Inverse

It's gonna take a hell of a positive review to get me to cough up full price for half a movie.

fumanstan

Doesn't matter to me... if anything it sounds fine. Being a Tarantino fan I'll definitely watch the first part, and if i like it i'll watch the 2nd. Otherwise i might wait for reviews or the dvd. No big whoop.

wordtoyamotha

Has Tarantino said what his purpose/goal of making this film is? On the Jackie Brown dvd he gives a great explanation of why he made the film, who he made it for, etc. It really helped me enjoy the film that much more.

Dr. DVD

Really, never had YOU pegged as much of a fan.

IMO, this is QT's chance to do a little serial/franchise movie work along the lines of the Sonny Chiba Street Fighter movies. If he ends the first movie with some kick a$$ action, why not?

My question is whether or not this will be marketed as the fourth film by QT or the fourth and fifth film?

RyoHazuki

Yeah marketing would be tough. Whatever it makes in its second run is gonna be a lot less than the first. Only people who saw the first half are gonna pay for the second half and some wont come back. I cant imagine many people going for the half a movie idea in the first place. The thing about the Matrix is each sequel is about 2hrs and 35 mins. Nobody is gonna sit through a 5 hour movie. This is only 3 hours.

BlackBeauty92

now, i lose interest...

Variable697

Since when did a B-movie deserve to be stretched into a 3 hour "epic"? I have a bad feeling that this is going to stink. In "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" Peter Biskind details case after case of a young director who became very hot; the director was therefore allowed to do any project he wanted; this power turned the once serious artist into a major meglomaniac; he directs a stinker that ruins his career. Examples:

1. After the Godfather I & II, Coppola goes way over budget and over schedule on Apocalyspe Now, he puts a ton of his own money into it. The movie eventually made its money back, but the project crippled American Zoetrope from becoming the independent movie studio that Coppola dreamed of having. Although I don't hate the Godfather III, most people agree that Coppola has not made a great movie since the 70s.

2. After the Last Picture Show and Paper Moon, Bogdanovich dumps his wife for Cybil Sheppard and makes a bunch of lousy movies which were particularly lousy because Sheppard was an incompetent actress. Young audiences don't even know he is a director, only thinking he is that guy on the Sopranos. His ex-wife Polly Platt, produced Bottle Rocket and helped to start Wes Anderson's career -- God bless her.

3. William Friedkin, after the French Connection and Exorcist, directs the disasterous Sorcerer. Never heard of it? Well there's a good reason why. He recently directed The Hunted, a Rambo rip-off from what I understand. The only thing going for him is that he is married to Sherry Lansing, the head of Paramount -- he can live the good life by leeching off her big pile of money.

4. Michael Cimino directs the Academy Award winning Deer Hunter. Then he directed Heaven's Gate which sent United Artists into bankruptcy. Heaven's Gate ends the Auteur Era of the 70s. The industry is now dominated by sleazy coke snorting pimps...er...producers like the late Don Simpson and the still strong Jerry Bruckheimer who hire retarded music video directors who they can push around to make retarded movies for teeny boppers.

Now, I don't think Tarantino is going to fall as low as these directors. Kill Bill's budget is only around $55 million; most major studio movies now average $90 million (with marketing included I think). After theater showings, dvd sales, pay-per-view, cable TV and network TV it will probably make money. The thing that Tarantino fans should worry about in the long term is that he is connected with a scumbag like Weinstein. This is a guy who casually buys Academy Awards and perhaps more importantly Academy nominations; this is a guy who gladly hacks up movies that people have spent enormous time and energy on; this is a guy who buys the distribution rights to foreign movies only to dump them in a basement somewhere. Gangs of New York was a complete mess and I blame it on Weinstein, not Scorsese. Scorsese has gone through so many battles (i.e. Last Temptation of Christ) and made so many landmark films (i.e. Taxi Driver, Raging Bulls, Goodfellas), he probably didn't have the energy to fight Weinstein. If GONY was made in 1975, Scorsese would have shown his longer cut to Pauline Kael. Kael would have written a 5,000 word piece about the longer cut in the New Yorker months before the release date, thereby forcing Weinstein to release the director's version. But Kael is dead and the audience for serious movies for adults is a speck compared to armies of Joe Sixpack and 13-year-old dateless geeks who salivate over shoddy CGI.

