-
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Film & Television
Welcome Guest
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat Recently Watched Best Documentaries ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak
Film: Kill Bill Vol. 2 (merged)
- Thread starter Dj DaZ
- Start date
honEbee
Bluelighter
^
LOL
yeah I pretty much meant both of them :D
LOL
yeah I pretty much meant both of them :D
physix
Bluelight Crew
i think this is part of tarantino's personality... he's a dick (reportedly) in real life... and this is an extension of that... get us all riled up with amazing fight scenes, knowing that we'd expect twice as much when she actually GETS TO BILL (after all, wasn't that the whole point?) and then leaving us hanging...
but the movie was satisfying...
one thing, tho, we really don't see why Pei Mai (?) took such a liking to Beatrice to show her the deadly 5-fingered heart crusher move (or whatever it was called)...
we know that he respected her for over-coming the trainig and learning how to bypass all of her weaknesses... but, can't we assume that all of the girls did, too? What made BEatrice so special as to be taught that fateful move and no one else????
Pei Mei taking out Elle's eye was bootiful, by the way.
All-in-all, the movie was satisfactory, once you get passed QT being a dick...
but the movie was satisfying...
one thing, tho, we really don't see why Pei Mai (?) took such a liking to Beatrice to show her the deadly 5-fingered heart crusher move (or whatever it was called)...
we know that he respected her for over-coming the trainig and learning how to bypass all of her weaknesses... but, can't we assume that all of the girls did, too? What made BEatrice so special as to be taught that fateful move and no one else????
Pei Mei taking out Elle's eye was bootiful, by the way.
All-in-all, the movie was satisfactory, once you get passed QT being a dick...
Frosty da snowman
Bluelighter
I thought the first few seconds with bride talking into the camera was kinda lame. Other wise the movie was good. I liked "frameing" of a lot of the shots more then in the first one. QT's use of black and white was dynamic. The pacing though seemed a little slow, at a few points I realized i've been in this seat X ammount of minitues. Didn't get that at all with the first volume. although take out that sucky opening in volume 2 slap them both together and I'd be good for about 4 hours.
I enjoyed this movie a lot. Like many others i had expected the same amount of fighting/action, but the 2nd was definitely more plot/dialouge oriented, which seemed to turn a lot of people off that i talked to after. The story definitely comes together between Beatrice and her father Bill. I just wish there woulda been some more anime clips like the first 
Kill Bill Vol2, Was I Spoiled or Is it Seriously Lacking?
I'm finally back online at home, so I thought I might run these ramblings I put up at imdb.com past you guys. Hopefully someone will find this shit interesting as well. Now I know that time will either sort out or explain all the below, but to spend some of my excesive energy levels, hopefully stimulate discussion and get back into writing, I've detailed my reaction to my first viewing of a movie that I really want to like (as I like all other QT's stuff) and can see lots of quality in, but for a few reasons have a bad taste in my mouth. As I am interested in story writing and film production, I'd like to try and understand my reactions.
"Although I vote all the time, I very rarely write user comments, so please excuse the length of this as I have alot of concerns about Kill Bill Vol 2, it's production and the new trend of making multiple movies at the same production & releasing them close together. Please bare with me if I seem to ramble, but if anyone also finds these things interesting, any thoughts (especially disagreements & criticism) is appreciated.
My decision to find and read the early draft KB script which is everywhere on the net, may have impared my KBV2 experience. I suppose they don't call them SPOILERS for nothing. I highly recommend reading this draft, but only after seeing the movies.
Trusting to be highly entertained by Tarantino's directing style, action sequences, etc., I bit the spoiler apple by reading the widely known "original script" found everywhere on the net. The script, which was obviously changed when split into two excited me immensely.
But my favourate elements, which seemed very important to the story, were completely wiped. Particularly the scene with Bill at the gambling establishment and the suburban epic chase/shoot-out between The Bride & Go=Go's sister.
