...It was rushed, under budgeted, underdeveloped, and not using the best possible talent behind the scenes.
This had been the fundamental problem with Bond for a long, long time up to and including LTK; the franchise was treated like a cottage industry with the emphasis on the financial margin, imo. A refusal to pay for better writing and directing talent (particularly the latter) and instead relying on a team of 'manufacturers' to churn out products. The doldrums of LTK left them with little choice but gamble on new filmmaking talent.
But having majestically rescued the franchise with the 'all-in' powerhouse that was GE, they then inexplicably returned to their old habits. TND was bold enough, but didn't quite deliver in the casting and the finale and with each subsequent Brossa movie they ran the series to breaking point once again by using the same hacks, despite diminishing returns. As for directors, i'm sure Apted was cheap and directed the drama well enough, but obviously hadn't a clue about action and so TWINE has 2 directors, with Vic handling the action. I know that's par of the course with Bond, but i think it was way out of balance in this case. As for Tamahori, well with hindsight all i can imagine is that he he very inexpensive and willing to tow the producers' line in terms of formula and product placement etc - what an effing mess! If they paid more than a fiver for that tsunami surfing CGI they should sue...
I think that forking out for Mendes, Deakins et al to rejuvenate Craig's run was the first time they seriously invested before being forced to and it paid off (i think it was accepted that QoS' shortcomings were down to the strike - the franchise wasn't at risk, as with the aftermath of LTK). I'm putting Skyfall's uncharacteristic mid-tenure upscaling of investment in talent down to Craig's wilfulness (and long may he bloody well remain so). In other words, they were in fact forced to - by Craig.
Of couse this is just my opinion and if everyone else feels that the late 70s and the 80s were in fact a high point for Bond, rather than the downward spiral i remember it to be, then fair enough. And btw, it's no slight on Dalton - he was a good Bond who was very poorly served.