388 replies to this topic

[Guy Haines]

I never read into the story that Blofeld was directly the author of all Bond's pain. Rather that every encounter with 'the organisation"/Quantum/SPECTRE that Bond had resulted in someone close to Bond ending up dead, Blofeld knew that, and was gloating about it.

[tdalton]

Even taking the personal link between Bond and Blofeld out of it, they're still peddling the idea that Skyfall was a SPECTRE plot.  I think it's fairly easy, even if incredibly lazy, to say that Quantum was a part of SPECTRE, but it doesn't really work for Skyfall, which is very much a one-off film that doesn't build on its predecessors nor does it really feature any real backing to the idea that someone other than Silva is behind it all.  Silva was a lone wolf and Skyfall works much better with that in mind.

[glidrose]

I never read into the story that Blofeld was directly the author of all Bond's pain. Rather that every encounter with 'the organisation"/Quantum/SPECTRE that Bond had resulted in someone close to Bond ending up dead, Blofeld knew that, and was gloating about it.

Ditto.

[Hockey Mask]

I never read into the story that Blofeld was directly the author of all Bond's pain. Rather that every encounter with 'the organisation"/Quantum/SPECTRE that Bond had resulted in someone close to Bond ending up dead, Blofeld knew that, and was gloating about it.

Ditto.

Tritto.

[Professor Pi]

Even taking the personal link between Bond and Blofeld out of it, they're still peddling the idea that Skyfall was a SPECTRE plot.  I think it's fairly easy, even if incredibly lazy, to say that Quantum was a part of SPECTRE, but it doesn't really work for Skyfall, which is very much a one-off film that doesn't build on its predecessors nor does it really feature any real backing to the idea that someone other than Silva is behind it all.  Silva was a lone wolf and Skyfall works much better with that in mind.

 

Even before SPECTRE, I suspected Silva had done some work for Quantum ("rig an election in Uganda"), but I do think he was a lone rogue wolf by the time of Skyfall.  Bloferhauser might have known his obsession with M and is just trying to take credit for it.  Anything that causes Bond pain feeds Bloferhauser's schadenfreude.

[tdalton]

This whole idea of Blofeld using events he wasn't a part of just to taunt Bond doesn't mesh with what's presented on screen.  The entirety of Spectre is spent linking Blofeld and SPECTRE to the events of CR, QOS, and SF.  We're clearly meant to, or at the very least invited to by the production team, think that Blofeld is actually behind it all.  That's what the film is trying to get across, or at least that's what a simpleton like myself who can't understand the "nuance" of what a rather poorly-written film gets out of it.  

[Tiin007]

I actually can get behind the idea that Silva was working with SPECTRE.

 

Silva wanted revenge on M, while Blofeld wanted to shake up the British intelligence system to pave the way for Nine Eyes. 

 

SPECTRE provided a lot of the money and resources (such as the helicopter), and gave Silva basically free reign to make a mess of MI6.

 

Meaning, after Judi Dench's M lost the hard drive in Skyfall, and NATO agents were being exposed and killed, they had that inquiry, in which the relevance of MI6 (and the Double-0 section in particular) was called into question, especially as the modern age offers other methods (drones, etc...). Mallory was at first somewhat skeptical of the "old fashioned ways," but after the events of Skyfall, he realized why they still need agents in the field.

 

Then, in SPECTRE, after the failings of the previous movie, MI5 and MI6 were merged to bring things into the 21st century. Max Denbigh has his whole surveillance system set up (which he uses even spy on even MI6 agents), and all of this information is being provided to Blofeld's organization.

 

So I find it entirely plausible that SPECTRE had a stake in the events of Skyfall, as it was the events of Skyfall which led to the overhaul in the intelligence agencies in SPECTRE. And Mallory, who had been skeptical in Skyfall, is now finding himself defending the good old ways to keep the Double-0 section alive.

 

Viewed this way, I think the plot of Skyfall flows nicely into that of SPECTRE.

 

That being said, I'd have rather this been spelled out more explicitly in the film. 

[SecretAgentFan]

Even taking the personal link between Bond and Blofeld out of it, they're still peddling the idea that Skyfall was a SPECTRE plot.  I think it's fairly easy, even if incredibly lazy, to say that Quantum was a part of SPECTRE, but it doesn't really work for Skyfall, which is very much a one-off film that doesn't build on its predecessors nor does it really feature any real backing to the idea that someone other than Silva is behind it all.  Silva was a lone wolf and Skyfall works much better with that in mind.