The gambling scene establishes Bill's awe inspiring presence and his ability to be in complete control of a room full of strangers (in THEIR territory no less) and still be supercool. It also emphasises his honour code and creates a sort of empathy and/or admiration towards his motives, logic and abilities. This scene increses his character's depth.
Many believe that Michael Jay White's deleted role was in the above scene, but i don't think that is so, as there is a screen shot floating around the net of him getting his throat cut by Bill which looks like it's in China. The same is seen when he was glimpsed in the original trailer showing off his bo (staff) handling skills. Maybe I'm missing something as I forgot the characters names in gambling scene. But if by some chance he wasn't part of the gambling scene, then his character wasn't in the original script at all, was then added during filming and then withdrawn between the release of Vol 1 & 2 as he was credited in Vol 1. This seems incredibly indecisive to me for a very commercial production. Since writing this, I've been told again that MJW's cut scene was this one, so IF so, scratch some of the above.
The shootout scene was another example of Tarantino shining by taking the ordinary (a couple suburban blocks) and making it extraordinary (awesome duel and destruction), while adding another obstacle for the Bride to narrowly escape and thus sweeten her ultimate victory that much more. Not to mention adding another cool character. Go-Go was one of the most popular character's of Vol 1. Seems strange to remove her equivalent.
I hope that these two scenes exist and can be reincorporated into a future cut. Since writing this I've been told the shoot out was not filmed. Damn!
I thought the whole reason for splitting into 2 movies was the extreme length of everything shot (for the simple story) and it all being too good to cut. This could have caused the above mentioned indecision, but when Vol 1 is less than 2 hours long, and Vol 2 is little over 2 hours, why cut anything? These lengths are still far from Tarantino's standard film length. Being split into two movies, they could have easily worked (IMHO) with a 2.5 hour runtime for each half.
While the movie (IMHO) was cut too much in one way, in others it could've used a bit of trimming. I did enjoy alot of the movie, but it felt very empty. There are alot of unnecessary long pauses, which made many in the audience I was in noticably shuffle around uncomfortably. It was quite clear at times that the film had difficulty sustaining the full attention of the audience. For instance, Pei Mei was a great character, but I felt the beard stroke joke and reaction shots were way overplayed and repetative.
In stark contrast to Vol 1, these repetitions and pauses caused a feeling of a slow pace and thus left an unbalanced feeling between the two movies.
The Bride endures and overcomes a hell of alot in Vol 1, but in Vol 2 she only has three major obstacles: 1) to get out from being buried alive (which was actually resolved by a flashback, not really by her); 2) to beat Elle Driver (excellent fight) and then; 3) Bill (the pacing of the climactic face-off was all over the place and confusing).
Sadly The Bride never gets her own back with Budd, even though he done her over majorly not once, but twice, and of all characters, he's the only one to hint at repentance by saying (even briefly) that The Bride deserved her revenge. This line, which was important enough to be Budd's only one in Vol 1 is set up perfectly as great forshadowing but ends up wasted and rather pointless. Budd's chemistry with Elle before she wacks him was very good but then Elle's motive's for killing him were somewhat lacking and seemed either tacked on as an afterthought or ignored in revisions. Really, why go to the trouble of getting, carrying and handing over that much real money to someone if you intend to kill them and keep it anyway? Maybe I'm taking it too seriously, but suspension of disbelief is difficult when characters make stupid decisions. With her kind of connections and access to equipment, Elle could've ambushed Budd so many more senseible and smarter ways. Killing with a Black Mamba and explaining the symptoms was interesting and nicely cruel, but the deadly snake loose in that tiny confined space was immediately completely forgotten during the excellent Bride vs Elle showdown. Implementing ideas like the snake but then not taking it to where it would honestly goes is cheating the audience by serving a half arsed story. Even light comic/comedy needs to be written seriously and completely.
