We should judge a Bond by his baddies.
Daniel Craig's Bond went up against the best, most elaborate villains.
After Pierce Brosnan’s poor showing in Die Another Day, Bond was on shaky ground. The character didn't appeal to modern viewers. The wildly fantastic element was too unbelievable for modern viewers to relate to.
Craig rejuvenated the franchise. He took the character away from Pierce Brosnan’s unbelievable, glossy spy, (with shoddy CGI) and gave it a vulnerable, gritty side for the modern viewer. He gave the character more realism because let’s face it, if you had spent your career having empty sex and killing people, you might be a little jaded and vulnerable. Roger Moore famously told Time magazine that he believes Craig’s portrayal of 007 has ensured another 50 years of Bond movies. 
But Craig's modern Bond goes against the spirit of James Bond. He is not supposed to be dark, vulnerable, and broody. He is supposed to be witty, humorous, and refined. The producers and writers even seemed to detect this. In Craig’s most recent outing as Bond, in Spectre, writers try to return to the original spirit of Bond. There is a villainous henchman, new innovative gadgets, gags, humour, one-liners, and a car chase. 
Enter the framing of the argument here ...
[P1] Daniel Craig made the character more believable and modern. [P2] He saved the franchise. [P3] He is the best Bond.
[Rejecting P1] Bond is not meant to be believable or modern.
Enter more information about the argument here ...