 

I do believe that tieing all the previous Craig-Bond-Baddies together with Spectre would have worked if they had really established it - not just by putting pictures on walls or Q finding information on the ring.

 

If they had plotted a tight story about Bond finding a common link between the actions of LeChiffre, Mr. White, Green and Silva and that would have led him to Spectre, explaining this to be a new incarnation of Quantum - yep, I would have bought that.  The way SPECTRE does it unfortunately feels like an afterthought, like something that would have come up in a script meeting, with someone saying "I have a great idea: everything´s connected.  Like, in the Marvel movies?" - "But, the whole story is not leading to that!" - "Duh?  You´re the damn writers, make it work!" - "But we don´t have time-" - "Who cares? Man, do I have to do everything here?  C´mon, Q analyses the ring, and Blofeld puts up some pictures on the wall, add some lines for him - done!" - "That won´t work." - "Hey, I am the director here! Oh, forget it, you´re fired.  I´ll call in another writer, I have tons of theatre writers who will love to work for me."

[Guy Haines]

I actually can get behind the idea that Silva was working with SPECTRE.
 
Silva wanted revenge on M, while Blofeld wanted to shake up the British intelligence system to pave the way for Nine Eyes. 
 
SPECTRE provided a lot of the money and resources (such as the helicopter), and gave Silva basically free reign to make a mess of MI6.
 
Meaning, after Judi Dench's M lost the hard drive in Skyfall, and NATO agents were being exposed and killed, they had that inquiry, in which the relevance of MI6 (and the Double-0 section in particular) was called into question, especially as the modern age offers other methods (drones, etc...). Mallory was at first somewhat skeptical of the "old fashioned ways," but after the events of Skyfall, he realized why they still need agents in the field.
 
Then, in SPECTRE, after the failings of the previous movie, MI5 and MI6 were merged to bring things into the 21st century. Max Denbigh has his whole surveillance system set up (which he uses even spy on even MI6 agents), and all of this information is being provided to Blofeld's organization.
 
So I find it entirely plausible that SPECTRE had a stake in the events of Skyfall, as it was the events of Skyfall which led to the overhaul in the intelligence agencies in SPECTRE. And Mallory, who had been skeptical in Skyfall, is now finding himself defending the good old ways to keep the Double-0 section alive.
 
Viewed this way, I think the plot of Skyfall flows nicely into that of SPECTRE.
 
That being said, I'd have rather this been spelled out more explicitly in the film.

Looking at it that way, the link between Skyfall and SPECTRE would work, had it been more explicitly explained. The scenes when this could have happened might have been either (1) Bond's final meeting with White. The latter, having nothing to lose, could have at least hinted that everything since Craig-Bond's first mission was linked or (2) when Bond finally meets the man he knows at that stage as Oberhauser. With a bit more screen time used on explaining why SPECTRE was behind everything - and say, none on talk of cuckoos and family ties - the plot links could have been made a bit more coherent.

[tdalton]

They could have decided to link whatever they wanted, but at the end of the day, none of the films in question were meant to be linked to SPECTRE or Spectre at the time.  They just decided to link everything after the fact because it's what's popular at the moment, with Marvel linking virtually every single one of their films and franchises into one continuous arc.  Skyfall is blatantly a one-off Bond film and attempts to connect its events with a SPECTRE plot are forcing ideas into the narrative that aren't there and weren't meant to be there.  

 

They could have spent as much time as possible on explaining the links, but it was always going to ring hollow because they were reinventing the previous three films into something that they are not and were not meant to be.  Sadly, Spectre has tainted the Craig films, serving to drag down the entire era because they had no solid ideas that could form a film that could stand on its own.    

[SecretAgentFan]

I wouldn´t go so far.  I can still watch and enjoy the films on their own merits.  

 

For me SPECTRE is like one of the other lesser entries.  And it´s kind of unavoidable that the Craig era got one of those.  

 

The good news: the next one can (only) be better.

[Orion]

They could have decided to link whatever they wanted, but at the end of the day, none of the films in question were meant to be linked to SPECTRE or Spectre at the time.    

