Returning briefly to the “what is ‘acting’” question, I’d argue it’s hard to fully appreciate a Bond film without knowing the context in which it was made. For instance, FYEO takes a few chances, deliberately ending an approach that had paid off handsomely two times in a row to bring us closer to the spirit of the early entries. But just two years later, with the threat of a rival film starring the never-to-be-underestimated Connery, Eon shifts gears back in the other direction again to play up not only the patented Eon-Bond elements (Barry’s theme, big stunts, etc) but also the kind of humor and OTT carryings-on that had brought in the big bucks with “Spy” and MR. Two years after Roger is asked to expand the boundaries of what a “Roger Moore Bond” could be, he’s now asked to dial the “Roger Moore” up to 11.
Meanwhile on the other side of the “Battle of the Bonds” (and I know NSNA is not a part of these matches, but bear with me), the stated goal of the filmmakers is to return to the days of classics like FRWL while the commercial goal of the film is to scream “Connery, Connery, Connery,” and yet everyone’s seen the kind of money Eon’s making, so we get some very Roger-like humor at Shrublands (maybe even leaping over “Roger” territory and straight into Benny Hill country). They may be trying to steal Eon’s thunder, but they tacitly acknowledge that the Eon way of making a Bond film is THE way to do it.
Then we go through it again with LTK, tailored to fit Dalton’s strengths but nonetheless asking him to stretch the character into areas 007 hasn’t gone before. But then comes GE and Brosnan is tasked with making Bond as by-the-numbers and true to established form as humanly possible in a “give the people what they want and plenty of it” approach the success of which ends up guaranteeing only three more films of the same. Given Brosnan’s on-the-record wishes to do something more edgy and daring, could he have had the hardest “acting” job of all, selling 4 entries that were anything but?
Anyway at the risk of putting this in the wrong thread, “what might we have gotten after FYEO if it weren’t for NSNA” is one of those questions that will always haunt me. The reality is that the elements that shape these films often have nothing to do with what makes sense for the character or any master plan for evolving the series or completing an arc, and everything to do with what the competition’s up to, and what rival films made the most money in the period since the last Bond came out.