I agree, one James Bond, one franchise.
I need to step back and look at it differently.
There are certain traits that makes JB is JB. I tried to list it down. When it is missing, than it doesn't feel like a JB anymore.
In Alan's case, perhaps he is missing so much that he yelled "who killed JB? ".
Here's another way to think about it. There's the "literary" Bond and the "film" Bond. The films started out being very much simply a film depiction of the literary character. But over time, the "Bond formula" for the films became established, and the formula took over the franchise. Each time, they tried to re-ground Bond in the literary character from whence the film version came, but each time, they reverted to the formula. Alan laid out the formula pretty well, as have others in this thread.
Some people love the formula. They love the familiarity of it. They like knowing how it's going to go, which scenes will play out, etc. They like to see how this variation of the formula will go. Personally, I enjoyed the formula for a very long time. But after a while, it got kinda dull and stale. There were new elements introduced (like Bond's allies at MI6, Bond's occasional vulnerability, etc.), but eventually it'd just revert to formula, and after, oh, 19 movies or so...it was just kinda stale for me. It was a this point that I discovered the books, and REALLY enjoyed them. They have sort of a formula, but it's nowhere near as in-your-face as the films, and the formula they have also involves Bond as a far more nuanced character. Periodically, in the pre-release hype for a given film, the latest Bond actor would talk about how they were now trying to get back to the literary version. And they would, up to a point, but eventually he'd just have some gadget pull his ass out of the fire, rather than toughing it out himself. Anyway, I really liked the literary approach better, and now I find that my favorite Bond films are the ones that showcase that character first, and blend in the film formula elements second (or not at all).
To me, bond movies brings the WOW effect. However, DC delivers less and less of that, moving towards typical (action) movies.
It really makes me wanted to yell: WHERE'S MAH BOND?
We love JB so much, that it is painful to see how JB changed into something that is not "right". So we tried to absorb it, live with it, and continue to like or dislike.
Having to think there are several JB is the way I deal with the death of JB I used to know.
I think there's still a desire among much of the audience to see "your" Bond, rather than just a retread of the Bourne films. But the thing about "your" Bond is that as exciting as it is, it's very, very easy for filmmakers to simply pick the most obvious, straightforward, and frankly (to me) dull elements -- namely the parts that aren't actually about Bond the character. The gadgets, the quips, the babes with puns as names, the f/x. When Bond himself is focused on, it's as a caricature, not a nuanced character. He's sauve, sophisticated, knows everything about everything, a master at seducing women...uh...he plays cards...he says "Bond, James Bond," um....he...uh...uses gadgets... That's a caricature. He has no vulnerabilities, no sense of remorse or inner conflict about his job, no sense of duty beyond occasionally saying "I do it all for England" just before he bangs some hot chick, etc.
Basically, the problem with your Bond in the present era, as I see it, is as follows:
They're trying to find the balance between "your" Bond and "my" Bond. The Craig era was very heavily about "my" Bond, but sometimes to the point where he was basically no longer Bond, but Bourne -- a tough assassin who punches and shoots guys...um....yeah, that's about it. The previous era was all about "your" Bond, but very, very often to the point where he was no longer Bond, but Austin Powers -- a cartoon character whose films are a series of cliches and plot beats that have been hit a gajillion times.
It's tough finding the balance between the two, but I really felt like Skyfall did it, and heralds a new era that will -- I really hope -- find the perfect balance between the two.
I got sidetracked in continuity. Off course, one of the formula of JB is using same thing over and over in a different way (it is a limited source: novel). If it used properly, it is good. But sometimes it executed poorly, that leaves a bad taste.
Example of good ones : DB5, Jaws, Blofeld, MP, Q branch. Bad ones: DB5, Blofeld, MP, Maud Adams
I'd put "Jaws" in the "bad" category, but whatever. I'll get to your continuity point in a second here...
I like to think the older movies don't exist and Craig is what the REAL Bond SHOULD be.
I enjoyed the old movies as a kid but looking back now....stupid as hell.
I think the beauty of it is that they do, indeed, exist. If you want the old Bond, you can go and watch it any time you want, and the films are still enjoyable. But that era is done with. I hope we won't go back to it, or at least to the formula-as-film way that many of the films worked during that era. But I also hope we won't see any more outings like Quantum of Solace.
I would agree that DC is the closest thing to a reboot in the history of the franchise.
But they basically just said "***** it, we don't have to clarify whether this is a reboot or not."
The Batman franchise kept changing lead actors without always changing the tone. That put them into trouble as the movies slid towards suckage in the 1990s. By the time the Nolans took over they had call the movie "Batman Begins" just to send the public a message.
But Bond's producers aren't in that mess. They don't need to risk painting themselves into any continuity corners just to make the point that it's time to give Bond a fresh chance again. The public has already been conditioned to react this way - new Bond actor, new tone to the franchise.
Eh, I think they basically were. Continuity-wise...Craig is a reboot. As I recall, the pre-release stuff for Casino Royale said as much. This wasn't the same continuity as the Connery-through-Brosnan films. Bond was a new agent, on his first major assignment.
I loved it, but a lot of people found it not very familiar. The end of the film, with Craig saying "Bond. James Bond" was a tip of the hat to the familiar, but I think QoS just strayed way too far from what people recognize as Bond. Skyfall seeks to right that balance with Moneypenny, Universal Exports, M's office, etc. all being re-introduced to, I think, provide a bit of familiarity, without (hopefully) getting stale and reverting directly to formula.
Really, I think what people miss isn't so much the formula as much as it is familiarity. Be honest. Do you really just want to see Bond go through the same motions he always has? The opening sequence that's mostly unrelated. The mission from M. The visit to Q branch. The casino scene introducing the villain. The villain's unstoppable one-note henchman ("Allow me to introduce my associate: Mr. Tines. His weapon of choice? An ordinary dinner fork, dipped in poison and hurled with deadly accuracy. Pray that you don't end up on his menu, Mr. Bond..."). The femme fatale. The good girl. The elaborate trap that Bond gets out of with a deus-ex-machina gadget that was apparently designed ONLY for this purpose. The plot to ransom the world for ONE HUNDRED GAJILLION DOLLARS!!! Some orbital satellite that will blanket the world in potpourri, triggering rampant allergic reactions, unless Bond can stop him. The commando raid. Yadda yadda yadda.
I doubt people want Austin Bond anymore. I think what they want is a familiar, recognizable Bond, but one who at once also feels fresh. I think the producers know this and are trying to do that, and Skyfall is their opening gambit towards that end.
At least, that's what I hope for. If not, well...we'll always have From Russia with Love...