Kill Bill two movies??? What the...

[mruzick3]

FUCK?!?

Well, now I'm just pissed. I can deal with Lucas'
ego, crappy action movies made by inept video directors, and the
constant swill that is mainstream TV, but please tell Tarantino to stop whatever he thinks he's doing. Man...do you remember when you saw Pulp Fiction for the first time? I saw it at Universal City Walk (cheesy I know) on the opening night in a medium sized theatre that was packed to the gills. I loved that experience and repeated it eight times after that. It was a whole movie...no gimmicks...no come-ons...no bullshit. From start to finish the audience was riveted, entertained, AND laughed
at every appropriate part. What was really great was the fact that it (the movie and the theatre I watched it in) was in Hollywood, that I had lived in Southern California all my life and was in a room full of people who were living (in some way or another) in Southern California and got every reference from "...man Marselus don't got no partners in 8-1-8" to "....move out of the sticks fellas" to even the stupid Bannana Slug shirt (okay that's Northern California, but I went to school there so sue me.)

Now, Tarantino and (maybe mostly) Weinstien wants to break up that continious and amazing feeling of watching a good crime movie by a director who knows how to write good dialog to last two to three hours and sell it out to a gimmick?! Even if it is consistent with old comic serials in the historic sense, I believe that a film should be enjoyed from start to finish without having to wait until the...huh?!...gasp!...second part. Geez! I don't think it will work for the same reason why guys can wait to go to the bathroom even during the worst movies and why laser discs never made it past the late 90's. I am looking forward to this film and hope I can stand to be interrupted at the end to...huh?!...gasp!....PAY for the second part in WHAT?!
three more weeks?? Has Tarantino jumped the shark on this one?

to be continued... (play lame 'cheers' theme here)

------------------------
Mike Ruzicka

[Rory L. Aronsky]

Well, it was either have "Kill Bill" this way or have Tarantino cut many parts out of the film to relieve it of its 180 minute running time, which Weinstein didn't want. All things considered, I think Tarantino made the right move.

I think it'll work.

[mruzick3]

You know....180 minutes is really not that bad. The way it's being presented in the press you'd think the movie is just unbearably long. But think about it...how many movies have you sat through that were pushing the three hour mark.

Malcom X was an incredible movie and I found myself enthralled from start to finish.

Wyatt Earp was a little less than riveting, however, I respected the attention to detail that a film like Tombstone thought of as boring.

Everytime there is a revival of Godfather's I & II you know everyone is going to be firmly planted in their seats through the entire length.

I just don't like the way that Weinstien is presenting this potential masterpiece of martial arts and Tarantino dialog. In my opinion, he gives less credit to the film fan that wants to see an entire movie from start to finish and succumbs to the fear that people will leave after the first hour and a half if something in the film dosen't fart or blow-up. I hope that it will work and I'll shell out my cash like everyone else, but I wanted to make this point if for no other reason than to say to filmmakers, "it's okay if a movie is long just don't insult me by underestimating my attention span."

________________________________________
Mike Ruzicka

[SatanicYakuza]

180 minutes looks like too long to me. Of course, I'll probably download it off the net, because only suckers give their money to hollywood. I dream of a day when there's no money in movies so only the talented go there.

Anyway, Kill Bill looks like it's going to be dreadful. I read some of the script, and hat to put it down, because I felt overwhelmed by it's inherent corniness. Jumped the shark, he has!

[BobClark]

Mruzick,
The thing is, this isn't a complex epic drama like Malcom X or The Godfather. This is a kung-fu movie. And unless you're a 14 year old Shaw Bros. fanatic hopped up on Mountain Dew Code Red, three hours is too damned long for a kung-fu movie.
This kind of movie works best at no more than 90 minutes tops. Now I'm the last remaining person on the internet who hasn't read the script, so I can't say for sure this will work. But I trust Quentin. The guy has yet to make a bad movie.

[saccharine]

Personally, I think this is a Weinstein kneejerk reaction to Gangs of New York doing much less than was expected at box office.

Honestly i dont mind them yanking it apart into two different films. Although I am in the minority here, I loved Matrix Reloaded and i love the anticipation for Matrix Revolutions. If Vol I kicks my ass. I can be a good little boy, pull my thumb out of my ass, and wait four months for Vol II.

[SatanicYakuza]

Bob Clark is on the money. Who wants to watch a 3 hour kung fu movie? I predict this movie is going to be a fantastic bomb. I live in NYC, and when I saw a trailer for it the audienced just groaned.

[Gabitsch]

I would have doubts about "Kill Bill," especially when you watch "Toxic Avenger" 2 & 3 and find out they were really supposed to be two movies. But, Tarantino's never directed a bad movie. He takes his time, and he does it right. He knows what he wants, and he doesn't move on until he gets it. Why release a chopped-up version of a movie you put your heart and soul into? I don't care if it was meant to be seven hours: that's the movie, and so be it. If you don't like the idea, don't go see it.

