Well for one someone who's read the screenplay said it was scripted to go into B&W. Moreover, I felt it was not at all out of place nor cinematically or stylistically jarring. If anything, the wide shot of the aftermath had a much greater impact when revealed to us in full-blown color. Plus that shot of The Bride's eyes with which we swich from B&W back to color would make no sense if it was all in color. I feel that the B&W sequence is the director's intent. I honestly don't think that were it in color, the film would be rated any differently. If I'm wrong, then perhaps the stylized silhouette fight was also supposed to be in full view and in color?

No no, the stylized silhouette fight was great and fit in nicely.

The switch back to the color actually further hurt the film because it undercut the tension that was there as the Bride was staring down the gang - it was just a close up of her blinking - what wouldn't make sense if it was never in B&W?

It's just the fact the it switched at the most violent part (pulling out the eyeball) that really made it look like a concession.

Exactly, it's not like the switch to B&W happened at a random place. As you say yourself, it happened when something happened to someone's eyeball. Makes sense to me. And the switch back to color was done masterfully as well. If it were all in color, The Bride's blinking eyes shot with that "cilck!" effect would mean nothing.

The "click" was obviously added after the color was taken out and without it, the blink still adds the appropriate tension and does not mean "nothing".

But hey, if it worked for you, that's great. As I wrote in the other thread - all I'm saying is that the scene would have been much more FUN, for ME, had it stayed in color. The B&W took me, and the 5 people I was with, totally out of the film.

Funny, before you were stating that it didn't work at all for anyone and that it was INTENDED to be in color. I believe we brought enough proof to the table to stamp out that whole "MPAA =EVIL EVIL anti-kill bill campaign" so that it's just your own personal view.

Um... no you didn't.

No one can prove it one way or another. Yet.

But you know what? We're all intelligent, reasoning beings. And what makes the most rational sense is that changes were made afterwards based solely on ratings.

But it really doesn't matter WHY they changed it up, though, as long as we somehow, hopefully get it in an unedited form.

How so, please explain. You must've totally hated Natural Born Killers, where film stock switches happen for no apparent reason, and perhaps even a film like Pleasantville, where while the switches serve a great purpose, I imagine they'd still take you "out of the film".

Tarantino has been quoted that (whatever the origin of the B&W), he prefers it in B&W. So that's director's intent; take it or leave it. I'm pretty sure that we'll have theatrical versions for each separate release on DVD, and the third release will likely be an edited-together version, probably presenting the film seamlessly in either the theatrical version or the slightly different "Asian" version, which hasn't even been confirmed yet to exist, as far as I know.

Um . . . but right there, you are sort of making conjecture as to "WHY they changed it up", by assuming that the intention was for it to be colored. If the intention was for it to be in B&W, than that release is the "unedited form". If that was the case, then releasing it in color would, in fact, be and edited version.

Since when does art have to be rational? Have you ever seen Eraserhead? City Of Lost Children? The Rocky Horror Picture Show?

Sure, but those films along w/ NBK were not different in other countries, AFAIK.

And the film stock doesn't even change during a cut, it happens in the middle of a take which makes it far too jarring and draw too much attention to it self and not to the action on the screen.

I would have to assume that director's intent is most likely in line with the cut that is being screened in the market which spawned the films that Kill Bill is paying homage to.

Wow.. just, wow.

I thought the B & W was cool. In my ideal world, I'd have it both ways (maybe B & W on the initial release which ideally would be theatrical version, and in color if there's a release that combines the two, throws in some extras).

You mean like Jason in the Friday the 13th movies?

ZING!

I don't think I can buy into that . . . there are too many "Director's Cuts" that don't match the theatrical release and too many movies directed by Alan Smithee for that to be true. I think it is probably very common (although admittedly not always . . . and even less likely with Tarentino) that movies are released with a number of elements that differ from the director's intent. More accurate, in many cases (but, again, not all), would be that the "studios intent is most likely in line with the cut that is being screened in the market in which they hope to make the most money".

To put this pointless debate about B&W to an end, everybody, please read the EARLY DRAFT version of Tarantino's Kill Bill screenplay here: http://tarantino.webds.de/tarantino/...l-script.htm#4 (this links to the House of Blue Leaves section). I rest my case.

Now if the entire House of Blue Leaves sequence from the very first shot inside the club to after the massacre were in B&W. Then it would seem just as natural as the film going to the anime sequence(which was excellent). Yet cutting to B&W at the very first moment of gore durring the big brawl screams out 'ratings compromise!'.

As for Natural Born Killers. The mutiple camera stock was easy to handle,as it was intentional. The MPAA never said "Use 16mm for this shot,8mm for that,anime for this sequence,psychedelic color schemes for this one" to make it a more 'acceptable' R rating instead of NC-17. So the experimental use of various camera stock & techniques works seemlessy in that film since the director planned it out in order to make a point in a visual way & create a wild piece of art.