With The Bride having no hand in it, I didn't "feel bloody satisfaction" with Budd's demise. Personally, I would've preferred it if The Bride resolved her vengeance with Budd verbally because of the Bride's whole hitlist, he is the most changed and almost repentant. Determined vengeance, frantic self defense and even ability to resolve without vilence and even forgiveness (no religious implications meant) both emphasise the strengths of characters and are much more satisfying to watch than unwarranted, unintentional & worst of all LUCKY help. Especially by having the cliche of one "bad guy" killing another "bad guy". MAYBE (clutching at straws to explain) Tarantino was attempting to make fun of the countless movies that emphasise the badness of their "bad guys" by having them create conflict not only with the "good guys" and "neutrals" but also with each other. One rare example of this idea working is "The Joker" in the original (Tim Burton) Batman movie where he is so bad that he shoots his subordinates & fries his evil business partners. If this intention is true (however unlikely) the idea misses by a long shot.
I am also slightly peeved with Sofie Fattale's absolute dissapearence in Vol 2. Just a brief mention and/or glance at her recovery &/or injuries would have sufficed for a more round & solid overall story. A good point raised by another poster is the lack of Sofie during the Chapel Massacre flashback! Either I blinked or this is a BIG mistake. This scene was apparently added later in the production, so I think it's more likely the latter.
Also missed from the original script is a short sequence with Bill & The Bride driving past each other and Bill takes a spontaneous shot at her as she passes while both having a civil phone conversation with each other. This quick sequence added a massive "dangerous and unpredictable" element to Bill in the script, but i understand this cut more than the rest as the story is different and it wouldn't fit as the film ended up, but a similar scene could've been written to fit.
Apart from few excellent lines, the standard Tarantino dialogue seems missing and the conversations seemed too brief to me, as more emphasis was placed on reaction shots which are great once or twice per conversation turn, but any more became very repetative. Examples include: Budd gets scolded by his boss who actually has very little to say and says it repeatedly and with many pauses. The point of the scene was hard to see. My best guess is it's to fool the audience into believing Budd's turned soft and weak making his temporary triumph more surprising, but (IMO) that end came at a too high a price and then didn't really work; And the assassin in the final flashback (great scene otherwise) seemed far too easily convinced to walk away, especially as it's placed so close to the films climax.
On a very positive note, I found the mother daughter relationship absolutely beautiful and touching. Thurman did well in suddenly transforming from a cold blooded & efficient killer whose determination for vengeance is inhumanly absolute, to a tender, loving and very human mother.
As I found with Vol 1, I'll probably enjoy Vol 2 more with each subsequent viewing, but after my first viewing, I feel that the 2 movies were as uneven as Matrix 2 & 3. Both these and the Matrix film/s opened with the best sequences, ideas, and asked excellent questions about their sequels' possibilities, but then the sequels have both failed to live up to the quality standards of the first halves. They seems to have run out of sequence ideas & plot twists, and have failed to close off all that was started. I must admit I don't know which of the number of very different possibilities for the major reason for all of my somewhat negative reaction to Kill Bill 2, but it will come out in time. I've listed a few of the most likely reason at the bottom of the page.
With reports that there were many apparent updates and rewrites on the story (including the major change from 1 to 2 films) during production of both Kill Bill Volumes, it's easy to see how co-ordination & pacing of the bigger picture could easily get lost. I think more solid pre-production planning on the story (the spine of the films) would've solved all of the above. Tarantino's movies prior to KBV2 (including KBV1) are all beautifully paced & solidly written, and are non stop rides I personally enjoy every second of (and I'm not the only one), so he's very capable of better.
Whoah, this ramble is MUCH longer than I intended. Perhaps I am more dissapointed then I'd like to think. My overall opinion will change in due time, but at the moment, I feel this is far from Tarantino's high standard, but is still much better than most other movies out these days.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone is interested, these are some of the possible reasons I felt let down by a movie which does contain a higher level of quality to most releases. Lesser quality movies speak for themselves. I think the following are things worth considering if anyone reading this ever plans to be in any level of commercial film production (not that it's right or anything, just the opinion of a movie fan)
1) Perhaps, it's due to my own expectations, or the lack of them before the 1st halves, but then overexpecting for the second halves.