Or you could just download it. We've all done it. "Jason X," "Spiderman," "The Hulk." We could all get it for free. Ensuring, to Miramax and other studios, that there's simply no profit in releasing movies to a youth market. They'll just "freeload," so what's the point in making cool movies like "Kill Bill" or "Once Upon a Time in Mexico"?

You want more movies like "Crossroads" in theaters, while directors with taste are pushed by the wayside? Keep downloading them. The real talent won't rise to the top. They'll just start cheesy websites where maybe ten people a month will see their movies.

I personally don't give a damn how much the Weinsteins or even Tarantino make off of "Kill Bill." But at least they're trying something different.

I remember when I saw "Pulp Fiction." I thought it was a masterpiece. I trusted Tarantino's judgment and vision enough to check out his other stuff, and was blown away even further by "Jackie Brown." Splitting "Kill Bill" into two movies doesn't bother me one bit, as long as I get to see the mother.

It isn't your movie. It's Tarantino's. And he'll do what he damn well pleases with it. Peter Jackson shot the "Rings" movies all at once. I didn't hear any pissing and moaning about releasing those a year apart from each other.

[El Duderino Diablo]

Originally posted by SatanicYakuza
Who wants to watch a 3 hour kung fu movie? I predict this movie is going to be a fantastic bomb. I live in NYC, and when I saw a trailer for it the audienced just groaned.

Who want's to watch a three hour chop-sockey flick? If it's well made then I'll be happy to.
:shrug:
So the NYC audience groaned at the preview, eh? What kind of audience was it? What movie were y'all attending? Sadly, with certain film genres, especially anything chop-sockey oriented, most audiences just don't "get it". Pete Vonder Haar makes an excellent point about audiences not getting it in his Footage Fetishes column about Big Trouble in Little China.
See, I believe that for the most part, studio suits are assholes who criminally underestimate the ability of an audience, specifically north american audiences, to get it. By the same token I also believe that N.A. audiences have been carefully conditioned over the last twenty years to NOT get it thanks to the meddling of lawyers and accountants making what amounts to creative decisions on movie projects. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy sort of thing. If north american audiences did get it then movies by guys like Takashi Miike, Chang Cheh, Ringo Lam, Takeshi Kitano, Shinya Tsukimoto, Ching Siu Tung, Kinji Fukasuku, etc. etc. wouldn't be such a hard sell. The studios wouldn't be importing movies by these men then tampering with them (criminally violating might be a better description) to make them more palatable to north american audiences as Buena Vista has done with every nineties Hong Kong made movie they've bought the rights to. If studios and audiences got it then the studio suits wouldn't be putting all these restrictions on those same filmmakers when they bring them to the U.S. to helm what usually turns into a steaming pile of Hollywood financed could-a-been, would-a-been, but now never will be anything but, crap.
I think Tarantino, like John Carpenter back in '86, knows his audience and knows his audience will "get it".
Whether Kill Bill sucks, well, none of us can say until we've actually seen it.

[Gabitsch]

One NYC audience groaning at a trailer isn't enough to make me think the movie's going to suck. Through the 20th century, New York was the new Paris, and pretty much dictated what was hip and what wasn't. I'm sure it's a neat place, and a hell of a lot better than L.A. But the New York intelligentsia's opinions on movies matter about as much as their opinions on hot dogs or pizza.

The opinions that DO matter are those of genuine film fans, people who will go see the same movie again and again because they love it. Even "Freddy vs. Jason" has its cult.

[mynameisnobody]

It really isn't a shrewd move on Miramax's part. First, you're assuming Tarantino is still relevant...when he hasn't made a film in ~ 6 years. Second, if Vol. 1 bombs...it is highly likely that Vol. 2 will bomb. Third, Weinstein has stated that "Kill Bill" was a good B film....which isn't exactly a shining endorsement....and Harvey is on Quentin's team. Fourth, the 180 min running time isn't that long...it's not even a factor...for instance, we have -- About Schmidt (125 mins)....Seabiscuit (141 mins)...LOTR: The Two Towers (179 mins)....Matrix: Reloaded (138 mins)....Titanic (194 mins)...Gods and Generals (231 mins)....Pirates of the Caribbean (143 mins)...

[El Duderino Diablo]

I really don't understand the Weinsteins or Miramax at all. Zhang Yimou makes a damn fine chop-sockey epic like Hero and, apparently, one or the other or both of the Weinstein boys decrees that almost half an hour must be chopped out of it, or so the story goes. At 96 minutes Hero is still a damn fine movie but it definitely feels like a movie that has been seriously trimmed. Hopefully the much rumoured restored director's cut will actually come to be.

