DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)
-   -   Kill Bill Volume 2 (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/314511-kill-bill-volume-2-a.html)

Rzarecta 08-29-03 05:10 PM

Kill Bill Volume 2
 
We already know that Kill Bill Volume I is being released on October 10, 2003, but Miramax said today the Kill Bill Volume II is being released on February 20, 2004.

At least it's not going to be a six month wait like Miramax first said.

Rypro 525 08-29-03 06:27 PM

well at least, hopefully both volumes will be on the same dvd (or to save bit space, put each volume on a seperate disc.

Corvin 08-29-03 07:37 PM

Generally I'd agree, if Volume I is great, I won't want to wait for a set that includes both Volume I and Volume II.

Rypro 525 08-29-03 07:57 PM

anyone know for sure if this is R rated, and that no cuts (or significant cuts) had to be made to give this an R

jrsl76 08-29-03 11:42 PM

Screw Miramax, greedy bastards!!! Most of all for creating a 5 month gap between volumes 1 and 2.

Jackskeleton 08-30-03 12:47 AM

five months is a while. I'm not to pleased about that. :(

harosa 08-30-03 07:04 AM

This could burn them if the first one sucks (i dont think it will).

Jericho 08-30-03 12:41 PM


Originally posted by harosa
This could burn them if the first one sucks (i dont think it will).
well I don't know if it would really burn them. The same people who would have seen a full Kill Bill, probably at least 90% of them will still see the first half, so Miramax will still get their money no matter if the first one sucks.

Corvin 08-30-03 01:02 PM

Although they still might take a slight hit by distributing a film that no one sees. But I really doubt that'll be the case.

Besides, I know TONS of people were disappointed with Reloaded, but most people are still going to see Revolutions.

So, meh.

fumanstan 08-30-03 01:53 PM


Originally posted by Jackskeleton
five months is a while. I'm not to pleased about that. :(
More like 4 :) Regardless, it's a bit longer then i hoped but hopefully it'll rock anyway :)

evenswr 09-01-03 10:45 AM


Originally posted by fumanstan
More like 4 :)
Well, it's 133 days, right? I figure a "month" to be about 30.4372916666666666666666666666667 days. (That is, if we take a month to be one-twelfth of a solar year, which it isn't.) That comes to 4.36963976481700764550065366635049 months. Roughly.

PalmerJoss 09-01-03 10:53 AM


Originally posted by jrsl76
Screw Miramax, greedy bastards!!! Most of all for creating a 5 month gap between volumes 1 and 2.
I'm with you on that. Tell me why Miramax couldn't release it as one film. Oh yes, I forgot--it's because Harvey Weinstein is a money hungry producer who couldn't give a flying **** about his viewing audience. He only cares about getting his goddamn Oscar, which is one reason he is releasing Vol 2 next year: so that both films don't split the vote at the Oscars(if they're even nominated).

movielib 09-01-03 11:11 AM


Originally posted by evenswr
Well, it's 133 days, right? I figure a "month" to be about 30.4372916666666666666666666666667 days. (That is, if we take a month to be one-twelfth of a solar year, which it isn't.) That comes to 4.36963976481700764550065366635049 months. Roughly.
I need more significant digits.

evenswr 09-01-03 12:57 PM


Originally posted by PalmerJoss
I'm with you on that. Tell me why Miramax couldn't release it as one film. Oh yes, I forgot--it's because Harvey Weinstein is a money hungry producer who couldn't give a flying **** about his viewing audience. He only cares about getting his goddamn Oscar, which is one reason he is releasing Vol 2 next year: so that both films don't split the vote at the Oscars(if they're even nominated).
Interesting. From what I've read, Weinstein has been very open about the fact that he expects to lose money doing it this way, but he doesn't care, because he wants to do right by Tarantino.

Spooky 09-01-03 01:06 PM

A February release date for Vol. II (as opposed to say, a December one) tells me that Miramax is pretty happy with both films and expects part one to be in theaters at least through the Christmas holiday.

groovrbaby 09-02-03 01:06 AM

I heard that the damn thing was going to be incredibly long so they split it up in consideration for the viewer.. And honestly, i appreciate it. I typically only watch 1-2 movies a month at the theaters anyways so this is no big deal for me. I am, however hoping for one big dvd release so I don't feel like i'm spending too much money on that too

LivingINClip 09-02-03 04:05 AM

This doesn't really bother me. Apparently the movie is extremely long and long action movie's don't do well. No one wants to sit for three hours for a kung-fu masterpiece or what not... Not to mention, it gives me time to see the first a couple times..-shrugs-

Personally, I rather have them release each volume seperate on DVD and I expect them to.