Anyway as for 'proof' based on what Tarantino has said in an interview or two. You can not always believe directors today or even years ago when it comes to publicity & discussion over ratings cuts & problems with the MPAA.

A good example recently is House of 1000 Corpses. At first Rob says only seconds were cut & he's 'happy' with the final version. Meanwhile on the eve of the dvd release. He finally states that he had major problems with the MPAA who butchured the film by not giving an R rating until 15-20 minutes of footage was cut.

Cruising is another great example of where,over 20 years after it's release. Real information on its censorship came out. Even Friedkins biography 'Hurrican Billy' which discuses the film in one chapter,does not mention the extent of the cuts,stating only a few seconds were cut from one sequence & another was darkened & how he was 'happy' with the final version & thinks the MPAA is helpful(I bet the studio put him up to that for good publicity rather than negative). Yet lately within the past few years. He has openly talked about what really happened & how he wants to restore those 40 minutes of cuts & how the film was severely compromised & hurt with taking that much footage out(without his consent) when it was intended to be seen in the first place & helps flesh out the story much more. Yet fearful studio & ratings board worried about the content & threatening an X,resulted it in being butchured.


So I will not be surprised if Tarantino comes out years from now with the truth on Kill Bills ratings issue. Right now,he has to play it cool to not piss off the MPAA(who may crack down harder on his fils) or Miramaxes anti-unrated/NC-17 policy since he's lovey dovy with them,as they gave him a career.

Who cares about an early draft? An early draft represents the beginning stages of an idea before it has been cultivated into it's final state. The FINAL draft best represents director's intent.

I can see how this might be the case for other directors, but QT is not known for kowtowing to the desires of others. He tends to, pretty much, speak whatever is on his mind. If he had a problem with the MPAA rating of his films, I'm sure he would not be shy about sharing his exact feelings on the subject.

Who cares? Sorry but you're wrong. What it means, written in the early draft (and it's the only copy of any Kill Bill script I'm aware of online), is that the switch to B&W was always there, from the time Tarantino wrote the damn thing. That's all. If that means nothing to you, well I have nothing else to add then.

Honestly, I'm not even debating the B&W vs. color issue here. My point was that an early draft is not the best way to represent the intent. It represents an idea, yes, but not neccessarily the final intent. That's like saying that the first edit of a film (immediately after shooting) represents the way them film is supposed to look. Part of the reason why there is the prolonged editing process it to allow for re-editing, re-shooting, touching up, etc. in order to hone the movie more towards what the director intends to "put out there". Scripts go through the same process in order to get them to the point where they will be used for the film.

That was the point that I was trying to make . . . an early draft represents more of a possible representation of the intent, while later or final drafts represent something much closer to the actual intent.

For that record, I am of the opinion that the B&W was probably Tarantino's intent . . . Jackskeleton's actual Tarantino quote was enough to convince me of that. Also, if it is in the early script and then shows up in the movie, then, you are probably right that it was the intent all along. I just had trouble with the use of the early draft as a definitive source of intent.

I probably sounded more argumentative than I intended to . . . sorry about that.

You are really reaching for something aren't you.

Make a note. putting feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.

I thought Kill Bill was really cool but I think I would have preferred it as one 3 hour movie with A TON more editting.

Not to mention I hate paying twice to see a movie in the theaters, and I will hate even more having to choose between paying for 2 DVDs or waiting a long time for the one.

I'm not going to get into the reasons why I think that Tarantino did the scene in B&W, but if that was his preferred version, it does seem strange that Japan might get a version of the film with that scene in colour. If Tarantino loves the scene being in B&W, why would he go against his "vision" of the film and alter it for a single territory (Japan). Sure, he says that Japan likes bloody movies, and has much less of a problem with violence in movies than we do, but Japan takes films very seriously and likes to preserve a directors cut of a film as much as possible (occasional optical censoring of genitalia excepted). This doesn't necessarily give one side of this whole arguement any substantial ammunition, it just strikes me as odd.

The best way to see the final intent of a film's screenplay is to watch the film theatrically. Regardless of what the screenplay says, what's up on screen IS the movie. The film has the final word.

That scene is in black & white and is meant to be that way. Whether you like it or not (I found the switch distracting and it took me out of the movie) is irrelevant. Whether there are other versions of the film is irrelevant.

It's not a projection error. It's supposed to be that way. Now, if you disagree with the artistic intent, or the purpose of it, that's a different discussion (for a different thread).

And how is any of the last four pages about the upcoming Kill Bill DVD(s)?

Do you mean always or in the case of Kill Bill? In most cases, I think that is right, but there are some exceptions . . . Brazil, for example . . .