[Gabitsch]

To fans of good movies, Tarantino is still very relevant. Just because "Jackie Brown" came out in 1997 or so doesn't mean the guy is no longer worth watching. That's like saying Stanley Kubrick was no longer "relevant" for the twelve years between "Full Metal Jacket" and "Eyes Wide Shut."

Relevance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

And "B-film" is hardly a put-down. Mainstream Hollywood's been stealing from B-movies for decades. Tarantino IS very much like John Carpenter, who knew he had a smart audience for his kind of flicks. Tarantino is making HIS movies HIS way, just as Carpenter has done ever since "Halloween." ("Memoirs of an Invisible Man" excepted, of course.)

The truth about this entire thread: Some people like Quentin, some don't. The concept of "relevance" in this kind of a discussion is irrelevant itself. But since it's Film Threat's dime...

Relevant to whom?

Some movement of "indie" films, that's actually been bankrolled by studios and Hollywood stars for years? As much as I appreciate Sundance and other institutions attempting to get something different out there, the majority of "indie" movies that get seen are made by stars trying to pat themselves on the back for their ingenuity.

Real independent films actually are "B-films," made by people who aren't out to make a buck or improve their sagging careers. They're made by people with real jobs, or at least real credit card debts. You think Chad Ferrin and Timothy Muskatell of "Unspeakable" had Robert Redford or the Weinsteins backing them up? Or Jim Van Bebber of "Deabeat at Dawn," who still can't get "Charlie's Family" finished, despite his cult fanbase?

Relevant to the circle of critics who deem every movie "the best movie of the year?" That David Manning was one hell of a generous guy. I wonder what happened to him?

Relevant to me? I'm just some goon posting on a message board, when I should be working on a script. Oops!

Tarantino, like Carpenter and any other director with a cult following, has been dogged with this kind of junk since he started. Just be honest about your disdain for his work, and we'll leave it at that.

Or, we can all watch "My Big, Fat Greek Wedding" again, and ooh and aah at how underground it is. Sitcom and all.

Relevance. P'shaw.

[SatanicYakuza]

I saw it before GANGS OF NEW YORK

If you'll watch a 3 hour kung fu movie, then you're stupid and should grow up.

[BobClark]

Originally posted by mynameisnobody
Fourth, the 180 min running time isn't that long...it's not even a factor...for instance, we have -- About Schmidt (125 mins)....Seabiscuit (141 mins)...LOTR: The Two Towers (179 mins)....Matrix: Reloaded (138 mins)....Titanic (194 mins)...Gods and Generals (231 mins)....Pirates of the Caribbean (143 mins)...

Most of those movies were criticized for running on much longer than they needed to. Only Seabiscuit and LOTR didn't feel like they wore out their welcomes by the 120 mark.
Sounds like QT realises this and is acting accordingly.
No matter what Miramax's financial motivations are, this is probably still a better artistic decision than 3 hour kung-fu movie.

[El Duderino Diablo]

Originally posted by SatanicYakuza
If you'll watch a 3 hour kung fu movie, then you're stupid and should grow up.

Not exactly captain of the high school debate team, eh?
:rolleyes:

[mruzick3]

Originally posted by Gabitsch
It isn't your movie. It's Tarantino's. And he'll do what he damn well pleases with it. Peter Jackson shot the "Rings" movies all at once. I didn't hear any pissing and moaning about releasing those a year apart from each other.

Well, I think you're half-right. It is Tarantino's movie. He has complete control over the film's length. However, the decision to split the movies up into two rests on the shoulders of the Weinstein Bros. All the press suggests that this was risky move on the part of Miramax and Weinstein hopes it will pay off.

LOTR was INTENDED to be released separately but made all at once. New Line made an even bigger risk by agreeing on the lengths of each film AND agreeing to the fantasy genre (which has not been done successfully in a very long time.) Some may say that 'Kill Bill' is just a three hour kung-fu movie. But was 'Jackie Brown' just a two hour blaxploitation flick?? Or was 'Pulp Fiction' just a thug and crime flick?? I trust Tarantino's filmmaking and decisions. I trust that his use of dialogue, set design, and knowledge of the inspiring genre will transcend any labels that critics can place upon the film like he has done with all of his others. And I trust that his decision to make a three hour movie was necessary for the story he wanted to tell.

If someone can confirm that his new movie started out as an intended two-part serial...well, I'll just close this subject and throw away the key. But before you start asking (well...typing) around to find out, consider that all of the actors' contracts had to be re-negotiated to account for the "surprise sequel" ending that is now Vol. II.

__________________________________
Mike Ruzicka

[BuckyMcSatan]

I just gotta say, I like long-ass movies.

Epic, sweeping, character driven, actioneer, john holmes-motherfuckin' long-ass movies.

I'd prefer it if they left the whole thing intact, whether it's a kung-fu flick (because if Tarantino is doing one, it's not going to be your average run o' the mill knockoff kung fu flick, speakin' of relevance),The Godfather or Golem and the Lone Ranger - I'm fine with the 180 mark.