EON's 53 year old policy of only ever think of the film they're making at the time would agree with you, but I'd say Quantum was blatantly spectre but using a name that wouldn't get them sued.

I personally loved Spectre, even if I do think the Oberhauser link to Bond's past and Silva being Spectre was going too far with linking the plot of the film with it's thematic notion that Mendes was clearly fond of exploring (that of facing and accepting your past so as to move forward) 

[Tiin007]

 

They could have decided to link whatever they wanted, but at the end of the day, none of the films in question were meant to be linked to SPECTRE or Spectre at the time.    

EON's 53 year old policy of only ever think of the film they're making at the time would agree with you
 

 

 

And that is precisely the problem. I would've been fine with the Craig era continuing the tradition of one-off Bond films, and I also would have welcomed a shift towards continuity between films. The problem is that EON want to have their cake and eat it too-- they want to craft continuity heavy films without taking the time to properly plan ahead. This only results in the continuity on screen being tenuous at best, and has created arguably the most disjointed tenure for a Bond actor. For all the complaints against the excesses of the Moore era, at least there was a consistency of tone and style throughout his films, if not necessarily consistency of quality. 

[SecretAgentFan]

 For all the complaints against the excesses of the Moore era, at least there was a consistency of tone and style throughout his films, if not necessarily consistency of quality. 

 

I think you´re on to something here.  IMO, the creative problem of the Craig era is the experiment with giving arthouse-directors too much freedom instead of maintaining a style and purpose.  

 

Which poses the bigger question: should Bond films really strive to be more than Bond films?  Is the formula put to better use if one sticks to it instead of bending it constantly?

 

One thing SPECTRE proves, IMO, is that the mix of dramatic seriousness and extravagant fun does not work so well.

[tdalton]

should Bond films really strive to be more than Bond films?

Yes.

There's only so much that can be done with a formula. The formula had become stale by the time Brosnan's time in the role was over. These new films are at their best when they put the formula aside and try something new.  They're at their worst (I'm looking at you Spectre) when they try hit everything on the checklist or when they pile the references on top of each other so high that you can't see anything but the references.  

 

Skyfall succeeded at the box office, at least in part, because it veered away from the formula to a degree.  It's different from the other Bond films, as evidenced by the refrain we've heard a lot around here recently that it's a film that just happens to feature Bond rather than being a true "Bond film" with all of the trappings that that has come to entail.

Edited by tdalton, 17 January 2016 - 04:27 PM.

[plankattack]

For all the complaints against the excesses of the Moore era, at least there was a consistency of tone and style throughout his films, if not necessarily consistency of quality.

 
I think you´re on to something here.  IMO, the creative problem of the Craig era is the experiment with giving arthouse-directors too much freedom instead of maintaining a style and purpose.  
 
Which poses the bigger question: should Bond films really strive to be more than Bond films?  Is the formula put to better use if one sticks to it instead of bending it constantly?
 
One thing SPECTRE proves, IMO, is that the mix of dramatic seriousness and extravagant fun does not work so well.

Agreed. That said, I don't have an issues with directors trying to put their stamp on the series with an individual entry. For example QoS and SF are two very different films, and yet as self-contained episodes of the series, can exist side-by-side. IMHO the issue was allowing one director the leeway to somehow shape an arc that he neither started (or will apparently finish).

If Mendes had been hired to start something with SF with the latitude to finish it with the following film, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But as it is, creating a "finished" story with SF completely shut off that route. To compare with another spy franchise - while Ultimatum is inferior to The Bourne Supremacy, Greengrass could get away with continuing the story because of how Supremacy ends. With both story and style, the two films do work together (not to mention with Liman's Identity).

I think SP as a sequel to SF is a stretch. Marrying it to the 2 before should have been a non-starter.

[Tiin007]

 

 

For all the complaints against the excesses of the Moore era, at least there was a consistency of tone and style throughout his films, if not necessarily consistency of quality.

 
I think you´re on to something here.  IMO, the creative problem of the Craig era is the experiment with giving arthouse-directors too much freedom instead of maintaining a style and purpose.  
 
Which poses the bigger question: should Bond films really strive to be more than Bond films?  Is the formula put to better use if one sticks to it instead of bending it constantly?
 
One thing SPECTRE proves, IMO, is that the mix of dramatic seriousness and extravagant fun does not work so well.

