Guest Lethargic Report post Posted January 3, 2003 http://www.apple.com/trailers/miramax/kill_bill/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest godthedog Report post Posted January 3, 2003 i saw the trailer when i went to see 'gangs of new york', and it looks like a piece of shit. it looks exactly like every 'charlie's angels' fighting grrl wannabe action flick, with no characters of any interest. and there's almost no dialogue in the trailer. how the fuck do you sell a quentin tarantino movie without dialogue? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lethargic Report post Posted January 3, 2003 By having Uma run up a rail with a sword is how. It's just a teaser. The dialogue will be in the real trailer. But if it's anything remotely like Charlie's Angels. I'm there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest red_file Report post Posted January 3, 2003 It looks like it'll be pretty good, but I can't help but wonder what the backlash against it is going to be like. Violence typically happened offscreen in previous Tarantino movies, and when it did happen on screen it was usually quick and brutal. Now it seems as though he's made a movie in which the violence is romanticised as in a Kung Fu movie. I'm sure that will lead people to claim that the story/dialogue isn't up to snuff and that's why the extra violence was brought in. I'm interested, though I'm really wary about Uma; not the sharpest actress I've ever seen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Bruiser Chong Report post Posted January 3, 2003 I don't think the teaser looked too bad, as I'm sure the action scenes aren't going to be what the movie is centered around, although it does look like action will be a stronger element here than in Tarantino's previous films. I won't pass any strong judgments yet, until I actually see the movie and I think it'll be worth it. Not to say it looks like his best movie or anything, but we've just seen a teaser. You won't even get a strong idea of what the movie's all about until you see a full trailer. We just saw all the action stuff cause that's what's needed to pull in an audience in these times. As much as we may like it, you won't be able to pull in massive crowds with a teaser or even a trailer full of witty banter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted January 3, 2003 Even if it does come out to just be Quentin Tarantino's version of Charlie's Angels. . . . . . it's stil QUENTIN TARANTINO's Charlie's Angels. Even if it does turn out to be lacking otherwise, it looks like something I'd go see just to have some buds and some popcorn and see some nifty swordfighting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest C.H.U.D. Report post Posted January 3, 2003 Holy shit, it looks amazing. I was hyped up regardless because of the awesome casting (David Carradine & Sonny Chiba!), but now that I have seen the teaser, Kill Bill moves to the top of my most anticipated movies of 2003 list. I'll be in line first day! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted January 3, 2003 It looks like it'll be pretty good, but I can't help but wonder what the backlash against it is going to be like. Violence typically happened offscreen in previous Tarantino movies, and when it did happen on screen it was usually quick and brutal. Now it seems as though he's made a movie in which the violence is romanticised as in a Kung Fu movie. I'm sure that will lead people to claim that the story/dialogue isn't up to snuff and that's why the extra violence was brought in. I'm interested, though I'm really wary about Uma; not the sharpest actress I've ever seen. Having read the script, let me tell you that this film is the most violent film released by a major Amreican studio since nHannibal. BAR NONE. Oh, and no offense to anyone but if you think this is a rip-off of Charlie's Angels then you are a fucking moron. This is QT's tribute to Swordsman Kung-Fu films, just as Resevoir Dogs was his tribute to heist films, and Jackie Brown was his tribute to Blaxploitation. QT wrote this script before Charlie's Angels came out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lethargic Report post Posted January 3, 2003 I'm so damn tempted to read that script now. But I really don't want to ruin the movie. But it's just sitting there begging me to read it. Damn it to hell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted January 3, 2003 I'm so damn tempted to read that script now. But I really don't want to ruin the movie. But it's just sitting there begging me to read it. Damn it to hell. If it helps, this film is one that you will be able to discern most of the plot from the 1st 5 minutes. This isn't a suprise film with a shock ending. It's a revenge film, in every revenge film ever made, the lead character gets revenge. The Bride will get revenge on Bill. That's not a spoiler, you ALREADY KNOW THAT COMING IN. I won't say anymore about the finale, but still you know what this will be like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest dreamer420 Report post Posted January 4, 2003 I'll be there opening night. That teaser (which is the key word there as that is all it was) got me psyched to see it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lord of The Curry Report post Posted January 4, 2003 The script