I would have loved it if "Big Trouble in Little China" was 180 minutes! As long as it's entertaining, well written and fairly decently acted.

And oh yeah, it's been torture waiting for each installment of the LOTR trilogy - although, hey, we know they couldn't make one fat movie from all three, right? I'm not into the theatre experience anyway - so my ass doesn't get all spongy and numb from sitting upright for three hours. Bring on the Extended DVD for LOTR man, I ain't squawking about all that extra meat on the bun.:D

[mynameisnobody]

Originally posted by Gabitsch
To fans of good movies, Tarantino is still very relevant. Just because "Jackie Brown" came out in 1997 or so doesn't mean the guy is no longer worth watching. That's like saying Stanley Kubrick was no longer "relevant" for the twelve years between "Full Metal Jacket" and "Eyes Wide Shut."

Relevance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

And "B-film" is hardly a put-down. Mainstream Hollywood's been stealing from B-movies for decades. Tarantino IS very much like John Carpenter, who knew he had a smart audience for his kind of flicks. Tarantino is making HIS movies HIS way, just as Carpenter has done ever since "Halloween." ("Memoirs of an Invisible Man" excepted, of course.)

The truth about this entire thread: Some people like Quentin, some don't. The concept of "relevance" in this kind of a discussion is irrelevant itself. But since it's Film Threat's dime...

Relevant to whom?

Some movement of "indie" films, that's actually been bankrolled by studios and Hollywood stars for years? As much as I appreciate Sundance and other institutions attempting to get something different out there, the majority of "indie" movies that get seen are made by stars trying to pat themselves on the back for their ingenuity.

Real independent films actually are "B-films," made by people who aren't out to make a buck or improve their sagging careers. They're made by people with real jobs, or at least real credit card debts. You think Chad Ferrin and Timothy Muskatell of "Unspeakable" had Robert Redford or the Weinsteins backing them up? Or Jim Van Bebber of "Deabeat at Dawn," who still can't get "Charlie's Family" finished, despite his cult fanbase?

Relevant to the circle of critics who deem every movie "the best movie of the year?" That David Manning was one hell of a generous guy. I wonder what happened to him?

Relevant to me? I'm just some goon posting on a message board, when I should be working on a script. Oops!

Tarantino, like Carpenter and any other director with a cult following, has been dogged with this kind of junk since he started. Just be honest about your disdain for his work, and we'll leave it at that.

Or, we can all watch "My Big, Fat Greek Wedding" again, and ooh and aah at how underground it is. Sitcom and all.

Relevance. P'shaw.

This industry is a business. Relevancy is in the eye of the box office numbers when the studio is footing the tab. I enjoy cult films...it's just hard to pay the bills with them.

Tarantino is no Stanley Kubrick...it's like saying Paul W.S. Anderson is George Romero. Don't get me wrong...I enjoy Quentin's films...his quirky dialogue, etc....he's got talent...but, he's no Kubrick...not even close. When Quentin makes a film that stacks up to "Barry Lyndon"..."The Shining"..."Spartacus"...."Full Metal Jacket"...or "Dr. Strangelove"...and not a knock-off of Lam's "Long hu feng yun" aka "City on Fire"...let me know. I enjoy John Carpenter as well..."Big Trouble in Little China"..."The Thing"..."Escape from New York"...and "Halloween." Unfortunately, I fled the theater...horrified...after viewing "Ghosts of Mars"...and that wasn't a good thing.

[mynameisnobody]

Originally posted by BobClark
Most of those movies were criticized for running on much longer than they needed to. Only Seabiscuit and LOTR didn't feel like they wore out their welcomes by the 120 mark.
Sounds like QT realises this and is acting accordingly.
No matter what Miramax's financial motivations are, this is probably still a better artistic decision than 3 hour kung-fu movie.

I assure you...supporting Quentin's "artistic vision" wasn't the motivator. They're hoping on twice the box office. After reading a couple of drafts of the film...I wouldn't count my chickens before they've hatched. Don't get me wrong...I'm hoping for the best...and can't wait to see the final product. Finally, from the reviews that I've read in the past...only Titanic and the first LOTR...were criticized (lightly) about their running time. I could name numerous other films that have long running times...but, it would be rather loquacious.

[KevinCarr]

The debate about running time is all in the eyes of the beholder. Generally LOTR fans loved the 3 hour versions of the movies and will be waiting in line to see the 4 hour director cuts to be strung together this Christmas.

I've usually noticed that when studios tinker with a movie this way, it ain't a good thing. It shows that somewhere along the way, there's a general feeling there might be problems.

Of course, problems were predicted in droves for "Titanic" and it made almost $2 billion worldwide, so what the hell does the press know? ;-)