 

Agreed. That said, I don't have an issues with directors trying to put their stamp on the series with an individual entry. For example QoS and SF are two very different films, and yet as self-contained episodes of the series, can exist side-by-side. IMHO the issue was allowing one director the leeway to somehow shape an arc that he neither started (or will apparently finish).

 

 

Brilliantly stated, plankattack. 

For continuity to be effective, there needs to be a unity of vision and execution. 

 

If EON wants to return to doing one-off stories, then I have no issue with varying directorial styles. Provided, of course, that successive films within an actor's tenure still feel as if they belong in the same era-- I wouldn't want a LTK-type film coming off the heels of a MR-type film with the same actor as Bond. Too large of a shift in too narrow a time frame. 

[Professor Pi]

So it would seem EON is faced with three choices.

 

One, double down on SPECTRE, with the same actors, continuing story, and formula.  This was their path with YOLT after the success of Thunderball, albeit with a new scriptwriter and director.  Had SP exceeded SF's box office, this would probably be the path they take.

 

Two, dial it back a bit to a more serious tone, like For Your Eyes Only after the success of Moonraker.  Keep the actors the same, but bring in a new director while acknowledging the events of SPECTRE, while moving away from the Bond formula.  This is where the YOLT novel's Garden of Death story would be a logical followup.  If so, expect EON to bring back Purvis and Wade to adapt it, citing the stronger scripts of CR and SF when adapting original Fleming material.

 

Three, chuck everything and start over.  Bring in a new actor, new director, new scriptwriters, no references to SPECTRE, Vesper or Madeleine, and have a solid Bond one off adventure.  The remaining MI6 cast could remain, like when Moore or Dalton stepped into the role.  They wouldn't have to completely reboot, as CR did with Craig after Die Another Day.  But neither would they reference the events of the Craig era, or for that matter the other Bond movies, like they did with OHMSS.  Think of how they proceeded with Live and Let Die or The Living Daylights.

 

A lot of this depends on Craig and the new distribution deal (and that may be tied to Craig too.)

[Orion]

So it would seem EON is faced with three choices.

 

One, double down on SPECTRE, with the same actors, continuing story, and formula.  This was their path with YOLT after the success of Thunderball, albeit with a new scriptwriter and director.  Had SP exceeded SF's box office, this would probably be the path they take.

 

Two, dial it back a bit to a more serious tone, like For Your Eyes Only after the success of Moonraker.  Keep the actors the same, but bring in a new director while acknowledging the events of SPECTRE, while moving away from the Bond formula.  This is where the YOLT novel's Garden of Death story would be a logical followup.  If so, expect EON to bring back Purvis and Wade to adapt it, citing the stronger scripts of CR and SF when adapting original Fleming material.

 

Three, chuck everything and start over.  Bring in a new actor, new director, new scriptwriters, no references to SPECTRE, Vesper or Madeleine, and have a solid Bond one off adventure.  The remaining MI6 cast could remain, like when Moore or Dalton stepped into the role.  They wouldn't have to completely reboot, as CR did with Craig after Die Another Day.  But neither would they reference the events of the Craig era, or for that matter the other Bond movies, like they did with OHMSS.  Think of how they proceeded with Live and Let Die or The Living Daylights.

 

A lot of this depends on Craig and the new distribution deal (and that may be tied to Craig too.)

Likely option 2. The film has actually done quite well, only on the internet is it "wrst Bnd mvie eva!!!" so Completely chucking it away seems unlikely. Also option 2 allows for a new director to come in with a certain level of freedom. 
 

[tdalton]

So it would seem EON is faced with three choices.

 

One, double down on SPECTRE, with the same actors, continuing story, and formula.  This was their path with YOLT after the success of Thunderball, albeit with a new scriptwriter and director.  Had SP exceeded SF's box office, this would probably be the path they take.

 

Two, dial it back a bit to a more serious tone, like For Your Eyes Only after the success of Moonraker.  Keep the actors the same, but bring in a new director while acknowledging the events of SPECTRE, while moving away from the Bond formula.  This is where the YOLT novel's Garden of Death story would be a logical followup.  If so, expect EON to bring back Purvis and Wade to adapt it, citing the stronger scripts of CR and SF when adapting original Fleming material.

