We had another thread here, before it got locked, that was all about the run-through of the Bond series (which looks AMAZING on the remastered blu-rays, FYI). Great thread, in my opinion.
While I think there are aspects of almost all the Bond films that are good, there are definitely painfully bad Bond films, and Moore's era is full of them.
I was introduced to Bond films with Goldfinger on VHS when I was 9 or 10. I saw The Living Daylights in theaters that same year. I started reading the Bond novels in my mid-20s and WHOA are they good. I'd been irritated with Bond films after seeing Die Another Day, so I found Casino Royale to be a welcome change of pace.
In my opinion, there's really more of a continuum of Bond elements, rather than two absolute schools of thought. You can have good Moore movies (e.g. For Your Eyes Only, and to a lesser degree, The Spy Who Loved Me), but there are also atrociously bad ones (e.g., Moonraker, The Man With the Golden Gun). And there are ones which are in between (Live and Let Die, From a View to a Kill). And there are great Connery films (e.g. the first three), lousy ones (Diamonds are Forever), and in between ones (You Only Live Twice).
To my way of thinking Bond is at his best when he doesn't rely on excessive gadgetry, when he's ruthless at his job, when he's fallible and vulnerable, and when his success is a result of his overcoming his vulnerabilities/foibles and triumphing due to his grit, wit, and fortitude. Bond is at his worst, when he's a pun-machine, when he has plot-device gadgetry (e.g, stuff that is only useful for one scene) or when his gadgets are just...stupid (e.g. INVISIBLE ****ING CAR), when he's like a comic book superhero (e.g. windsurfing on a hunk of metal to outrun an explosion or avalanche), and when he's a freaking know-it-all with encyclopedic knowledge. BYou can mix and match elements from both columns to greater or lesser degree, and still end up with an overall good Bond film (the Connery era did this with Thunderball, which, in my opinion is the film and story that REALLY "killed" Bond), and you can hew heavily in one particular direction and still end up with a crappy Bond film (e.g. Quantum of Solace).
ond FILMS are at their best when they pair him against a charismatic, legitimately dangerous villain, and stick to a solid story that works because the story stands on its own. They're at their worst when the villain is a one-note figure, bent on "world domination" or some similar scheme, and when they try to cash in on popular trends (e.g., martial arts, laser space battles, and topical villains). Again, you can still mix and match here and end up with an overall good film, but you can also end up with crap. Really, though, I most appreciate when Bond ISN'T formulaic, and a vast swath of the Bond franchise is built on formula, to the extent that at least three films are basically the exact same film just slightly repackaged (You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker).
I think that Skyfall heralds a new era. Casino Royale was almost like Doctor No, in that it stripped everything back to basics. No gadgets, a sinister organization, Bond vulnerable, etc. Quantom of Solace went too far in the direction of emulating the Bourne films, and ended up a poorly edited mess (behind which is hidden a decent movie). With Skyfall, though, I think we're back to a sense of equilibrium. We're no longer trying to run away from the past style, but we're also not adopting it wholesale because the formula demands it. We'll still see Bond as vulnerable and relying on minimal gadgetry, and not making quips after kills, but we've got a new "M" who knows and respects Bond, having fought beside him, and who is back to the original "M"'s office. I can't help but think that signifies a shift in styles, albeit one of degrees rather than a complete abandonment of one style in favor of another. Rather, it's a melding of styles, that will (I hope) be at once familiar to the old-school Bond-film fans, and fresh in its independence from formula.