I marathoned the Bond films years ago, and what really struck me was the Bond film transition. In the early films, he relies heavily on the arency network, frequently with other agents bailing him out. He’s not so much a super-spy, as he is a good field agent with an excellent support network. Over the course of the generations, he becomes more of a one-man army, culminating (in my mind) with Bond driving a tank through the streets of Moscow. Casino Royal helped bring that back a bit, but by then it was too late, and the enornous success of The Bourne Identity pretty much cemented the army-of-one tone.

I think GP misses the point: they’re comparing Bond to Bourne. Bond was not originally an “off-the-grid” assassin. He was a field agent, working with local resources to gather intel. Heck, even the climaxes were usually a coordinated assault with friendly troops; it just happens Bond gets to always fight and finish the bad guy, a satisfying conceit - but it was never Bond storming the stronghold and single-handedly defeating an army.