James Bond

As I reflect more on Spectre, I realize that we really have lost James Bond in the recent progression of the Bond franchise. What makes Spectre a Bond movie?-- what does it have in common with its predecessors that it doesn't have in common with other action films? Is it any more than just a good lone-standing action film?
What defines the franchise is nothing but the character of James Bond. The action, intelligence, terrorism, sex, cars..... These things occur in other franchises, from Mission Impossible to Fast & Furious. The Bond series should not be defined by simply making a decent line of action films-- a film in the series should be created around the center of the franchise's individuality, which is only the titular character. The reason the series caught fire upon conception is because the lead character was cool and charismatic in addition to his unparalleled skill. He has cool cars, he gets women, he has suave little quirks like the martini preference. He is classy, yet can manhandle a fight. These are the entire identity of the James Bond franchise. Without these, or even with a different focus, a film doesn't deserve the co-title 007. Hopefully it is apparent to the reader by now that Spectre fails to uphold what defines its franchise. Surely it has some of the characteristics, but did anyone feel that the throwback epilogue felt surprising? Not necessarily unexpected, but somehow a big leap in tone from what had happened before? Indeed, the James Bond movies are shifting their focus away from their important nature, and becoming not much more than good action films. I'm not saying that with the right focus they would instantly be great action films, but I'm saying that of all the things that Skyfall and Spectre are, the primary one is "good action film", as opposed to "Bond film".
This is a problem because I am not very interested in action films in general. I want James Bond. If I wanted nothing but a good action film, I would watch the last three Mission Impossible's in a row. Those are not really a franchise. I want James Bond, I want to feel Casino Royale in the blood of the film, I want the blood of Spectre to be saturated with everything classic we got from that earlier film. Unfortunately this is not the case, so Spectre is a good action film and somewhat Bond-y, but not more.

So what I said is that I want the focus to be on the character of James Bond. My argument is that the focus in Spectre is on what differentiates this film from earlier Bond films, namely the villainy and, to a lesser extent, the girl. They attempted to make the most epic villain ever, and not only did they fall short, they also lost sight of the franchise, to a degree, in the process. Certainly each Bond film must be different, but the differences should all be orbiting the lead character, who is a beautiful piece of work. A new, intriguing Bond girl and new, intriguing Bond villain should at most hit the same level of priority as James himself. They cannot go above. I feel that, in Spectre, the villain and the plot took center stage, with the writers trying to make everything more epic than ever. James was merely our vessel to this convoluted plot-logic, a first-person to take us to what was trying to be the greatest action film ever, whereas James should have been the entire heart and soul of the film, with the other stuff as just intrigue.