I think there should only be one more reboot of the series; 7 solid films that portray a period piece James Bond and then they can finally stop. It makes the most sense and would finalize the franchise enough to coast on residuals forever.
I think part of the issue is the original premise is outdated. I don't mean spy capers, or fun action movies, or Bond himself. But to get good stand-alone Bond movies (or novels), you have to accept that government spy agencies are a Good Thing, that their spies are the Good Guys, and that there are clear external threats who are Bad Guys that must be stopped.
Ian Fleming was writing sincere spy novels; he worked in British naval intelligence during WW2, and Bond is a amalgamation of the spies and commandoes he knew. ("Goldeneye" was the name of
an operation he ran to keep an anti-Nazi intel network going in Span.) Eon Productions/Albert Broccoli treated Bond's existence and mission matter-of-factly for decades. Sure, traitors and double-agents were included, but that was part of the reality of WW2 and Cold War espionage.
Now, for the last 10-20 years at least, modern movie makers simply can not start with the assumption that a government spy agency is the Good Guy. They have to fill it with corrupt nationalists, evil capitalists, outmoded conservatives, or all of the above. The deconstruction I mentioned above is a symptom, and it's a real problem for a franchise that is designed to deliver entertainment with an unshakeable justification for Bond's actions as part of the setting.
On top of that, they can't accept an unrepentant, macho, straightforward source of violence. Fleming said "I wanted him to be a blunt instrument", who found himself in tricky situations that required naked violence to get out of. But in
Casino Royale, M literally calls Bond a blunt instrument as an insult to put him in his place before dismissing him.
You can see that as the start of a trend, where the Craig films move away from straightforward violence as a useful tool, to decry it as an inferior solution that leaves too many problems behind. That reflects post-9/11 reality, where state-sponsored violence failed to achieve what it wanted for the last 2 decades. But it also cuts into the heart of the Bond franchise itself. They're still violent, but the films rely more on spectacle, and the violence is lampshaded as futile, excessive, or unnecessary. They can still deliver entertaining scenes, but it can feel hollow.
I don't know that we have a culture which can accept a proper Bond any more. We certainly lack creative institutions that believe in it as anything more than a cash cow to keep milking.
