Kill Bill To Be Split Into 2 Films

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

From what I've seen of this movie I think it's gonna be cool, but not three hours of cool. That seems to be stretching it pretty thin. And I really just wanna go see a good QT movie. Not go see half of one.

What the fuck does that even mean?

 

I've read the script, and I thought it worked. If its gonna be 3 hours fine. But how can you look at advance matierials for the movie and go "This won't work as a 3 hour film"?

[Guest redbaron51]

Split into two?!!?

 

 

no....

[Guest Lethargic]

What the fuck does that even mean?

 

I've read the script, and I thought it worked. If its gonna be 3 hours fine. But how can you look at advance matierials for the movie and go "This won't work as a 3 hour film"?

Let me see, what the fuck did I mean.... Because that's the PURPOSE of advance materials? They put out things called trailers and they are supposed to give you an opinion on the movie before hand so you can decide if you want to see it or not. Looking at the trailer we've seen so far, it looks like it's nothing more than Tarantino taking "The Bride Wore Black" and putting wire fu in it. I don't think I need 3 hours plus to see Uma Thurman kung fu fighting and trying to find the people that murdered her husband. That plot smells like 1:45 at the max to me. From the footage I've seen and knowing Tarantino what I picture in my mind so far is a bunch of long drawn out witty dialogue then a kung fu fight, more long drawn out witty dialogue then a kung fu fight, more long drawn out witty dialogue then a kung fu fight. I love Tarantino's movies. But if any of them was over 3 hours long, I wouldn't watch the things cause you can only take so much of that style. Witty conversations about nothing to do with the plot are hilarious for an hour and half, they get old after 3 hours. Plus, I'm not sure Tarantino has it anymore after this long layoff. Judging from his interviews on the SE DVDs from a few months back, the guy's ego seems to be out of control as all he did was talk about what a film genius he is. So then after that, I see him making a 3 hour long kung fu revenge movie, that me gives me a bad feeling. "I'm Quentin F'n Tarantino, I can make any movie I want and I can make it 12 hours long and people will still love it cause I'm God of Hollywood. And hell, I think I'll split it into two movies cause these suckers will pay twice to see ONE of movies! Bwaaa ha ha ha ha! Oh, better yet, I'll write a novel that sets up the movie and so they'll have to buy my stupid novel in order to understand the movie and I'll make even more money! I AM A GENIUS!" Yeah, Tarantino has soured me a bit lately. The guy used to be so likable cause he was one of us. He was the guy who worked at the video store and lucked out. I see him today and that likable person seems to have been murdered by the ego maniac who likes to hang out at all the cool Hollywood parties and cast himself in movies to make himself a star. But I digress, the plot to this movie just doesn't sound like it needs to be stretched out to 3 hours. When the title of the movie explains the entire plot of the movie, that's pretty thin. The movie to me seems like it should just be a small tight, compact movie. Uma's husband gets killed, she hunts down Bill, she kills him. Movie's over. Shouldn't take 2 movies to accomplish that.

[PsychoDriver 0]

Ugh, Well that does it I won't go see it now.... Doesn't look good enough to go see in 2 parts.

 

Hope this doesn't mean they release the DVD in 2 parts as well.

[Guest Grand Slam]

I thought it looked pretty cool until this announcement. Basically it comes down to money.

 

I would have dropped $8.50 to see it. I would not pay $19.00 to see it when, if I really want to, I will be able to buy the DVD early next year for, like, $20.

 

Oh well, regardless if this was for artistic or economic reasons, they priced themselves right out of my range.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Watch out for Castelman who detect magically whther the concept of a film is good for its running time without actually seeing it!

[Guest Lethargic]

You really need to get laid, Zsasz. But grow up first.

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

A minute and thirty second trailers and a film title is usually all you need to form an opinion.

 

"It's called KILL BILL! Doesn't that sum it up? This should take no more than 8 minutes, people! Kill Bill, roll credits...obviously the plot is thin!" Hogwash.

 

This is why Castleman has a future as a movie reviewer and we don't.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

You really need to get laid, Zsasz. But grow up first.

Read: "You win, Zsasz."