But back to Tarantino...how can a director continue to make films that will matter, that will have a longer shelf life than a week, when everyone around him tells him what a "genius" he is? Three movies and you're a freaking genius? On the True Romance commentary Tarantino said he wrote the Alabama character as his fantasy of a girlfriend. He was in his mid 20s and he admits he never had a girlfriend up to that point. So what we have is a geeky film freak, a "loser" video clerk, an ugly annoying guy who talks too fast and too much. This is not someone a girl wants to date. But with success, a director becomes a god to "actresses"/"models"/waitresses/groupees/hanger-ons/attention whores/wannabes. There are stories about how Tarantino, at film festivals, would approach attractive women and show them magazines with his picture on the cover and they would F him immediately. The money, the sex, the power will change a director in terrible ways. But in the end, the only thing that matter is the work. So how does a film artist stay on the right track with all the distractions? The most interesting film artists -- directors, screenwriters, actors -- have a substantial body of work. Who is going to be Tarantino's true friend and tell him the truth about his bad ideas. It's depressing that Weinstein is easily able to convince him to release Kill Bill in two parts. One story deserves to be told in one movie. The audience deserves better than half a movie. I don't think that the character arcs and the plot will be satisfying. Film directors can become great artists but they need honest collaborators who will restrain their bad ideas and their destructive impulses. Who will Tarantino be able to count on?

On the Reservoir Dogs disc, Tarantino says that he has outgrown Godard. That's really a shame because he can still learn a thing or two from the old master. When someone asked Godard why he used jump-cuts (then a revolutionary editing technique) in Breathless he responded by saying he simply needed a way to reduce his 3 hour epic into a 90 minute gangster film. He didn't want to cut whole scenes out, so he cut moments within scenes.

jarofclay73

If you register at nytimes.com for free, you can actually read the article above dated July 15. For what it's worth, this article looks legit.

From a business standpoint (and, remember, I'm no expert in business), it's a calculated risk. According to the article, Kill Bill will shot for $55m. Do you know anyone who can make two movies on $55m nowdays?

And the article says it has a 200-page script. Some people say you can estimate the length of a movie by using the 1 minute=1 page method. So, that would make 200-page script = 3 hours 20 minutes. Of course, that's just a rough estimate. So, I guess would you rather see a 3 hour 20 minute movie? Or two 1 hour 40 minute movies? I'm sure Tarantino will pad each movie a bit making it closer to 2 hours per movie.

I'm open to liking it. It looks like an homage to Hong Kong style action films and black revenge films of the 70's. But, I hope it doesn't drag. If they keep the tempo of the film up, I think people would come back for more.

Doctor Gonzo

I'm a big Tarantino fan, but I wont fall for that 2-part crap when one single movie would do just fine. leave it a single movie and I'm there - make it a two-parter and I'll wait for the DVD!

badger1997

Only two of the movies you mentioned are actually directed by Tarantino. He was involved obviously to some degree on Desperado and From Dusk Till Dawn (especially since he wrote the script to the latter) but they were directed by someone else. And I love Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but I can't imagine ever calling them "action movies." So like the article said, this really is Tarantino's first try as a director making an action film.

I'm not too upset over splitting up the movies. The only concern I have is how long between releases? I was looking forward to this one and would hope they don't wait like six months or so between releases. Why not just do it a month apart or so like an old serial novel? That would actually be pretty cool.

jarofclay73

I seem to remember when they first announced that they might be splitting up the movies, that it might come out like several weeks after the first. Yeah, I would rather have it closer than farther down the road. I wonder how long they expect Kill Bill Part 1 to last? I hope they call the sequel: Kill Bill 2: Body Bags

Kal-El

Well that sure killed my interest.

