Brosnon has expressed this sentiment elsewhere - he also wants, if I remember correctly, a Scorcese Bond.

Brosnan also wants to shed his Bond skin so that he wont be type-casted or trapped in a role for life. He sure is chosing wisely with such features as The Tailor of Panama and The Thomas Crown Affair.

We'll see what comes of it. Of course Brosnan has always said that the last Bond movie he does that he wants the character of Bond to die.

Tarantino would bring a fresh feel to the series and by killing his Bond wouldn't get stuck into people demanding that he do another.

Course if QT directs he could probably get Uma to be a Bond Girl.

I don't know how I feel about a Tarantino Bond, but the series really does need new life. It's a wonder the franchise ever survived the Indiana Jones films, and while I'm not a great fan of Goldeneye, at least they were trying something different.

The thing I like about old Bond films, a style I wish they would get back to in some respect, is the feeling that James Bond was a solid human being. When he jumped and grabbed onto a ledge, it looked like acrobatics, not a stunt. Like something you could do if you got yourself in shape. Now the name "James Bond" stands not for a person, but a megaproduction. I miss the Bond I could see myself being.

I hate Bond movies these days. They're formulaic and hackneyed. The Tarantino idea is great.

bad idea. just awful.

Yeah.. we need another Dr. No. Something more down to earth but still bad-ass. Or even one like Live and Let Die is scaling it back a lot. Bond (I just typed "Bong" by accident) wasn't even in the teaser. It actually had something to do with the movie. But how do you go back to that without alienating the "megaproduction" Bond fans who will probably say "Its not exciting enough."

Hm. Now, I'm a huge Tarentino fan, but I'm not quite sure I can see this one.

To me, Bond has always been the essence of smooth - the true bond was Connery's Bond, the man who told a security guard a cigar case was a motion-activated bomb. Again, Jeff hit it on the head - Bond was a 'real' person, not the superhero-esque action figures in most movies.

Tarentino is a great many things, but Smooth is not one of them. He's known for gritty, bloody, dramatic films that are great on many levels, and not a single bit like a Bond film.

I agree the Bond franchise has gone to hell recently (Halle Berry? are you fucking kidding me?) but I don't think Tarentino is the answer. James Bond was always the guy who relied on his wit and balls the size of cantalopes to get the mission done, but the recent movies have had him taking pages from Arnold's book to get things done, which is simply not Bond, but I can't see Tarentino being the one to revive the true Bond style. *shrug*

My .02...

They need something. Bond films are not what they used to be.

You mean...they need something the old movies had? Personally I really miss the parts where Bond would smack a random girl's ass...The new movies don't have that.

And that's sad.

Tarentino is a copy cat.. it would most likely be BOND being in the BABY CART SERIES mixed with some other piss poor copy cat bullshit.. and i second bond isnt bond anymore, i want to see him use someone pretty as a human shield....

i can't see a tarantino bond at all.

you know we brittish call them fish and chips but the dutch, they call them vis en patat.
can you imagine bond saying Fuck every few words?

The next Bond should be Samuel L. Jackson.

Bond? James Bond?
Ya daaamn right.

i don't get what these people are thinking past as far as i can spit. KILL BOND ARE YOU MAD? (well hell with the more recent films youve more than done that... *shrug grumble* I like them but they arent as good as the old what we need is something thats superheroesque like the old bond (human element) but still action packed with hot girls (im sorry halle but you wouldnt have ever made my cut) qt as a director. no. just hell no. scorsece, perhaps, francis ford, definite maybe.
*shrugs* maybe im missing the point here but Bond has no need to die i want to see another generation of bond films, and perhaps with a better bond (not that pierce is bad, that honor goes to dalton as the worst ever thus so far, moore is a paltry second... still was WAY better)
im thinking it has to do with both casting and direction of the films, in a microcosmic example take batman. the first was great, and so was the first batman but they changed him every damned movie. now kilmer was great as the playboy but he seemed like a whiny brat and was a horrid batman. clooney was great as a brooding dark figure, but hardly had the real playboy rich man element down at all. and the other guy.... geesh dont get me started .... just dont (micheal keaton was best) i think the same thing might be going on here. also something about the gadgets (i miss q but it cant be helped and they have a worthy replacement) more umph less sparkle if you catch my meaning.

yes i talk too much. im also a james bond freak

A Tarentino directed Casino Royale sounds too much like Battle Royale to me.
I like Tarentino (and Battle Royale) but they are not Bond.
Bond in the books was supposed to be completely believeable as a suave English gent. Even Sean Connery was too gritty. But the films have gone way beyond the books now anyway.
Having Tarentino direct is just taking it further and further away from Bond was supposed to be.