2) Maybe the filmmakers felt they had alot more to proove with the 1st halves, and in fear of losing two movies to the flop of the first, concentrated more energy to it, and were exhausted in the second (i think this is the case with Matrix)
3) Maybe creating 2 films at the same time creates too many complications in deciding how to have both tell one story while also standing alone. Sequels made seperately have more time to plan. LOTR is an exception to this possible drawback, but those films were freakish in their level of care and quality.
4) Another possibility is that releasing 2 movies of the same production/franchise very close together brings the second film to the public before it has had a chance to fully digest the previously released. In this case the second films can seem intrusive in on the still hot fanaticism of the first, and is thus semi-rejected to begin with. I think 12 months is the minimum time to make an audience ready for another (it worked with LOTR films despite their mammoth lengths).
5) One last possibility is that being made at the same time prevents the sequel from evolving from the first release because technology is the same, the filmmakers are the same age, there is no audience reaction & critical feedback like one would get when making each film seperately. These would make it very difficult to know what the audience wants and what works. LOTR once again excepts itself with it's incredible planning by building up in it's 2 subsequent chapters always ensuring the audience is seeing more than before which is the opposite of the second point (above)."
I'm finally back online at home, so I thought I might run these ramblings I put up at imdb.com past you guys. Hopefully someone will find this shit interesting as well. Now I know that time will either sort out or explain all the below, but to spend some of my excesive energy levels, hopefully stimulate discussion and get back into writing, I've detailed my reaction to my first viewing of a movie that I really want to like (as I like all other QT's stuff) and can see lots of quality in, but for a few reasons have a bad taste in my mouth. As I am interested in story writing and film production, I'd like to try and understand my reactions.
"Although I vote all the time, I very rarely write user comments, so please excuse the length of this as I have alot of concerns about Kill Bill Vol 2, it's production and the new trend of making multiple movies at the same production & releasing them close together. Please bare with me if I seem to ramble, but if anyone also finds these things interesting, any thoughts (especially disagreements & criticism) is appreciated.
My decision to find and read the early draft KB script which is everywhere on the net, may have impared my KBV2 experience. I suppose they don't call them SPOILERS for nothing. I highly recommend reading this draft, but only after seeing the movies.
Trusting to be highly entertained by Tarantino's directing style, action sequences, etc., I bit the spoiler apple by reading the widely known "original script" found everywhere on the net. The script, which was obviously changed when split into two excited me immensely.
But my favourate elements, which seemed very important to the story, were completely wiped. Particularly the scene with Bill at the gambling establishment and the suburban epic chase/shoot-out between The Bride & Go=Go's sister.
The gambling scene establishes Bill's awe inspiring presence and his ability to be in complete control of a room full of strangers (in THEIR territory no less) and still be supercool. It also emphasises his honour code and creates a sort of empathy and/or admiration towards his motives, logic and abilities. This scene increses his character's depth.
Many believe that Michael Jay White's deleted role was in the above scene, but i don't think that is so, as there is a screen shot floating around the net of him getting his throat cut by Bill which looks like it's in China. The same is seen when he was glimpsed in the original trailer showing off his bo (staff) handling skills. Maybe I'm missing something as I forgot the characters names in gambling scene. But if by some chance he wasn't part of the gambling scene, then his character wasn't in the original script at all, was then added during filming and then withdrawn between the release of Vol 1 & 2 as he was credited in Vol 1. This seems incredibly indecisive to me for a very commercial production. Since writing this, I've been told again that MJW's cut scene was this one, so IF so, scratch some of the above.
The shootout scene was another example of Tarantino shining by taking the ordinary (a couple suburban blocks) and making it extraordinary (awesome duel and destruction), while adding another obstacle for the Bride to narrowly escape and thus sweeten her ultimate victory that much more. Not to mention adding another cool character. Go-Go was one of the most popular character's of Vol 1. Seems strange to remove her equivalent.
