Moonraker is very silly, but I think it's solidly made and has a consistency of tone, which is a lot more than you can say for the subsequent Moore and Dalton films, which lurch jarringly from goofy gags to harder-edged violence.
Or Honey Rider. I think many of the so-called excesses of the film series actually originate in the novels. Dr. No has metal hands and is drowned in bird guano in the book, while Bond engages in hand-to-tentacle combat with a giant squid.
For me, it really depends on the actor. I don't necessarily have a problem with Bond in a contemporary setting being played by someone who isn't white. For instance, to mention a couple of names that have been kicked around recently, I'd much rather see Idris Elba take on the role than Tom...
I think that may have more to do with Michael G. Wilson's influence than Purvis and Wade. As soon as he took over as writer on For Your Eyes Only, the films have become over-plotted and needlessly convoluted.
The films were already headed in a lighter, more comedic, over-the-top direction when Moore took over. It’s pretty easy to picture Moore in You Only Live Twice, or especially Diamonds Are Forever.
I've never understood why she's in that movie. Is it to show that Bond is still attractive to young women? If so, it didn't work - it feels like she's coming on to her dad's friend.
To some extent, Bond has been reinvented every time the role has been recast. In a contemporary setting, I'm not opposed to the idea of a black Bond - or someone from a former colony like Hong Kong or India - but I think he has to remain a he. If they try to make Bond a woman...well, it's just...