Blaster1

How long do they plan to space these from one another?

jarofclay73

It's being negotiated still, but they say anywhere from 2 months after to 6 months. I'll hope for 2.

Revoltor

Dumb idea. It's not like we've never seen 3 hour movies before.

So are there going to be seperate DVD to purchase?

I think I'd wait for that instead. Tarantino probably fares better in the home video market anyway.

Khan

Variable697 clearly put a lot of thought in those interesting comments, but I don't think any of those 'flops following hits' mentioned were years and years in the making like this (possible exception: Heavens Gate, which isn't really all that bad).

LIke most people I have nfi, but I'd guess it'll be neither hit nor miss. Most of the adult audience will be patient enough to wait for it on DVD and most of the teen audience have never heard of Uma Thurman.

Cornelius1047

Uma


Oprah


K

Dr. DVD

Couldn't let that stupid Letterman joke go, could you?


I am reading the book of which Variable697 speaks and I highly recommend it to anyone curious as to how Hollywood got to its current state. While it's a shame the "auteur" period ended, if you read about some of the antics a lot of the directors did indeed bring about their own demise. However, the sad truth is that if you're a hired hack/MTV video director like Michael Bay and you make a movie that flops, you'll still have no problem finding another job. However, should QT make a $100 million + movie for a studio, battle over what is the correct version, then give in and release a cut-up version that flops, well, QT would get the blame regardless and nobody would want to touch him with a ten foot pole.
In terms of Kill Bill, I hope they re-consider. But if not, I am sure QT has seen enough serialized movies and pulp novels (duh!) to know how to edit it into two movies and still make it compelling. If enough fans gripe, ol Harvey might actually budge his Oscar buyin arse and do the right thing.

Cosmic Bus

I think you mean DVDs. Miramax pass up an opportunity to screw us over? Psh!

Johnny Zhivago

I don't like this idea at all. Nada. El Zipo. Looks like I'll just wait for the DVDs and take it up the arse that way... No way am I going to the theater, twice, for this flick... My dislike of theaters is already at an all time high, but, I would have gone to Kill Bill, once...

Ginwen

I haven't seen it yet, so can't say if it works better as one or two movies--if it doesn't screw the movie up, I'm fine with having two weekend's entertainment rather than one (since I like to go to a movie every week, but there isn't always one I want to see).

Groucho

Based on the posts in this thread, I'd venture a guess that his goal is to piss off the denizens of DVDTalk.

Cornelius1047

I was hoping maybe I'd get a shot at hosting the Oscars next year. My agent seems to think I have a shot. Now I'll just need my own material.

On topic, the only reason I wouldn't mind the two-parter is that I don't tend to like sitting through 3-hour movies. I'd hate to have to pay for both and all, and waiting up to 6 months would kinda suck. If I had the choice, I'd rather sit through the 3-hour version. But if this is definite, I'll still go see both. QT hasn't really let me down yet (although I still think Jackie Brown is a bit boring and long in spots).

K

grunter

Who are you people?

Whether "Kill Bill" comes out in one installment or two, you'll all be seeing it one way or another.

This isn't an attempt to screw anyone. It's an attempt to keep as much of the original material on the screen as possible without having to cut large chunks of the film to shreds.

And this silly notion that the film will somehow be a "lesser" QT effort because the director himself has labelled it a "B-movie" is hilarious to me. Don't you people GET THE CONCEPT? QT's aiming not at just producing some bottom-of-the-barrel, mainstream pap (read: "Matrix: Reloaded"). In his own words, this is to be the "King of Grindhouse Films." He's playing with that genre of exploitation / gore / kung-fu / 42nd street dive theater cinema that's almost entirely disappeared in our "blockbusters-to-the-detriment-of-all- other-films" age.

The version of the script that I've read is fast-n-loose, out-sized, outrageous and just plain fun. And seeing some of the footage in that sneak trailer translated to film was exhilarating.

Ah, but who am I to get in the way of the bitching and moaning? Criticize, criticize, criticize. It's all the internet's good for these days.

Dr. DVD

You're one to talk!!!