I hope that these two scenes exist and can be reincorporated into a future cut. Since writing this I've been told the shoot out was not filmed. Damn!
I thought the whole reason for splitting into 2 movies was the extreme length of everything shot (for the simple story) and it all being too good to cut. This could have caused the above mentioned indecision, but when Vol 1 is less than 2 hours long, and Vol 2 is little over 2 hours, why cut anything? These lengths are still far from Tarantino's standard film length. Being split into two movies, they could have easily worked (IMHO) with a 2.5 hour runtime for each half.
While the movie (IMHO) was cut too much in one way, in others it could've used a bit of trimming. I did enjoy alot of the movie, but it felt very empty. There are alot of unnecessary long pauses, which made many in the audience I was in noticably shuffle around uncomfortably. It was quite clear at times that the film had difficulty sustaining the full attention of the audience. For instance, Pei Mei was a great character, but I felt the beard stroke joke and reaction shots were way overplayed and repetative.
In stark contrast to Vol 1, these repetitions and pauses caused a feeling of a slow pace and thus left an unbalanced feeling between the two movies.
The Bride endures and overcomes a hell of alot in Vol 1, but in Vol 2 she only has three major obstacles: 1) to get out from being buried alive (which was actually resolved by a flashback, not really by her); 2) to beat Elle Driver (excellent fight) and then; 3) Bill (the pacing of the climactic face-off was all over the place and confusing).
Sadly The Bride never gets her own back with Budd, even though he done her over majorly not once, but twice, and of all characters, he's the only one to hint at repentance by saying (even briefly) that The Bride deserved her revenge. This line, which was important enough to be Budd's only one in Vol 1 is set up perfectly as great forshadowing but ends up wasted and rather pointless. Budd's chemistry with Elle before she wacks him was very good but then Elle's motive's for killing him were somewhat lacking and seemed either tacked on as an afterthought or ignored in revisions. Really, why go to the trouble of getting, carrying and handing over that much real money to someone if you intend to kill them and keep it anyway? Maybe I'm taking it too seriously, but suspension of disbelief is difficult when characters make stupid decisions. With her kind of connections and access to equipment, Elle could've ambushed Budd so many more senseible and smarter ways. Killing with a Black Mamba and explaining the symptoms was interesting and nicely cruel, but the deadly snake loose in that tiny confined space was immediately completely forgotten during the excellent Bride vs Elle showdown. Implementing ideas like the snake but then not taking it to where it would honestly goes is cheating the audience by serving a half arsed story. Even light comic/comedy needs to be written seriously and completely.
With The Bride having no hand in it, I didn't "feel bloody satisfaction" with Budd's demise. Personally, I would've preferred it if The Bride resolved her vengeance with Budd verbally because of the Bride's whole hitlist, he is the most changed and almost repentant. Determined vengeance, frantic self defense and even ability to resolve without vilence and even forgiveness (no religious implications meant) both emphasise the strengths of characters and are much more satisfying to watch than unwarranted, unintentional & worst of all LUCKY help. Especially by having the cliche of one "bad guy" killing another "bad guy". MAYBE (clutching at straws to explain) Tarantino was attempting to make fun of the countless movies that emphasise the badness of their "bad guys" by having them create conflict not only with the "good guys" and "neutrals" but also with each other. One rare example of this idea working is "The Joker" in the original (Tim Burton) Batman movie where he is so bad that he shoots his subordinates & fries his evil business partners. If this intention is true (however unlikely) the idea misses by a long shot.
I am also slightly peeved with Sofie Fattale's absolute dissapearence in Vol 2. Just a brief mention and/or glance at her recovery &/or injuries would have sufficed for a more round & solid overall story. A good point raised by another poster is the lack of Sofie during the Chapel Massacre flashback! Either I blinked or this is a BIG mistake. This scene was apparently added later in the production, so I think it's more likely the latter.
