending of Spectre...

Blofeld is captured, Bond takes the works DB5 and drives off with Swann.

Anyone familiar with OHMSS will know that the film was supposed to end with Bond and Tracey driving away, with Blofeld killing Tracey in the PTS of diamonds are forever.

So, does this mean Bond 25 will follow this plot arc and see another outing for DC? Bond has left MI6 but returns to avenge Swann.

Or, does this mark the end of Craig's tenure and we're going to have a new actor and another reboot?

Personally I would like to see DC again, if only to develop Blofeld, Q, M, and Moneypenny but I can't predict this one yet.

Smiert-Spionam

It's obviously been left open for Craig to make his choice whether to continue with Bond or not. If he does then Swann get's killed and Bond 25 becomes a more revenge driven film which is the film that DAF should have been. If Craig doesn't continue then we may get another reboot and Swann's allowed to live. I would love to see Waltz return as Blofeld as I felt he was underused in SPECTRE and needs more screen time to allow him to have the impact that a character like Blofeld deserves.

Surrie

Hi both,

Immediately after Spectre finished I thought DC wouldn't be returning. But having pondered on this more, I would really like him to return one more time. I agree that Waltz was underused and I would love to see Blofeld returning, but at the expense of Swann's death I'm not sure. I must be a romantic - but I like the idea that she lives.

If the producers and writers can bring back DC and Blofeld for one more (and leave Swann out of it) I'd be ecstatic!

Martin Aston

Blofeld has to return, you can imagine an elaborate escape from some high security prison hell-bent on revenge. This will probably take the form of the death of Swann which in turn sees Bond going back to MI6

Kent007

Yeah, I think it's been left open for multiple options depending on whether Craig returns. There's a reason Blofeld didn't die at the end of the movie. Really hope we see him return in Bond 25. If that does happen, will be interesting to see whether Waltz returns.

Red Wine With Fish

I dont think though you can really kill off Blofeld. He always JUSTS survives. Liked the origin of the Donald Pleasance scar. Im sure Blofeld will return. And I think the killing of Swann in the next would be a good start. Craig could continue or it would be a good way to introduce a new Bond.

MilleniumForce

I thin Blofeld being arrested will probably set up Bond 25, with Bond maybe needing to turn to him for help on a case, and Blofeld escapes halfway through the film and becomes that villain that pops up in the middle of all the mayhem to kill Bond.

sniperUK

MilleniumForce wrote:

I thin Blofeld being arrested will probably set up Bond 25, with Bond maybe needing to turn to him for help on a case, and Blofeld escapes halfway through the film and becomes that villain that pops up in the middle of all the mayhem to kill Bond.

Silence of the Lambs rip off then

broadshoulder

He's already said "I'll continue as long as they want me" which means he wants to return - so long as the studio back him. Babs Broccoli leans towards a Mendes- Craig return

What we have now is a Bond with his services out for tender. Which is what happened with Roger Moore. He took on Bond with days to spare on FYEO

Blofeld?It doesn't matter as he can be replaced? But Lea Seydoux - preferably yes - as we all know what happens to Bond brides...

Robbo88

Blofeld has to return for at least another two in my opinion.

ShagLounge

I though DC was contracted for one more film after SPECTRE anyway (his contract extension was two more after Skyfall)?

Colonel Shatner

Blofeld is too rich and powerful to be kept inside (such is SPECTRE's reach and resources, expect corrupt insiders and a small army of mercs to bail him out from a courthouse or convoy).

sniperUK

Colonel Shatner wrote:

expect corrupt insiders and a small army of mercs to bail him out from a courthouse or convoy).

Patriot Games rip off next.

Sir Miles

ShagLounge wrote:

I though DC was contracted for one more film after SPECTRE anyway (his contract extension was two more after Skyfall)?

Contracts can be broken....

DigificWriter

Even if Daniel Craig doesn't return, the chances of them rebooting the franchise again (which they've only done once, BTW) are pretty much slim to none.

Matt S

DigificWriter wrote:

Even if Daniel Craig doesn't return, the chances of them rebooting the franchise again (which they've only done once, BTW) are pretty much slim to none.

I think there's a high chance of another reboot. Reboots are still trendy.

Loeffelholz

Matt S wrote:

DigificWriter wrote:

Even if Daniel Craig doesn't return, the chances of them rebooting the franchise again (which they've only done once, BTW) are pretty much slim to none.

I think there's a high chance of another reboot. Reboots are still trendy.

