I honestly believed that the whole point of the Craig era, was to bring forth a more believable iteration of our hero, involving more rhyme and reason.
As a lifelong Bond fan, I have had the need to express my deep disappointment in regards to the questionable decisions made by EON. I truly feel conned, after witnessing the results of the insulting screenplays of both Skyfall and SPECTRE. Quantum of Solace's script was greatly improvised, but to a certain extent, still had some form of "grounding" in regards to the story. Skyfall and SPECTRE were two films that were meant to be "grandiose" in nature, without any evident logic to tie events together, and which had extremely poor character development.
I've always wanted to know, what the lovers of the current films, have found appealing. My argument has always been that the films between Dr. No to Goldeneye, even TND were never meant to be taken seriously, but had a certain cohesiveness. In this cohesiveness, Dr. No-Goldeneye had elements of the Cold War with some explication on how the villains came to power. Skyfall and SPECTRE are both films that shouldn't have any place having such large, unthought out plot holes and underdeveloped characters.
How is it fair for us viewers to go and pay admission to the 25th installment of the franchise, knowing that these evident problems have been recurring for years? I feel offended as a Bond fan. Some would argue that I shouldn't continue to watch the films, but I think I've deserved a good, sparkly scripted film just like anyone else.
I just want to know how a multi-billion dollar franchise isn't mint in every respect. Now, after everything, Bond 25 is being considered a "****show" by various media sources because the script is once again a mess? Has the money been misallocated? I guess I would just like to hear the opinions on why things are the way they are. A common rebuttal is that the numbers have proven the current films' success, but many often forget the price of inflation, anniversaries and so on...
Where have all the good screenwriters gone? And why are Cubby's principles regarding the character being more important than the actor, being erased? George Lazenby, perhaps, never had a chance to fully come in on his own as Bond, but Fleming's story was so strong that even an unexperienced actor could play the lead in a film that's still being talked about, 50 years later. That's how good EON was. Now, an experienced actor, (Craig) has been given so much privilege and creative control on a franchise that he is clearly ready to leave, that it's hard to believe that this man is here for anything else aside from the money.
At the end of the day, I know that Cubby is long gone and the baby feels like it's been up for adoption for a good while...