There are serious problems with the basic premises of the Bond franchise, and these problems can't be simply jettisoned. Bond can't cease to have access to stupid-level luxury and money in a world of scarcity. Bond can't cease to objectify women. Bond can't develop emotional maturity. He can't be anything but a semi-psychopathic assassin. I watched an interview last night with the screen writers: two intelligent men, who understood the problem of Bond, and IMHO solved it. They couldn't make Bond a sane and balanced person, so they have balanced him within the film, and made it clear what he is.
For example the stupid level of resources that the British government throws around is balanced with two early scenes in the third world, which contextualises the money, and the violence which flows from the money, in a framework of global poverty and desperation.
Bond does not cease to objectify others, particularly women, but this is balanced by the film (and the women) objectifying him. Fetishising him, in fact. I'll give you an example. Near the start of the film we see two beautiful women, molls of the two main baddies, presented in an objectifying way (one emerging from the sea in classic Bond-girl fashion). A guy a couple of seats back from me gave out a humorous wolf-whistle at each girl, to a ripple of knowing laughter. A bit further into the film we see Craig putting on a tuxedo, and admiring himself in the mirror - an absolutely stunning sight. After a short pause the guy behind me gave an even louder wolf whistle, and the whole place burst into laughter. Yes. We had got the point.
A little later Bond needs an alibi to leave the poker game for a few minutes. He whispers to the female agent that they have to pretend to go to the bedroom together, and then leaning back from her he says in a pretend-shocked voice 'You want to do what to me?' and leaves on her arm. I think this was in a sense a key message of the whole film: You want to do what to me? You want to objectify me how? You want to impose what suffering on me? Craig is a very clever actor, and he goes through several levels of Bond-ism - clever child, thug, adult man, urbane devil, and also sex object.
This however is what made one scene impossible for me - I sat with my eyes closed and my fingers in my ears. After sexualising and objectifying Bond, he is stripped naked and tortured in a sexual way. I hated it. The run-up to this made us as audience complicit in the torture, because 'You want to do what to me?' You want to objectify him? Well objectify this. In the documentary I saw Daniel Craig was literally writhing about in his seat as he talked about this scene. He said - I know I wasn't in pain, and it still upset me to watch it.
The original genital torture scene as written by Fleming is extremely problematic, sadistic and offensive. But then torture is sadistic and offensive, and I think it was better to present it as utterly sick and useless than to try and excuse or soften it. Despite that intellectual justification, if anything puts me off going to see the film again it is the thought of sitting through that.