The trouble is Fleming's Bond and the cinematic Bond who has evolved over 40+ years are completely different animals. And if they were being that faithful Bond wouldn't have killed anyone in Casino Royale rather than the 152 people he did kill (approx
My views on Casino Royale haven't much changed since I first saw it. I love it, but it's incredibly flawed. Still there was humour, there was some style, but as with the OP I'm not sure I want Bond to, in effect, be some american style action hero.
Taking away Moneypenny, Q, gadgets, humour, the Bond theme etc...at some point you have to ask yourself at what point a Bond film ceases to be a Bond film?
The serious gritty tone won't be permanant, already given the reviews of QOS people are starting to ask 'would it hurt to have a few jokes?' Bond has always evolved. It only really led the way in the sixties. After this it's always shifted to fit the times. See how Roger Moore uses a .44 magnum in Live and Let Die, just after Dirty Harry came out, and its no conincidence that Moonraker was the next film to come out after the success of Star Wars. Similarly Licence to Kill feels very much like a Die Hard/Lethal Weapon style action film of the times. Now we have Bond trying to be Bourne (God knows why as the Bourne films are terrible)
So the Fleming snobs better enjoy their literary Bond while they can (although in truth Daniel Craig still doesn't fit the criteria if you ask me) because I'd near as damn it gaurentee that, eventually, the quips will be back, Moneypenny will be back, and the fun will be back.
Having said all that, Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond, the best thing about CR by a mile, and he's actually capable of playing humour quite well.