[Guest Lethargic]

Why are there so many fucking idiots that can't understand that the concept of a trailer is for the viewer to form an opinion on the movie it's advertising? Is it really that hard to understand? It's a VERY simple concept. It's the entire purpose of a trailer.

 

I am not basing my opinion on running time based solely on the trailer. I'm basing it on EVERYTHING. From the trailer to interviews to the script to every bit of news that has ever come out about the movie and to Tarantino's previous movies and to my own personal taste that I don't want to see ANYTHING for over 3 hours.

 

Isn't this a movie forum? Isn't it? It says movies up there, I assumed that's what it was. Maybe I was wrong about that. Isn't around 75% of the discussions that go on here concerning upcoming movies that NOBODY HAS SEEN but everybody gives their impressions of them, if they will be good or not? How many Dawn of the Dead remake threads have we had where numerous people have proclaimed that they movie will suck while it's still in the WRITING stages? 4? 5? How many threads have been discussing the upcoming Batman movie where people automatically assume that if Ashton Kuchner got the role, that the movie would be terrible? 26? 43? If nobody should discuss their expectations for upcoming movies that we're all looking forward to, then what the hell is the purpose of this board?

 

Read: "You win, Zsasz."

 

No, read: You appear to be a very immature little prick that seems to have developed quite the hard on for me and enjoy to throw out lame insults at every opprotunity. I find it childish. You seem to be completely unable to possess any sort of intelligence or common sense about the things you try to discuss. I find you very entertaining.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Why are there so many fucking idiots that can't understand that the concept of a trailer is for the viewer to form an opinion on the movie it's advertising? Is it really that hard to understand? It's a VERY simple concept. It's the entire purpose of a trailer.

 

I am not basing my opinion on running time based solely on the trailer. I'm basing it on EVERYTHING. From the trailer to interviews to the script to every bit of news that has ever come out about the movie and to Tarantino's previous movies and to my own personal taste that I don't want to see ANYTHING for over 3 hours.

 

Isn't this a movie forum? Isn't it? It says movies up there, I assumed that's what it was. Maybe I was wrong about that. Isn't around 75% of the discussions that go on here concerning upcoming movies that NOBODY HAS SEEN but everybody gives their impressions of them, if they will be good or not? How many Dawn of the Dead remake threads have we had where numerous people have proclaimed that they movie will suck while it's still in the WRITING stages? 4? 5? How many threads have been discussing the upcoming Batman movie where people automatically assume that if Ashton Kuchner got the role, that the movie would be terrible? 26? 43? If nobody should discuss their expectations for upcoming movies that we're all looking forward to, then what the hell is the purpose of this board?

 

Read: "You win, Zsasz."

 

No, read: You appear to be a very immature little prick that seems to have developed quite the hard on for me and enjoy to throw out lame insults at every opprotunity. I find it childish. You seem to be completely unable to possess any sort of intelligence or common sense about the things you try to discuss. I find you very entertaining.

...

 

And *I* need to grow up? Ooooooookay.

[Guest godthedog]

dude, don't just say that. he's winning the argument, if you want to win you have to refute his points.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

dude, don't just say that. he's winning the argument, if you want to win you have to refute his points.

*Sigh*

 

Fine.

 

 

1. No, unless you have seen the film itself you have really no bearing to criticize it's tempo, pace, or length. No one gets any indication of those things from a trailer. PERIOD.

 

2. A trailer is designed to raise awareness about a film, not so you can form opinions about it with minimal knowledge. You just sound like the presumptous jackass you are, ok?

 

3. If you have a line of reasoning that leads you to believe this film isn't going to work at it's present length, then spit it out. Don't make statements out your asshole.

 

4. The Good The Bad and The Ugly was 3 Hours, why can't this be?

[Guest godthedog]

he already explained that he wasn't just going on the trailer, and he gave his line of reasoning:

 

I am not basing my opinion on running time based solely on the trailer. I'm basing it on EVERYTHING. From the trailer to interviews to the script to every bit of news that has ever come out about the movie and to Tarantino's previous movies and to my own personal taste that I don't want to see ANYTHING for over 3 hours.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

he already explained that he wasn't just going on the trailer, and he gave his line of reasoning:

 

I am not basing my opinion on running time based solely on the trailer. I'm basing it on EVERYTHING. From the trailer to interviews to the script to every bit of news that has ever come out about the movie and to Tarantino's previous movies and to my own personal taste that I don't want to see ANYTHING for over 3 hours.