better be nothing short of amazing, because the trailer is absolute shit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest red_file Report post Posted January 4, 2003 Oh, and no offense to anyone but if you think this is a rip-off of Charlie's Angels then you are a fucking moron. This is QT's tribute to Swordsman Kung-Fu films, just as Resevoir Dogs was his tribute to heist films, and Jackie Brown was his tribute to Blaxploitation. QT wrote this script before Charlie's Angels came out. And while at that is correct, the fact remains that the movie will come out in a post-Matrix/Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon/Charlie's Angels world, and I'm willing to bet that the image that will produce is that Tarantino is merely playing to the current public tastes rather than him doing it for other reasons. Not to mention that when a director follows up a flop (which, even though it was a pretty good movie, Jackie Brown must qualify as a flop considering expectations following Pulp Fiction) with a movie that drastically changes his style (which is seems as though Tarantino is doing with this film) there usually is a backlash against said director for (forgive the snobbish term) "selling out." Will the backlash be justified? Probably not, but that's never mattered before. I don't know. The movie will more than likely be very good-to-great. I'm looking forward to seeing it, but I'm really dreading reading the response to it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted January 4, 2003 I don't think it will be a Charlie's Angels ripoff. I was just pointing out that even if it were, it's still Quentin Tarantino doing the ripping. I'd go see it just for that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest PORNFAQ Report post Posted January 4, 2003 Oh, and no offense to anyone but if you think this is a rip-off of Charlie's Angels then you are a fucking moron. This is QT's tribute to Swordsman Kung-Fu films, just as Resevoir Dogs was his tribute to heist films, and Jackie Brown was his tribute to Blaxploitation. QT wrote this script before Charlie's Angels came out. Just like in the Martial Arts thread, I'm with Mr. Zsasz. Go see KILL BILL and go see it now. I'd also like invite Mr. Zsasz to my place; you'd be a welcome addition. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest C.H.U.D. Report post Posted January 5, 2003 It looks nothing like Charlies Angel's. Give me a break. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest PORNFAQ Report post Posted January 5, 2003 Oh, no on the contrary Mr. Cinematic Happenings Under Development....it features a female doing martial arts so AUTOMATICALLY it IS a Charlie's Angels (off all things!) rip-off. //sarcasm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest red_file Report post Posted January 5, 2003 It features a female doing wire assisted martial arts to a techno-ish soundtrack, features one of the stars of Charlie's Angels, and seems to have some small degree of camp (if one were to view the masked men as such). While it's clear the movies will be vastly different, it's almost a certainty that many people will notice the passing resemblance between the two and make a judgement based on that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest godthedog Report post Posted January 5, 2003 chicks fighting + no dialogue + rapid fire editing + loud music + tv commercial lighting = looking like 'charlie's angels'. i never said the movie definitely WAS a ripoff of 'charlie's angels'. i said that's what the trailer looks like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest dreamer420 Report post Posted January 5, 2003 Grab a clue. There is no chance in hell Quentin Tarantino is going to make a Charlie's Angels ripoff. If any of you are actually fans of him like I am you should know that he had a wicked love for kung fu movies and this is his big kung ku movie. Just because there is a hot chick kicking ass in it doesn't mean that it is a CA ripoff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest godthedog Report post Posted January 5, 2003 Grab a clue. There is no chance in hell Quentin Tarantino is going to make a Charlie's Angels ripoff. If any of you are actually fans of him like I am you should know that he had a wicked love for kung fu movies and this is his big kung ku movie. Just because there is a hot chick kicking ass in it doesn't mean that it is a CA ripoff. christ... as i said before: i never said the movie WAS a ripoff of 'charlie's angels'. i said that's what the trailer looks like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest PORNFAQ Report post Posted January 5, 2003 Um...most trailers look alike (fighting + no dialogue + rapid fire editing + loud music + tv commercial lighting)and give exactly ZERO indication of what the movie itself will be like. A poorly edited trailer have made many a good movie look bad and vice versa. And many a director have said so. A trailer can make or break a movie, since it is usually the audiences first look at a film, but it doesn't really speak for how the entire movie will be. I can name a MILLION bad trailers for good movies and good trailers for bad movies. And I don't see where the KILL BILL trailer looks at all like Charlie's Angels. (and there is some dialogue at the end of this teasesr) On