 

Three, chuck everything and start over.  Bring in a new actor, new director, new scriptwriters, no references to SPECTRE, Vesper or Madeleine, and have a solid Bond one off adventure.  The remaining MI6 cast could remain, like when Moore or Dalton stepped into the role.  They wouldn't have to completely reboot, as CR did with Craig after Die Another Day.  But neither would they reference the events of the Craig era, or for that matter the other Bond movies, like they did with OHMSS.  Think of how they proceeded with Live and Let Die or The Living Daylights.

 

A lot of this depends on Craig and the new distribution deal (and that may be tied to Craig too.)

 

Options 2 or 3 would be my choice.  If they want to continue on taking the series in a more camp, light-hearted direction, they can go ahead without my financial support.  I would say that I'd like to see them do what you said, a Garden of Death/YOLT scenario for the follow-up, but I don't have any faith in EON to do it justice at this point in time.

 

I'm actually growing more and more in favor of another reboot.  I'd like to see them start over with a clear vision of where to go with the film for multiple entries.  They've proven with Craig's films that trying to plot out a connected series one film at a time just doesn't work.  

[Surrie]

Options 2 or 3 would be my choice.  If they want to continue on taking the series in a more camp, light-hearted direction, they can go ahead without my financial support.  I would say that I'd like to see them do what you said, a Garden of Death/YOLT scenario for the follow-up, but I don't have any faith in EON to do it justice at this point in time.

 

I'm actually growing more and more in favor of another reboot.  I'd like to see them start over with a clear vision of where to go with the film for multiple entries.  They've proven with Craig's films that trying to plot out a connected series one film at a time just doesn't work.  

 

 

Don't hold your breath. Although it would be refreshing for EON to actually consider 2 or 3 films in advance, I can't foresee them breaking tradition. 

[Dustin]

Well, it's not as if it's that easy to do. There are few film series that are successful doing this, telling a longer story over several films. Those that do generally are based on already existing books like Hunger Games or Lord of the Rings. That means the framework is already set and the film production can concentrate on adapting this to the needs of their medium. Bond doesn't work that way any more.

And if we take a look at Bourne as a popular contender... well, that one doesn't really tell one continuous storyline. No questions about the character are answered, he's in effect still the mostly clueless lone wolf they fished out of the sea. So I don't see a lot of films in Bond's genre which set out for longer storytelling.

[Orion]

Well, it's not as if it's that easy to do. There are few film series that are successful doing this, telling a longer story over several films. Those that do generally are based on already existing books like Hunger Games or Lord of the Rings. That means the framework is already set and the film production can concentrate on adapting this to the needs of their medium. Bond doesn't work that way any more.

And if we take a look at Bourne as a popular contender... well, that one doesn't really tell one continuous storyline. No questions about the character are answered, he's in effect still the mostly clueless lone wolf they fished out of the sea. So I don't see a lot of films in Bond's genre which set out for longer storytelling.

In the case of Mission Impossible they set out to do exactly the opposite, purposefully going for a different director and writer(s) each time so that each film is it's own thing, with it's own tone and style. Will be interesting to see how this continues with 6 given more continuing cast and crew than ever (though I gather the lack of recurring cast early on has had more to do with availability than anything) 

[Dustin]

Just so. And the other popular money machine, the 'Marvel-verse' or whatever you want to call it, likewise only pretends to do more than selling popcorn. The films are intertwined, true. But only in much the same way the comics are. There is no basic need to see them all to understand what story there is, only the faint promise that you'll get more out of it if you do. But nothing precludes you from entering midway and stepping off bored to death three films down the line.

[tdalton]

 

Options 2 or 3 would be my choice.  If they want to continue on taking the series in a more camp, light-hearted direction, they can go ahead without my financial support.  I would say that I'd like to see them do what you said, a Garden of Death/YOLT scenario for the follow-up, but I don't have any faith in EON to do it justice at this point in time.

 

I'm actually growing more and more in favor of another reboot.  I'd like to see them start over with a clear vision of where to go with the film for multiple entries.  They've proven with Craig's films that trying to plot out a connected series one film at a time just doesn't work.  

 

 

Don't hold your breath. Although it would be refreshing for EON to actually consider 2 or 3 films in advance, I can't foresee them breaking tradition. 

 

 

You're right, they won't.  But, given that they won't, they shouldn't try to force continuity into the series where it doesn't exist.  If they're going to do more films like Spectre, then they need to set it up in advance rather than cannibalize its predecessors.

