I guess by these standards the Bond films would now be considered something like the TRANSFORMERS movies? I'm not trying to be smartass, just asking honestly. I've seen almost all of one TRANSFORMER movie and can't even understand how folks sit in the theater to watch them on that basis ...
Neither am I - trying to be smartass; though I probably am, sorry - I have to ask you back: what makes you think a Bond film and a Transformers 'movie' are to be judged by a different set of standards? They both cater to their respective target audiences; as long as they are happy they both fulfill their raison d'être. Mind you, there is no fault in sitting through the one or the other and seriously hating either, that's up to one's personal set of preferences. But from a certain point onwards one must consider the possibility, harsh as it may seem, that perhaps one doesn't actually belong to that target audience. I never made the assumption Transformers would be my kind of entertainment, so consequently I never wasted my time on that. It's true, that robs me of the distant possibility that I might be pleasantly surprised by the experience. But whether I would have liked or disliked the thing...what would it matter when it was made for folks with a completely different idea of entertainment than mine? People's enjoyment of the one (or the other) thankfully doesn't depend on my opinion.
Bondwise I found CR to be offensive AND a grind, so it fell exactly in this big/loud/surprisingly SLOW category I put that TRANSFORMERS non-experience into (and the first BOURNE, which did not register at all with me except for the assassin with the headaches) ... and with the Mendes movies you could just put in, 'repeat&augment.' Difference I guess is that there was some kind of expectation with Bond to be better -- that's even with me not loving any of them after Dalton -- given that there are so many working/workable elements built into the thing that it should not be able to fail to entertain on some level. There's a bit in SPECTRE when they are in the lair that actually felt like a Bond movie for a few moments, and the skyscraper fight in SKYFALL felt like something very good but not necessarily Bondlike (and even the leadup to that was ruined by music when it should just have been soundeffects), but I honestly don't recall anything else in either film that worked for me.
I get what you mean with the feeling of a Bond film, especially with regard to the post-89 chasm. But if you look at the facts as they are you will find '89 is now 27 years ago. New generations have discovered Bond in the meantime. And they in turn influenced what Bond became. This may not always be to our liking. Or then it may, depending on your personal point of view. But regardless, the fact remains we do no longer define alone what is Bondlike. Each generation of fans does that for themselves. Personally, I found the lair incredibly dull and uninvolving, I would have been much more happy with a finale in the Rome set amid the whole Spectre soiree.
I've never really expected to experience a full-on FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE perfect-movie feel from another Bond movie, but to be able to get a genuine thrill, that seems like a reasonable expectation. Yet the last time that happened was in 1989 during the escape from WAVEKREST. Hell, the Wachowskis have managed to do that for me at least once since then.
Well, you must be a much more dedicated fan than I am then, I would doubtless have given up for good on the series after a streak of eight utter disappointments over 20 years. But it seems even as a misfire the series manages to keep its fans on board...