I'm glad he lost to Daniel Craig because those movies were not Bond movies. They need to get back to goofy villains, awesome gadgets, cool cars, and trying to get the girl (or all the girls).
Eh, I think that time is passed, really. Sure, the old school 60s Bond films were a blast to watch, especially for the first time, but that material has been mined out completely, and I think modern audiences just aren't gonna buy it.
Even in the 60s, Bond movies became formulaic. How many of them end with a commando raid on a villain's remote-yet-impossibly-well-defended lair? You've got the undersea battle in Thunderball (always a fav of mine), then the ninja raid in You Only Live Twice, the commando raid on the mountaintop fortress in OHMSS, the attack on the oil rig in Diamonds Are Forever, etc., etc., etc. The evil plan in You Only Live Twice gets lifted and stuck underwater for The Spy Who Loved Me (as does the commando attack at the end), and then shot into space for Moonraker.
Personally, I prefer the literary version of Bond over the increasingly-goofy stock character that Bond became in the 60s-80s.
The Brosnan era was this weird attempt to mesh literary, more serious elements with the goofy over-the-top stuff, and it ended with the worst example of that: Die Another Day. That movie whipsaws back and forth between tough, gritty, "Bond relies on his own wits to survive" realism, aaaaaaaallll the way over to quip-a-minute-plus-INVISIBLE-CAR!!! and windsurfing to escape an avalanche. And while I love the first half of that film, the back end of it...oof.
All that said, I think the Bond films became a little
too divorced from that stuff by the time we got to Craig's films, especially the last two. It was weird that Casino Royale starts with him as a pre-00 agent, Quantum of Solace takes place IMMEDIATELY after Casino Royale, and then....we're launched to the end of Bond's career in Skyfall. I liked Skyfall, but that was jarring. And then Spectre and No Time to Die just feel like movies in another series entirely, except for the literal references back to the prior films. They feel incredibly different and generic.
But a lot of that, I think, has more to do with the fact that the James Bond character and model is a thing of its time. Not merely in terms of the
setting of that time, but also in terms of the world in which audiences experienced it. We live in a world where there's been over 60 years of James Bond films. They tried the whole "Let's set a Bond-like film in the 60s and see how it goes" thing with The Man from UNCLE, which was a reasonably entertaining film, but even then felt...I dunno...generic? Done before? Like nothing special?
A big part of the problem is that the world in which we live just works fundamentally
differently from the world of "James Bond" as we've known the character, and so rooting that character into the modern world is increasingly difficult while also trying to maintain some semblance of what's come before so it doesn't just feel like "Sneaky McSpyguy vs. The Alliance of Odd Bad Guys."
I'm not sure that's accomplished by just trying to repeat the past. Although, I do think they need to make Bond movies
fun again. I want to see Bond kind of taking some form of enjoyment from his work, instead of spending the last 3-4 movies going "I'm retired. I'm out of the game. I hate my job. But every time I think I'm out they pull me back in..." Yawn. No thanks.
What makes the Bond character interesting in the book is that he's in conflict with himself. He hates the killing aspect of his job, but he also loves the thrill of living on the edge. Seeing some of that thrill again would make the films much more interesting.