<p>In the case of Marigold, there is still the fact (which as far as I know the family and Bertie never learned about) that when Edith was with Gregson he was married. We have no idea what became of his insane wife after his disappearance and death. On the other hand, no one really seems to care now, like with Mary and Pamuk. I hope Edith can still manage the Sketch as well as be at Brancaster (which I'm certain she will) and that she has at least one child with Bertie. I have no doubt we would see Bates and Anna's son growing up as well as Mary's child with Henry. </p><p>From a historical perspective, perhaps the film could continue to focus on the Roaring Twenties, though the Depression and what both Downton and Brancaster face and endure from it would make a good backdrop. World War II would be better suited for a Downton Next Generation storyline. </p>

  The fact that Edith is all set that worries me! She just got happy, now it might all be ruined.

<p>You can't make a film the way you do a TV series, showing people gradually growing and maturing. There has got to be a much sharper curve of complication and solution. Something has got to happen. </p>

<p>I higly doubt that there is going to be a movie, the main actors were keen to do others things, also and we must be sincere here, DA went down on the hill because JF run out of ideas. I think that if there is a script, this time is going to be checked by more than one person, and the only way that they are going to finance all of this is that JF must be work wirth anothers writers, i think that in season 4 they wanted that and he refused, well, the result were plots that dragged for eternity (Anna´s rape, Mary suitor saga, etc). Because is if only JF doing the thing, he is going to repeat the same pattern: Mary winning in everything, Edith taking all the crap (Bertie and her cannot have children and Bertie became an alcoholic), Anna and Bates (they became involved in another legal problem), Violet (in another silly plot), Cora (stays floating there sulking), Robert (complaining about something modern), etc. </p><p>I i would have to do a movie, i would do it, in about 10 years, maybe in 1936 or something like that, and only centered in the "young generation". </p><p>-Violet, Carson, Mrs Patmore, Mrs Hughes, Isobel gone, in a few lines they can tell us that they enjoyed their last days. Also gone Anna and Bates, we must remember that, each day that passed those places were more expensive to run, so fewer servants, and Anna and Bates would retire happily to their little dream hotel and live peacefully taking care of their family. Ovbiously, they can put a line about how Mary is still in touch with Anna.  </p><p>-Robert and Cora, very old, and maybe living in the dowager house, Robert loves Downton, but when the kid told him about living in a more "cozzy" place he didnt seemed too contrary to that idea. Maybe he and Cora retired to the dowager house and live quietly there (still in Downton), but leaving finally the house to Mary.  </p><p>-Mary and Henry, running downton and their business, with far less servants that in the time of their parents, only Thomas and Andy, maybe Mary without a lady maid as Mrs Hughes correctly suggested that is going to be the future. Downstairs, only Daisy, (to that point, even more technology were added to the kitchen, and those houses couldnt afford those grand parties as before, and food became more simpliier for the same reason). </p><p>-Edith and Bertie with their family in Brancaster, with a similar story to Henry and Mary. Living more simply,  same with Tom and his new wife.  </p><p>In 1936, England became more and more worry about the rise of the nazy germany, many aristocrats were supporters of nazism, because they also believed that socialism and jews caused that they no longer have power. Edith in one hand, knows in first hand what nazis could do (they kill michael gregson), Mary never seemed interesed in politics, maybe a character in Downton could be  symphatetic to those views and that could bring frictions with Edith and Tom who are more liberal. Also in that time Edward VII abdicated to the throne, George is going to have 16 or 17 and maybe some frictions with Mary or his relation with Henry, maybe he is not interesed in country life (and Downton and his future rol) and prefers London and urban life; Sybbie is going to be in the same age and also a teenager, Marigold is going to start doing questions about her origins, etc.  </p>

<p>Well, the news in British press is that Julian Fellowes claims to have completed a script and that several of the main actors have stated that they are keen to be involved. I really don't think there would be a point in doing the film set at such a late date that you couldn't include at least some of the most popular actors; otherwise, Downton is only a name. The difficulty is going to be to get the really busy ones (e.g. Hugh Bonneville, Lily James if they want her) free to do it. But Maggie Smith has now apparently changed her mind and wants to do it. </p><p>I think 1926 is actually rather a promising year to set it in, what with the General Strike and the tensions that brings up. </p><p>Don't think Andy will stay in the servants' hall longterm: he is clearly set to take over the Home Farm and marry Daisy (who gets to be the Downton cook when Mrs Patmore retires). Thomas will probably find himself running Downton more or less single-handed, with Mrs Molesley possibly taking over the housekeeper's job when Mrs Hughes retires. </p>

<p>Downton Abbey is a name, the name of the estate were they lived, no THAT generation. Any actor wouldnt critize or say something very negative about the project that they worked for so long, as any human being could be critic about the writting, or some plot, etc, but they would never go to the press and said: i didnt like how this was writted, or how this was directed, or how crap was this part of the script, actors rarely critize something in those therms. </p><p>I genuily dont want a movie that simply is going to be about repeating some plots that we see in the series, we have enough of that in season 4-6. I bet that if JF would have been surrounded by a team of writters a far better plots could have been done. For example; Anna in the last 3 seasons was converted in Mary´s pet, Mary became more and more frivolous and we are talking about a woman in her 30´s with a child, Cora didnt add nothing, Tom also didnt have any for him and he became Mary´s cheerleader, etc. </p><p>Also the series became more and more illogic, in one part of the episode they told us that the family is trying to save money, next scene we saw Mary and Robert hosting a fox hunting as if nothings is happening, then we see the girls of the family in luxurie dress, and finally we see them talking about firing Thomas. They tell us that Mary is working 24/7 for the estate and that now is a professional woman, but instead we found a woman who is having breakfast in the bed and worry about some suitor, even the rest of the family is surprised when she is downstairs "early", etc </p>