And I'm saying this, that still doesn't help because what's on the printed page doesn't always translate exactly to the screen the same way. Unless he's seen a rough cut... I DON'T GIVE A DAMN.

[Guest Lethargic]

So you have NEVER seen a trailer and thought "that looks good, I think I'll see it" or "that doesn't look very good, I think I'll pass"? You just blindly go see every movie that comes out?

 

I have already laid out why I don't think it should be this long. Just like every other discussion that involves you, you ignore what the other person said and then just make up stuff to respond to. I never said anything about tempo or pace or even the quality of the movie. I never said it would be a BAD movie if it's 3 hours long. I don't know if it's good or bad or not. My feeling is that it will be very good, but I am just expressing reservations about the length and the two flims in one deal. This movie being so long gives me cause for concern. Everything we know about this movie says that it is a kung fu driven revenge movie. It's NOT Dr Zhivago. I do have questions about the length and if it really needs to be three hours. Three hours of wire kung fu and dialogue about Royales with cheese will get old but I HOPE it doesn't. My motto is always hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

 

Though, I will say that this has brought me to the conclusion that breaking it up is a pretty damn good idea for me. Because if the movie HAS to be three hours long, at least this keeps it from seeming that way. I just can't stand sitting there for 3 hours just staring at a screen except on the rare occasion.

 

I have never watched the Good, Bad and the Ugly BECAUSE it's 3 hours long.

 

And I'm saying this, that still doesn't help because what's on the printed page doesn't always translate exactly to the screen the same way. Unless he's seen a rough cut... I DON'T GIVE A DAMN.

 

If you don't give a damn, why are we having this argument?

[Guest DrTom]

You kids should get a room. It's called NHB.

 

Make love, not war.

[Guest godthedog]

?

 

i didn't expect dr tom of all people to do that.

[Guest DrTom]

I don't mind people having heated exchanges, but after seeing it spread into two threads, I figured a helpful reminder about NHB was in order.

[Guest notJames]

I think it's a big mistake cutting Kill Bill into 2 separate movies. Pulp Fiction was a smidge over 2 1/2 hours, and I could have easily watched another 30 minutes. Plus, this movie is likely to have much more action sequences in it than Pulp, and besides, QT's dialogue is more than adequate to keep the movie rolling at an even and entertaining pace.

 

If this is all a ploy just to bilk the viewing public of an extra $9.50, I'll just wait until the DVD comes out. And those cockbites at Miramax can go piss up a rope for all I care.

[Guest godthedog]

a) 'pulp fiction' was too long. i love that movie to death, but it had some pacing problems, & some of it should either have been shot more expediently or left on the cutting room floor.

 

b) more action is not the answer. too much action for 3 hours gets grating and redundant. and after a while, cute dialogue is only as good as the characters who are speaking it and the novelty wears off; i would never be able to sit through 3 hours of nothing but action sequences and quotable lines. character is probably the single best thing to keep an audience's attention (think 'lawrence of arabia', 'schindler's list', 'godfather'), and kung fu movies traditionally don't really give a damn about character. tarantino's pretty good with character, but mostly it's only in that superficial "cool" kind of way; and i haven't read the script, but i don't see him going out of his way to twist the kung fu genre into something that will flesh out characters more.

[Guest notJames]

If he wrote a script that necessitated three hours of screen time, I would bet that QT would have to flesh out his characters in order for the film to be worthwhile.

 

And I'm not saying that more action sequences is the way to go. But if Pulp went on for 2 1/2 hours with as little action as it did (and for the record, I personally thought the movie flowed all right), then a kung fu homage is more than likely to have a decent amount of action while maintaining that QT level of dialogue heaviness, which I'm more than partial to when it comes to full-length features.

 

Mind you, I'm not basing this on anything but faith that this movie will live up to what I've seen from QT so far. If it falls short, I'll be the first to admit it. 'Til then, hope springs eternal.