Rypro 525 09-02-03 02:47 PM

this movie will be eligible twice if nominated. due to oscar rules, a movie must be in at least dec 31 to be consitered for oscar consiteration. since pt 2 will be released in feb, that means that part one and two could be nominated or win both years,.

KTIK 09-02-03 03:01 PM

"Interesting. From what I've read, Weinstein has been very open about the fact that he expects to lose money doing it this way, but he doesn't care, because he wants to do right by Tarantino."

I heard that the film was originally going to be four hours+ long and instead of splitting it into two flicks, QT decided he'd rather cut an hour out and make it three hours long instead, and that they (QT and Miramax) were going to release a three hour movie after they cut the hour out. And now, even after the cut, they are going to release it as two films. As long as the DVD release is both parts, I don't care that much.

Johnny Zhivago 09-02-03 03:26 PM

Somebody wake me when the DVD comes out. Yeah, Weinstein is probably right, at least as far as I'm concerned... This went from a must see at the theater to I'll just buy the DVD(s)... I'm not going twice to see the same film.

xDareDevilx 09-02-03 04:04 PM

i've been looking forward to this film for quite some time now...and when I heard it would be released as 2 films, I got a little upset. However, after thinking about it and reading about it, I feel that QT is just trying to re-invent cinema and bring new concepts to american cinema. This sort of thing has been done in france before, so I believe QT is just trying to bring a new level to his films...and not weinstein wanting to cash in...even though he is a greedy bastard. Just like with the 10 minute anime sequence in kill bill...i hate anime, but i feel in good hands with QT doing it...call me a sucker, but i'm really excited!!!

evenswr 09-02-03 04:08 PM


Originally posted by Johnny Zhivago
I'm not going twice to see the same film.
How is it the same film? I guess it's the same film in the way that each Lord of the Rings movie is the same film... :hscratch:

Johnny Zhivago 09-03-03 11:36 AM


Originally posted by evenswr
How is it the same film? I guess it's the same film in the way that each Lord of the Rings movie is the same film... :hscratch:
It's from one script, intended to be one film. Now, it's been cut in two because some dipstick thinks that I lack the attention required to sit through a 3 hour movie. Or rather, that the profits can be doubled by asking me to sit through two 1 1/2 hour films... No thanks. Stick it.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with LOTR... A planned series of movies, not an 11 hour film that has been cut to maximize ticket sales. How would you feel about Return Of The King Part 1, clocking in at 90 minutes, followed in June by Return Of The King Part 2?

majorjoe23 09-03-03 12:04 PM

Yeah, that's why I won't read the Lord of the Ring books, Tolkien wrote it as one book, but it got cut into three! Sure, I'm missing out on great literature, but that's ok.

evenswr 09-03-03 12:33 PM


Originally posted by Johnny Zhivago
It's from one script, intended to be one film. Now, it's been cut in two because some dipstick thinks that I lack the attention required to sit through a 3 hour movie. Or rather, that the profits can be doubled by asking me to sit through two 1 1/2 hour films... No thanks. Stick it.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with LOTR... A planned series of movies, not an 11 hour film that has been cut to maximize ticket sales. How would you feel about Return Of The King Part 1, clocking in at 90 minutes, followed in June by Return Of The King Part 2?

I suppose I see your point. LOTR maybe isn't the best example.
But Jackson originally pitched LOTR as two movies, but still...
How about Back to the Future II & III?
That's a better example. Filmed simultaneously, relased a few months apart.
Same deal, right?
How about Godfather, Part II? Half of that movie was stuff from the orignial novel, The Godfather.
What a rip-off!

PalmerJoss 09-03-03 01:20 PM


Originally posted by LivingINClip
Personally, I rather have them release each volume seperate on DVD and I expect them to.
If Miramax decides to release Kill Bill in 2 separate dvd releases then count me out. I won't see them nor buy them. I'm tired of being ripped off like this. First they want me to spend $20 total for both movies in theatres then they want me to spend $40 total for the dvd's? Absolutely not. **** Miramax and **** Harvey Weinstein--I'm tired of this ********. If we as consumers say that this kind of marketing is alright then studios will continue to **** us over like this. Warner Bros almost did the same thing with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, but they thankfully decided not to release the film in 2 parts. Studios apparently are unwilling to incorporate an intermission into a film to accomodate for the long running times of a movie, which is what I believe should have been done with Kill Bill. I know I'm in the minority here, but I as a consumer refuse to be ripped off like this. How would you feel if you went to a restaurant and ordered a plate of food, and only got half of what you ordered? And how would you feel if the waitress then told you that the chef couldn't fit all of the food on the plate, but that if you want the rest of the food you'll have to pay for another plate? I'd be furious and would probably refuse to eat there again.