<p>If a writer portrays people as acting illogically, does that necessarily mean that the writer is illogical? Could he not equally be an accurate observer of how people actually behave? I have certainly known people who would prefer to half starve themselves or (preferably) underpay their cleaner rather than give up their foreign holidays or private school fees or new car or whatever serves to mark their identity. From that pov wanting to keep fox hunting and dress like a lady makes sense. </p><p>Fellowes is very much building on his own acquaintance and family records of what went on in the class he is writing about. I have no personal acquaintance with the British aristocracy, but from the little I know their behaviour doesn't seem that illogical to me. Of course they are going to care more about giving up fox hunting, which would mean a loss of caste and a big gap in their social calendar than about sacking Thomas, which is primarily going to affect Thomas. Especially as his previous bad behaviour is going to make it easy for them to convince themselves that he isn't really a human being who feels things like they do. That is the tenor of the guilty conversation between Robert and Carson after his suicide attempt. </p><p>As for Mary having breakfast in bed, why does that undermine her credibility as the runner of the estate? Winston Churchill, throughout his life, had to be dressed by his valet as he was incapable of dressing himself, but he still ran the country. </p>

<p>For what i know is that JF is linked to the aristocracy, but no so to the landed gentry. The Crawleys are escentially FARMERS, that is, and anybody who lives in a rural area knows that all people related to the farm business gets very early to work, to make good use of the sun light. There are several sources that tell us that the aristocracy and landed gentry like the Crawleys, no longer behaved herself in the fashionable way that Downton show us.  </p><p>The only ones who continued with the parties and behaving like nothing had happened were those who didnt have any hope in the future and they decided to say goodbye in a high note, like the musicians of the titanic. Others, lived all those years in denial and instead of adjusting their habits to the new reality, blamed socialists and jews and before the war they were admired of Hitler and Oswald Mosley....in wich site would yo put Robert and the Crawleys?   </p><p>The most intelligents knew that the "good old days", the Edwardian Era, the time of shootings, dress balls, etc, so they adapted to the new reality, they didnt hire new staff when the old people in service retired; the men when to work (white collar jobs, be part in some directory of some company), etc....working for and have a salary  is unthinkable for someone like Robert. Even the Duke of Devonshire, one of the richest man in England with several houses like Downton and something of 200.000 acres land, had a post as governor of Canada and did other jobs, and also his sons.  </p><p>The thing is that, with the time, Downton became more and more away from the reality of the times. For example, instead of portraying Edith and Rose only in their love aspect, why not a plot about Edith or Rose wanting to go to college and some member of the family oposed to that? why not showing Mary in her bitch said trying to negotiate the sell of some products? why not showing the servants really talking about how little it seems to be putting the food in the mouths of the Crawleys? With not Tom running for the labour party to some city council, agains the traditional conservative politican that the family always had supported?. But no, in the end the series went for the easy road, and only explore the characters in their love aspeect and show us fashionable dresses.  </p><p>
</p><p>As Mary having breakfast in bed undermine her credibility in running a farming estate? yes. Mary is entering a man-man world, for that reason even her fashion changed (the very same of the people explained that, those suits with tie). Is like a officer in the army not suffering the sacrifices that his men. The thing that "I am Lady Mary Crawley" its useless in those times, the aristocracy and landed gentry no longer had power like in the times of Violet or a young Robert. Even Robert in some part of season 5 told something to Mary  when she simply took her things and went to a fashion show in London and continued to play games regarding her love life.  </p>

<p>"For what i know is that JF is linked to the aristocracy, but no so to the landed gentry. The Crawleys are escentially FARMERS, that is, and anybody who lives in a rural area knows that all people related to the farm business gets very early to work, to make good use of the sun light. " </p><p>He is friends with the Carnarvons of Highclere (the house which plays Downton in the series) in northern Hampshire- very rural area. </p><p>An officer in the British army in those days would be expected to make sacrifices in the sense of risking his life- but he would have his own servant (batman) to help him shave and get clothed; he would not expect to be one of them. And he would eat in the officers' mess when not actually in battle- much nicer diet, trained servants etc. The British army has always distinguished very clearly between officers and men.   </p><p>"The most intelligents knew that the "good old days", the Edwardian Era, the time of shootings, dress balls, etc, so they adapted to the new reality, they didnt hire new staff when the old people in service retired" </p><p>Do we know that Fellowes intended to portray the Crawleys as the most intelligent? That has never been the impression I have got. But this is exactly what the Crawleys are doing. Their staff has shrunk considerably since the early series, and they want to get rid of Thomas. </p>

<p>One of the big cues is Maggie Smith's presence. It has to pass time, but not enough to give us a 120 years old Violet. Unless, of course, that the main plot is Violet's death (murder or normal death, but it is a big thing, since she's a main character and the Queen of Sass).  </p><p>And big lol for Edith, I can totally see a scenario in which she gets more crap and goes Poor Edith Meme XD </p>