Bond films did not invent the action film.
I never said it would be trashed. I said it would disappear up its own arse, which I clarified later in my response to the analogy of a fetish. I.e., the franchise would continue to appeal to its loyal but ever-reducing fanatical fan-base, until there was so few left of them that the films didn't make enough return to warrant making another. OR the producers could adapt and change the franchise.
If you are suggesting that Moonraker was a good film (in ANY sense of the word) then you have no credibility. Laser guns? Moore's tenure as Bond is only barely acceptable: the audience must first accept the implied parody, of the earlier films, that the Moore films had become.
Fleming's material reflects the English post-war society, i.e. miserable (food rationing, begun in 1940, didn't end in Britain until 1954); his escapist writing is overburdened with references to food of all sorts, as well as rare wines, not to mention large stacks of cash. Don't forget Fleming also came up with the silly names for all the women, too. It is not hard to draw a conclusion about what Fleming was fixated on. As for "going back to using Fleming", I think if YOU do some homework you will see that the best Bond films were the one's that used as little as possible of Fleming's original text (this happened more and more towards his death, after which it was a lot easier).
The Bond franchise "lasted for 40 years up to that point" because it started with a fantastic actor (Sean Connery, STILL voted in the top couple of "World's Sexiest Men", it's no exaggeration to say that women want him and men (who watch Bond films) want to be him), followed by years of no competition.
Yeah, A View to a Kill and Octopussy are definitely showing how the Bond franchise is soooooooooooo much better than the Bourne franchise.
Do you know anything about film at all, or just what you read on the Bond fansite?