Also missed from the original script is a short sequence with Bill & The Bride driving past each other and Bill takes a spontaneous shot at her as she passes while both having a civil phone conversation with each other. This quick sequence added a massive "dangerous and unpredictable" element to Bill in the script, but i understand this cut more than the rest as the story is different and it wouldn't fit as the film ended up, but a similar scene could've been written to fit.
Apart from few excellent lines, the standard Tarantino dialogue seems missing and the conversations seemed too brief to me, as more emphasis was placed on reaction shots which are great once or twice per conversation turn, but any more became very repetative. Examples include: Budd gets scolded by his boss who actually has very little to say and says it repeatedly and with many pauses. The point of the scene was hard to see. My best guess is it's to fool the audience into believing Budd's turned soft and weak making his temporary triumph more surprising, but (IMO) that end came at a too high a price and then didn't really work; And the assassin in the final flashback (great scene otherwise) seemed far too easily convinced to walk away, especially as it's placed so close to the films climax.
On a very positive note, I found the mother daughter relationship absolutely beautiful and touching. Thurman did well in suddenly transforming from a cold blooded & efficient killer whose determination for vengeance is inhumanly absolute, to a tender, loving and very human mother.
As I found with Vol 1, I'll probably enjoy Vol 2 more with each subsequent viewing, but after my first viewing, I feel that the 2 movies were as uneven as Matrix 2 & 3. Both these and the Matrix film/s opened with the best sequences, ideas, and asked excellent questions about their sequels' possibilities, but then the sequels have both failed to live up to the quality standards of the first halves. They seems to have run out of sequence ideas & plot twists, and have failed to close off all that was started. I must admit I don't know which of the number of very different possibilities for the major reason for all of my somewhat negative reaction to Kill Bill 2, but it will come out in time. I've listed a few of the most likely reason at the bottom of the page.
With reports that there were many apparent updates and rewrites on the story (including the major change from 1 to 2 films) during production of both Kill Bill Volumes, it's easy to see how co-ordination & pacing of the bigger picture could easily get lost. I think more solid pre-production planning on the story (the spine of the films) would've solved all of the above. Tarantino's movies prior to KBV2 (including KBV1) are all beautifully paced & solidly written, and are non stop rides I personally enjoy every second of (and I'm not the only one), so he's very capable of better.
Whoah, this ramble is MUCH longer than I intended. Perhaps I am more dissapointed then I'd like to think. My overall opinion will change in due time, but at the moment, I feel this is far from Tarantino's high standard, but is still much better than most other movies out these days.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone is interested, these are some of the possible reasons I felt let down by a movie which does contain a higher level of quality to most releases. Lesser quality movies speak for themselves. I think the following are things worth considering if anyone reading this ever plans to be in any level of commercial film production (not that it's right or anything, just the opinion of a movie fan)
1) Perhaps, it's due to my own expectations, or the lack of them before the 1st halves, but then overexpecting for the second halves.
2) Maybe the filmmakers felt they had alot more to proove with the 1st halves, and in fear of losing two movies to the flop of the first, concentrated more energy to it, and were exhausted in the second (i think this is the case with Matrix)
3) Maybe creating 2 films at the same time creates too many complications in deciding how to have both tell one story while also standing alone. Sequels made seperately have more time to plan. LOTR is an exception to this possible drawback, but those films were freakish in their level of care and quality.
4) Another possibility is that releasing 2 movies of the same production/franchise very close together brings the second film to the public before it has had a chance to fully digest the previously released. In this case the second films can seem intrusive in on the still hot fanaticism of the first, and is thus semi-rejected to begin with. I think 12 months is the minimum time to make an audience ready for another (it worked with LOTR films despite their mammoth lengths).
5) One last possibility is that being made at the same time prevents the sequel from evolving from the first release because technology is the same, the filmmakers are the same age, there is no audience reaction & critical feedback like one would get when making each film seperately. These would make it very difficult to know what the audience wants and what works. LOTR once again excepts itself with it's incredible planning by building up in it's 2 subsequent chapters always ensuring the audience is seeing more than before which is the opposite of the second point (above)."