top of that, it's just a TEASER...most teaser's don't have dialogue and I don't see where that's a big deal. The loud music...another thing I don't get. What trailers for an ACTION movie DON'T have loud music nowadays? Same goes for the MTV-style editing...that's for the trailer, not the movie. Just because the trailer was cut this way (and most action movie trailers are) doesn't mean the movie will be done in the same fashion. Most directors don't cut their own trailers, some hack at the studio does, which explains why they all have the same look and feel. QT has never edited this way so I doubt he'll start now. You can't make a comparison of this movie and another by how the TEASER TRAILER is edited. I used to think godthedog knew what the fuck he was talking about concerning movies, but the more he opens his mouth, the more I see that I was wrong. Shut up until you either a.) read the screenplay or b.) see the movie. Rest assured, having read it already, trust me, it's NOTHING like Charlie's Angels (just like the Angels movies was NOTHING like the TV show). P.S. The majority of the teaser is from ONE part of the movie and isn't indicative of the whole. This is QT's homage to martial arts/italian horror & gore/spaghetti western movies; three things that Charlies Angels couldn't hope to accomplish EVEN with an A-list director like QT at the helm. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest red_file Report post Posted January 6, 2003 I'm curious as to why you're confusing a comment on the aesthetic similarities between the teaser and the other movie mentioned with a qualitative judgement on the movies beyond said aesthetic similarities, and why the confusion is raising such ire. Saying one movie seems to have a similar look as another does not imply a judgement that the two are in any other way similar. No such judgement was made, so I'm at a loss as to why this is seeming a larger issue than it really is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Crucifixio Jones Report post Posted January 7, 2003 And I'm confused by the wording of your ENTIRE question...or was it even a question? It's not a large issue. It just seems that some wanna make snap judgements as to what KILL BILL is gonna be like based on the way that the TRAILER is cut. The way that the trailer is edited has ZERO to do with the movie, so how and why people wanna compare KILL BILL to another movie is beyond me. Right now, they simply CAN'T. Not based on seeing just a trailer. Read the screenplay and you'll EASILY see that there IS NO COMPARISON. The movie doesn't have a similar look to Charlie's Angels. The trailers bear a resemblance but that's only because EVERY trailer bears a resemblance to another one in 2003. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest red_file Report post Posted January 7, 2003 And I'm confused by the wording of your ENTIRE question...or was it even a question? More an implied question within a statement. I'll try to use simpler words; I'd forgotten where I was. It just seems that some wanna make snap judgements as to what KILL BILL is gonna be like based on the way that the TRAILER is cut. Again, those who mentioned Charlie's Angels did not say that they believed Kill Bill would be like it. They said that the appearance of the scenes showed resembled scenes in Charlie's Angels. I commented that I believed this passing resemblance might cause an unfavorable backlash against the movie before it even comes out. Somehow these statements were interpreted as people saying they believed Tarantino either (i) ripped off Charlie's Angels, or (ii) made a movie that had more in common with Charlie's Angels than simply in appearance. Since no one explicitly said, "Tarantino is ripping off Charlie's Angels," I was just curious as to why people had decided to defend the movie against the slight. An extension of that curiosity was a question of why people seemed angry about this, as if they had a vested interest in the trailer being viewed in a particular way. Read the screenplay and you'll EASILY see that there IS NO COMPARISON. The movie doesn't have a similar look to Charlie's Angels. I read the screenplay, and I can still see where some sequences might have a similar look to Charlie's Angels, other sequences bear to resemblance. Still, what was under discussion was the teaser, not the screenplay. The trailers bear a resemblance but that's only because EVERY trailer bears a resemblance to another one in 2003. Go to the trailers section of the apple website and view some trailers at random. There are many different ways to put together a trailer. Some resemble each other, others do not. Not even all of the action trailers are alike. To say that there are visual similarities between the two mentioned films simply because the trailers were produced in the same year would seem to be incorrect. Again, no one is saying that the films have anything in common other than a few visual similarities. Saying that makes no judgement on quality; it's like saying that Death Machine was visually similar to The Terminator. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest C.H.U.D. Report post Posted January 8, 2003 it's like saying that Death Machine was visually similar to The Terminator. Hey, Death Machine rules! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
