I mostly agree, but I think both Moore and Lazenby were victims of factors outside their control, namely those inevitable late 70s and early 80s influences creeping into the films (synthesizers in the soundtrack, pimps, rednecks, lasers, bad clothes, etc.), and some bad scripts. Fortunately we never had to see James disco dancing, but it was possible. I thought Lazenby was better than he gets credit for, they really screwed him by making him such a puffer. It's funny, Moore was in both some of the best and undoubtedly the worst Bond films of the entire series. Some of that was due to him, some not. Those two Bonds also were hampered from the start by having to fill the boots of Sean Connery and the difficult job of maintaining interest and originality in a series growing stale simply from being around for a half-dozen films. I tell you one thing: I don't envy the job of the producers to keep Bond fresh after all these years. It can't be easy, on the one hand you must depend on the formula for success, on the other hand if you don't take any chances, people get bored. Sticking too much to the formula guarantees a flat film where everything has been seen before, but departing too much from it risks losing the essence of Bond, which is I think what happened with Dalton when they overcompensated (although I did enjoy The Living Daylights). Then they pitted him against a drug lord with pet sharks, that was simply too much. When Brosnan stepped in there was a brief flash of perfect convergence of lead, story, and action in Goldeneye before things slowly decayed to where they are now.