DigitalDuality
Bluelighter
I'm sorry man, but if you were relating this movie to real life, philosophy, or even politics, I could keep this here.
Movies about films though, belong in Film and Television. I'm gonna move this thread over there, which will probably be merged into the pre-existing Kill Bill threads.
Movies about films though, belong in Film and Television. I'm gonna move this thread over there, which will probably be merged into the pre-existing Kill Bill threads.
kittyinthedark
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 10,887
All I know is that the movie was awesome, not as much so as the first one, but it still rocked! I especially liked all the throwbacks to old movies. The black and white Lana Turner bit was classic! And man, using the same fuckin flute as Carradine used in The Silent Flute in the friggin seventies! - how the fuck did they still have that? Props to them for that one!
JTNOLA5211
Bluelighter
physix said:
HE cut it up into 2 voulumes so he wouldnt have to edit out numerous scenes......
I hate when i see DVD's deleted scenes and i realize how much i missed....
I dont mind payin an extra $7 to see a better, fuller movie
^^^^He did not cut it in to 2 movies because of edits. QT has enough stroke that if one studio vetoed certain scenes he could tell em to fuck off & threaten to shop his film else where and it certainly was not due to time restaints.
As I stated earlier
As I stated earlier
physix
Bluelight Crew
Re: Kill Bill Vol2, Was I Spoiled or Is it Seriously Lacking?
actually, i found it shortly after i saw Kill Bill vol 1.
i got to a certain point and refused to go further....
i had to delete history to make sure that i didn't ruin it...
i was more interested in the added convo in the first fight scene.
is the GoGo sister thing really necessary?
revenge of revenge....?
alittle much, don't you think?
well, i think QT realized that there some things that are unnecessary.
why does she need ANOTHER narrow escape? he just
fought off "88" sword weilding ninja brats....
after that, anything else along those lines would be
unnecessary....
when writing, the object isn't to make example after example
after example after example... movies like these would never
end ... why stop with GoGo's sister...? why not her dad... why
not the Proprietor's old yakuza investor (i'm sur QT could have
written taht in, too)... or a pissed off flight attendant who is bound
and determined to take the sword away from her ....
no, you don't do that... rather make your ONE example and let it
be the example of all examples... we don't need more demonstration
of her skills.... she kicked "88" crazy fuckers... DECISIVELY.
probably because the middle part before she kicks MAJOR ass...
woudl be alittle too drawn out.... and if the scenes happened
AFTER the major ass kickin', then you're not left with an ending
that you're still high off of.
i don't know about you, but i was AMPEED after that.... anything
else would have dropped the energy (probably) and ruined the
flow.
QT's main point is that too many characters may have become
too distracting...
ok, who is the black dude... why is he involved... what's his back
story... what's GoGo's sister's backstory... who are these gambler's...
what's their backstory...
ok, Bill has enamoured them.... but who are they? why should we
be impressed that Bill has 'won them over'....? see....
too many extraneous shit.
we already got the impression that Bill was a bad ass...
he's called the snakecharmer.... he's got all these bad-ass
bitches who kick major ass and run crimeworlds and they
have snake names.... so ... we're already privvy to Bill's
bad-ass-ness... we need no further example.
your attention was supposed to be away from what The Bride
could over-come.... she beat up "88" crazy ass teenage ninjas!!!
nothing else, besides maybe the car scene, coudl have topped it.
but it wasn't needed. the first one was physical.
the second one was psychological.
even the obstacles were more psychological.
being buried alive is a big fear for many... and a re-occuring
nightmare for yourstruly..
fear of snakes....
i didn't feel it was wasted. it shows another side of Bud.
an honourable side. He indeed did not sell his sword.
he indeed respected The Bride. But, above all
others, he loved Bill... his brother. And that love was
far stronger than his respect. Hence, why he was able
to continue to defend himself and try to kill Beatrice
when he in fact thought he deserved to die.