[Guy Haines]

For all the complaints against the excesses of the Moore era, at least there was a consistency of tone and style throughout his films, if not necessarily consistency of quality.

 
I think you´re on to something here.  IMO, the creative problem of the Craig era is the experiment with giving arthouse-directors too much freedom instead of maintaining a style and purpose.  
 
Which poses the bigger question: should Bond films really strive to be more than Bond films?  Is the formula put to better use if one sticks to it instead of bending it constantly?
 
One thing SPECTRE proves, IMO, is that the mix of dramatic seriousness and extravagant fun does not work so well.

Watching SPECTRE more than once, I wonder if, since Sam Mendes insisted he wouldn't do another Bond, it was his, and Daniel Craig's way of inserting some of the elements they enjoyed as youngster watching Bond into a present day Bond film? Both cited LALD as a first, or favourite (or both?) Bond film and the references to it in the PTC scene are obvious. Maybe they both wanted to do a "classic" less serious movie before leaving the series, although SPECTRE remains pretty serious and dramatic compared with the 1970s Bond films.

My main criticism of the movie remains that it tries to be two types of Bond film at the same time - classic late 60s/early to mid 70s on the one hand and "Skyfall revisited" on the other. The former doesn't entirely fit with Craig's take on Bond, imho, and if the film wanted to SF II the screenwriters should have stuck with that route.

A third way might have been to return to the elements which made CR 2006 such a success - a straightforward story, a clearly defined adversary without any personal issues, and a developing romance between Bond and the leading lady, plus some standout action scenes and drama. If Bond 25 is Craig's last, maybe that's what we will get with a new director and writers - a straightforward final showdown between Bond and Blofeld.

[DaveBond21]

I think SPECTRE was simply an introduction movie to Blofeld and to the sinister organisation. I think we will see that it successfully laid the groundwork for the next 2 movies.

[Tiin007]

I think SPECTRE was simply an introduction movie to Blofeld and to the sinister organisation. I think we will see that it successfully laid the groundwork for the next 2 movies.

 

I hope so. My biggest concern is that EON will splurge on SPECTRE the organization and Blofeld all too quickly, limiting their appearances to one more movie at most.

 

Heck, I'd be more than happy if this incarnation of the organization continued into the next Bond actor's tenure. Give it some real development. No need to show all your cards at once. 

[tdalton]

 

I think SPECTRE was simply an introduction movie to Blofeld and to the sinister organisation. I think we will see that it successfully laid the groundwork for the next 2 movies.

 

I hope so. My biggest concern is that EON will splurge on SPECTRE the organization and Blofeld all too quickly, limiting their appearances to one more movie at most.

 

Heck, I'd be more than happy if this incarnation of the organization continued into the next Bond actor's tenure. Give it some real development. No need to show all your cards at once. 

 

 

I hope that they do splurge on SPECTRE and Blofeld, or at least the current incarnation of both, as quickly as possible.  There's nothing at all interesting about either of them as they are presented in Spectre.  The organization isn't at all menacing and Blofeld is a cross between Donald Pleasance and Charles Gray's Blofelds with a mixture of Dr. Evil and Hans Landa thrown in for good measure.  

 

The more I think about it, the more I might just be ready for them to move on to the next guy.  We've got three pretty good films from Craig with Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall.  They've painted themselves into a corner with a weak portrayal of SPECTRE and Blofeld and a storyline that can only go forward as a repeat of the themes that we've already seen from the first two films in Craig's tenure.  

[Surrie]

 

I think SPECTRE was simply an introduction movie to Blofeld and to the sinister organisation. I think we will see that it successfully laid the groundwork for the next 2 movies.

 

I hope so. My biggest concern is that EON will splurge on SPECTRE the organization and Blofeld all too quickly, limiting their appearances to one more movie at most.

 

Heck, I'd be more than happy if this incarnation of the organization continued into the next Bond actor's tenure. Give it some real development. No need to show all your cards at once. 

 

 

I have to say I am with you on this. The next movie (whether it is Craig's last or not) should focus on an excellent and tense story that really demonstrates the menace of the SPECTRE organisation. Now EON can finally use SPECTRE and Blofeld again I do hope they don't 'show all their cards at once' and build slowly on plot over maybe 2/3 films.