LivingINClip 09-04-03 03:56 AM

Right. See, I would rather have them seperate that way maybe we can get double-disc editions of them both? Commentary? Or not to mention the fact, the way Tarintino talks, each volume can stand on it's own. Perosnally, I like the idea of not having to sit through three hours...-shrugs-

I love the idea of two parts. It gives me two things to look forward to and Idon't have to sit through some long movie.

Corvin 09-04-03 08:37 AM

The movie I can deal with being in two parts, but they really shouldn't expect people to buy two DVDs (one for part I, another for part II).

I think a release like this would work:

Barebones Volume I released shortly after theatrical run
Barebones Volume II released shortly after theatrical run
Volume I and II special edition released in conjunction with barebones Volume II

Make the barebone editions price significantly lower than normal, and I don't think the idea is so oppressive. Price the SE normally.

gerrythedon 11-22-03 01:38 AM

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 Music Composer...
 
Robert Rodriguez Composing Kill Bill: Vol. 2

Filmmaker Robert Rodriguez ("Spy Kids" series, Once Upon a Time in Mexico) will compose music for pal Quentin Tarantino's sequel Kill Bill: Vol. 2.

The Texas-based filmmaker - who not only writes and directs his movies but also edits, shoots, creates visual effects and composes them - made the announcement Wednesday during the first day of the second annual Hollywood Reporter/Billboard Film and TV Music Conference at the Renaissance Hollywood Hotel.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 is set for a February 20 release via Miramax Films.

Meanwhile, Maxim at the Movies magazine has up a new article on the sequel with some cool pictures of Uma Thurman as The Bride.

from [COMINGSOON.net]

Scorpio 11-22-03 01:56 AM

The entire soundtrack/score? Or just some bits of it? I do hope Quentin stays with the themes he established in Vol. 1. I've been playing that disc every day!

DonnachaOne 11-22-03 01:59 AM

You know, Rza did part one's music, but I think most people can agree it was the various sampled themes that stood out and helped the film the best. What will Bobby bring to the plate?

Jackskeleton 11-22-03 03:59 AM

I'm not surprised. QT and Robert have been good friends. QT pushed once upon a time in mexico to be made and Robert scored it, which was why it was a long time in the making. I enjoyed the score very much. I look forward to Vol 2 Even more now. :)

Pants 11-22-03 11:41 AM

The music he did for Once Upon A Time in Mexico was AWFULL!!! Just the worst. The awsome Los Lobos tunes from Desperado kicked ass, I don't know why he scored it himself because his music sucked.

xDareDevilx 11-22-03 11:47 AM

i thought it was going to be the rza and lars ulrich!?! or is this old news that never happened? I liked the rza's music on vol.1.

cultshock 11-23-03 12:33 AM

QT has always (so far) mostly used source music for his films. His reasoning is that he would rather use existing music or songs that he already knew and liked rather than going to the trouble of hiring a composer to score his film and take the chance of maybe not liking what the composer came up with. The RZA's actual musical contribution to Vol 1 seemed to be minimal at best, and hopefully Rodriguez's contribution to Vol 2 will amount to the same. Tarantino has a great ability to choose just the right piece of existing music or song and put it in just the right place of the film, so I can't see him deviating from this habit at this point.

Mondo Kane 11-23-03 12:26 PM


Originally posted by cultshock
The RZA's actual musical contribution to Vol 1 seemed to be minimal at best, and hopefully Rodriguez's contribution to Vol 2 will amount to the same.
Agree.
Crane was the only original piece of music that RZA did for Vol 1 and I hope that Rod gets limited to one musical addition as well.

There's some scenes that take place in Mexico in Vol 2 so I'd be willing to bet that Rod will provide some guitar work for those sequences. But the rest of the sndtrk better have a wide variety of Tarantino tunes!

DarthMarino 11-23-03 04:35 PM

Hopefully it's not more than like 15 seconds worth of RR music. His music for Mexico was among the worst music I've ever heard in a non-B Movie.

Tarantino 11-23-03 04:36 PM

Not being able to see Kill Bill Vol. 2 right now kills me inside.

ARGH.

February can't come soon enough.

Imodium 11-23-03 11:34 PM

I kind of wonder why RZA got a main credit on V.1. I mean, he only did "Crane", "Yakuza O-Ren", and "Banister Fight", and those combined are about 2 minutes of music.

Anyway, I hope Taratino sticks to using old movie music for the majority of the film.

harosa 11-24-03 07:19 AM

Man, after the crap that was Once Upon a Time in Mexico I dont want to see Rodriguez's name near anything I want to see.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:06 PM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.