After 1957 Bond is approaching age 50, and the dangers in the real world have changed also. Trying to keep the character portrayal at ages 35-40 with each succeeding year puts him in the same universe of denial as Archie and Jughead, or Spiderman. Eventually the original James Bond gets a plaque and a headstone, and maybe a portrait at HQ for Q. And the next generation takes over.
The Roger Moore movies had a chance to move on, but decided to stay in the original character. Maybe it was because they felt obligated to run through all of the original novels. But after that, there was no excuse to carry the same character on.
With all of that, I enjoyed the Sean Connery movies, and after that the cartoon aspects (360 degree spin AMC cars) and stretching the '50's into the 1980's got to be too much. I suppose whoever owns the rights needs to amortize the balance of the investment, and Hollywood had fewer new ideas each year, so there probably will be more of these plot twists. I will save my popcorn money for other things.
That pretty much sums up my take. I considered Moore to be a “tongue in cheek” james bond.
In fact, I stopped taking them seriously until Daniel Craig versions came out. He brought a seriousness back to the character, and you actually felt we were watching something real - that could get him killed. i.e. I liked the stories better. Interestingly, they are the only Bond movies my wife likes.
“Toxic Masculinity in a tuxedo.”
And you have taken a big swig of the toxic masculinity kool-aide. Or you wanted to parade an alliteration.
What - you didn’t like James Bond with a disco soundtrack?
/s