I can't bear to watch the early Bond films with Moore and Connery. I know part of their supposed appeal was the deliberate cheesiness, but it makes me cringe.
The later ones may not be great films, but they're much more entertaining. I'm quite upset that Daniel Craig won't be doing any more. He's my favourite Bond.
Haven't watched a Bond film for years, gave up on them after I saw the Mustang go down an alley on it's two right wheels and come out the other side on it's left wheels ( 3.30 ).
I also thought the Spectre storyline was very weak. I think more emphasis is on the stunts and care chases, explosions etc.
-----------------
Isn't that what all Bond films have essentially been about? Gorgeous women, stunning cars, awesome gadgets, jaw dropping stunts and 2 hours of escapism?
Have to say I enjoyed Skyfall and Spectre, plus Craig gives Bond a steely, meaner edge than the previous actors. Just MHO.
I suppose the acting (of whoever is Bond) will always be contemporary for whenever it is made.
However, when we're into 20+ Bond films, I wonder how many more stories the franchise can sustain especially (as observed elsewhere) with the cgi impact, as in so many action movies now. It always was formulaic but fans already know that and seem to accept it, so long as the storylines are a little different.
Pop bands have always faced a similar dilemma about sticking to much the same (Abba, boy bands) or evolving (Beatles). With high-cost films, the Box Office return on the outlay is bound to be a big influence.
It's computer generated imagery, which can be persuasively realistic. Some see it as cheating, others think is it merely using the best available technology to convey images, scenes and events consistent with the story.