Eventually, maybe Eon have been historically conservative with this sort of thing. My guess is that there will be at least one more actor before they reset again.

DigificWriter

There's no practical reason to reboot the franchise again (regardless of whether or not it's the 'trendy' thing to do), especially not since they've just (re)introduced Bond's most indelible adversary into this new continuity.

Jedi Master

I sincerely hope we never get a "reboot" of the Bond franchise again. It has never been how it's worked in the past with new actors, and I hated it with DC.

I don't want to see Craig back in the role, not because he isn't good, but because he is too old and simply does not look right. But I also want to see Ralph Fiennes and Christoph Waltz back as M and Blofeld respectively (I can take or leave Naomie Harris's Moneypenny). Do you think I am unlikely to get my wish, and that if DC leaves they will feel the need to "reboot" it again?

JediM

Asp9mm

It was essential with DC though, as they were making Casino Royale, his first real assignment. And I for one am happy they did. Casino Royale is my favourite book, and although the film take place nearly fifty years later, it captures the essence of the book very well for the modern audience that has grown up with the 'film' Bond.

DigificWriter

There really was no way that they could've done Casino Royale as part of the original continuity of the franchise, so doing a reboot was a necessity.

Matt S

DigificWriter wrote:

There really was no way that they could've done Casino Royale as part of the original continuity of the franchise, so doing a reboot was a necessity.

Why not? Though the film was written with Bond as a new agent, that's not the essence of the original story. There's nothing in Fleming's story that would have prevented it from being part of the old continuity.

Loeffelholz

Matt S wrote:

DigificWriter wrote:

There really was no way that they could've done Casino Royale as part of the original continuity of the franchise, so doing a reboot was a necessity.

Why not? Though the film was written with Bond as a new agent, that's not the essence of the original story. There's nothing in Fleming's story that would have prevented it from being part of the old continuity.

But it WAS a golden opportunity, with their Bond actor at 50, and the formula a bit played out. And it's been a huge success.

DigificWriter

@Matt S: It looks like you're correct, but there was, I believe, a feeling that the franchise had reached a breaking point by the time DAD was released, so something would've needed to be done that was different than what they'd been doing.

Matt S

DigificWriter wrote:

@Matt S: It looks like you're correct, but there was, I believe, a feeling that the franchise had reached a breaking point by the time DAD was released, so something would've needed to be done that was different than what they'd been doing.

I would have preferred a FYEO approach. After the absurdity of Moonraker, they went in a completely different direction with FYEO.

But they did have success with CR, and reboots have been very trendy for the past decade. The reboot is one of the lesser problems I have with CR, but I think Brosnan would have been great at that story.

Jag

DigificWriter wrote:

There really was no way that they could've done Casino Royale as part of the original continuity of the franchise, so doing a reboot was a necessity.

The "original continuity" had always been rather loose, and completely gone long before Craig (about Dalton's time). Brosnan's Bond could not have been the one who got married to Tracy a generation earlier.

DigificWriter

Jag wrote:

The "original continuity" had always been rather loose, and completely gone long before Craig (about Dalton's time). Brosnan's Bond could not have been the one who got married to Tracy a generation earlier.

Comments from M in Goldeneye and Paris Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies prove otherwise.

MilleniumForce

And this once again further proves MY timeline theory!

Connery - Moore, One person, married to Tracy
Dalton - Brosnan, One person, married to someone who died
Craig - onwards


Anyway, I don't think they need to reboot with the very next Bond. Craig's Bond is, at the least, late 30s. Let's say by the time we get a new actor, he'll be in his 40's, and this timeline will end once he reaches around 50. So if the next actor does, say, four films, we shouldn't need a reboot for at least another 10 years.

DigificWriter

^ M specifically calls Bond a misogynistic dinosaur and relic of the Cold War in Goldeneye, so that idea doesn't hold up either.

Jag

DigificWriter wrote:

Jag wrote:

The "original continuity" had always been rather loose, and completely gone long before Craig (about Dalton's time). Brosnan's Bond could not have been the one who got married to Tracy a generation earlier.

Comments from M in Goldeneye and Paris Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies prove otherwise.

Those were rather loose comments. I can't recall the encounter with Dr No or marriage to Tracy mentioned! )

DigificWriter

How is M calling Brosnan's Bond a misogynistic dinosaur and relic of the Cold War and a blatant reference to his Bond having been married - which cannot realistically be anything other than a clear reference to Tracy - representative of "loose comments"?