Will be looking forward to seeing Skyfall when it comes out, though I may end up just waiting for the blu-ray release and just watching it at home. I don't "hate", per se, DC as James Bond, but it's taking some getting used to.
I grew up in the 1980's and I remember seeing some Roger Moore Bond films on TV and he is who I first saw as Bond. But I wasn't really big into the series until I got into college. Opening night at college they showed Tomorrow Never Dies on a screen out on the campus green as part of the "get to know your freshmen brethen" night. So I have some other reasons why I liked that movie.
But in college I really played the N64 game "Goldeneye" and watched the movie shortly thereafter. I loved it. A friend down the hall had a complete collection of the Bond movies on VHS so over a long week/weekend I watched them all in order. It was great. I fell in love with the series at that point and have been in love with it ever since.
For some reason, there's just a formulaic pattern to Bond movies that I liked and pretty much came to expect. Outlandish plot devices, the opening introduction, the credit scroll with the title music and silloutted naked women, the bond girl, the henchman, the quips and gadgets, and the out of this world conclusion. Yes, some of the movies were really, REALLY bad and even made me cringe a bit. (Moonraker, Diamonds Are Forever, A View To A Kill are three that instantly come to mind). But most of the movies were really great films.
I didn't get a chance to read the actual books until many years later and was kind of stunned at how they were really very different from the movies based upon them. They were okay (the novels), but wasn't what I was expecting. I guess it kind of shows that the James Bond films have deviated from the books for so long and in so many ways that they are two distinctly different things, and in my opinion, they really should stay that way.
I don't want the Bond movies to go back to the hideous Roger Moore style bad jokes/puns and fully unbelievable plot devices, but at the same time I also don't want them to become just another Bourne movie. If I want to watch a Bourne movie, I'll go watch one of those. When I want to watch a James Bond movie, I am expecting some fun action scenes, beautiful women, and the formula that I have really come to expect.
The DC movies, thus far, aren't bad in any way whatsoever. They are still keeping in much of the "formula" for the Bond series of film (I still am in love with Eva Green from CR), but have been able to move beyond the horrible films that ended Brosnan's career as James Bond.
Each of the Brosnan era films just seemed to get worse and worse, and in the last couple, were just beyond horrible. Goldeneye was great as it came out after a long hiatus and introduced a post cold-war era Bond. I enjoyed all aspects of that movie and liked how Brosnan seemed to combine the good aspects of all prior Bond actors before him. The story was also very well done and nothing stood out to me as "oh good god that is not possible." TND did seem to suffer a bit in terms of the qualtiy, but not by a whole lot. I really didn't like the Jackie Chan style aspect of the film as again, if I wanted to watch a kung-fu movie I'd go and do that. It seemed a bit "forced" to me. But I liked the plot device of it and the way the story was told.
The World Is Not Enough has soooooooooooo much potential and could have really been a great film if they didn't severely screw it up with some of the casting and the science in it. I am a man of science. I know a great deal about nuclear reactors, nuclear material, chemistry, physics, etc. So much of the movie just made me cringe horribly with regards to the nuclear material aspect of it. Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist COMPLETELY ruined the movie above anything else. That was completely not believable in any way. Lines referring to the nuclear "pit" where they are removing the tritium cores being "safe" is laughable. Sure, there isn't also lethal levels of gamma rays floating around here so you're safe with all the tritium taking out. Just ignore the plutonium. Another disgustingly bad part is when Renard brings the half core of plutonium into the tower and says "touch it. touch your destiny." A lump of plutonium that big would be so unbeliveably hot from the natural radioactive decay of it that both Renards and her hand would have burned severely. The final cap of the film was when they had a final battle inside a RUNNING NUCLEAR REACTOR CORE!!!!!!! The whole "It's safe as long as the coolant doesn't blow" line just had me shaking my head. That, and the henchman just running around with the plutonium in their hands while the core is running to power the sub. I have just not been able to watch that in any way. Yes, many Bond plot devices are laughably impossible (the gravity device in Moonraker), but it doesn't play into so much of the movie. TWINE just went too far. Such a shame as it could have been a really great movie if a different actress was cast and if they pulled out the stupid nuclear "laughers."
I'd discuss Die Another Day, but that is perhaps the very worst movie in the history of James Bond. It's battling A View To A Kill for the title of most horrific movie. (AVTAK just was bad due to the script, the character of MayDay, and the fact that Roger Moore looked like he needed Geritol and a Wheelchair in each scene). There is nothing redeeming about DAD at all. Not even the Bond girl (Halle Berry) as she just seemed to be forced into the movie so they could say "Hey, we got a widely known hot chick in here." I liked the use of either minimally known, or really unknown hot chicks as the Bond Girls.
So I'll likely watch Skyfall with a somewhat open mind as I know that it is a James Bond movie and will likely have a bit of the formula that I've come to know and love, and at the same time know that it won't be a self-deprecating Bond movie like most Roger Moore era Bond movies or the last couple Brosnan movies.