Are you sure ? she even said in Vol 1 how she respected
her... killing her in her sleep was a GIFT to Elle....
Really, why go to the trouble of getting, carrying and handing over that much real money to someone if you intend to kill them and keep it anyway?
Building tension. It's a common tactic.... -shrug-
QT uses it way too much. (plus, see below)
no it wasn't.... it almost got The Bride at once....
also, you're forgetting that the BLACK MAMBA was
a method The BRide employed in her killing days
as.. teh Black Mamba.... Elle was gonna frame
The BRide with Bud's murder and then say SHE
killed The Bride... how else would she get away with
killing Bill's most beloved brother??????
it made perfect sense.
really? but pushing up agains the flow of 6 ft of dirt
in a tiny confined space doesn't do that..???
altho they could have incorporated the snake in the battle sequence...
Elle vs the bride vs the snake.....
but did you REALLY think about the snake when they were fighting???
really? just b-c he quit doesn't mean that he was repetent...
remember, he said that SHE deserved to die, too. If he was
TRULY repetent, he would have accepted his demise... instead,
he fought it, tricked her, and then attempted to profit from it.
he loved Bill... and his love and honour was admirable.
but he was not a good repetent man.
she was without forigiveness.... that was the whole point of
vol 1.... she even said it to her second victim... we're already
shown her sense of honor, too, in that she didn't want to
be even with Vivica Fox, b-c that would involve killing two
innocents (the daughter and the husband) and she was
ABOVE that.... so we didn't need another example.
Bud, like them all, deserved to die.
the one person who didn't deserve to die was
sword maker... he was TRULY repentent... so
much so that he understood his responsibility
for all the massacre and broke his oath to God
(not to be taken lightly) to make it right.
does it?
how so?
you just explained it.
it's a typical cliche...
how much of a ballsy bitch is Elle?
she's ballzy enough to kill Bill's brother... kill the
trainer that made them all bad-ass (Pei Mei has
to be bad, too... he'd know what kind of people
they were that he was training... that they loved
to kill... he has some responsibility in this too....)
mmm hmmm
yeah.... big mistake.
and her scene was so perfect. they're whippin' ass
and she's talking and laughing in her cell phone....
but her body damage.... well.... it was left to the imagination.
same as The Bride's beat down.
we see SOME of it... but the rest is left to a animatic
and 2 shots...
I originally thought Sophie was fucked up more than
jsut 2 arms missing.... that's b-c my imagination
went wild... that's the beauty of NOT showing it.
i would agree with the Bud as a weakling thing... way too
over done... could have been done alot quicker... but QT
loves his tension... i heard some kids behind me say "aww
shit, Bud's gonna kick some ass..."
so for those kids, when he DOES basically come on top,
it was more of an impact for them... unless they missed
it totally....
and with the assassin, i think you fall in with the "need more"
(which is what many ppl felt about all of vol 2... need more
fighting ... need more blood.... et al)... you needed to see
more convincing... but it's the INTENSITY of the scene that is
convincing.... the assassin looks really confused and scared
and out of sorts... as if the whole thing shook her constitution.
remember how she went from stoic assassin to this hapless
dazed and almost frightened girl...???? it was an excellent
portrayal of 2 people at odds with their lives.
really???
I think all his movies, with the exception of MAYBE Pulp Fiction,
he uses the 'ramble-to-build-tension' almost to the point of
flaw....
i think we all had that.
it was his first in what...? 4 years.....?
i'd say he had something to prove...
true.. QT is infamously sloppy.
but it doesn't have to be perfect....
that sounds infamously like Warner Bros' 12 yr battle with
prince's 1 album-a-year output....
well, it also helped that LOTR was written by a genius.... (albiet
one with really bad cahracter development issues... )
part of the issue is simply, QT wanted this movie to be
dif't than the first... but WE see it as a SEQUEL ... not
as continuation of the story.
as such, we fall into the standard "sequels gotta be
bigger, better, badder" than the first....
star wars to return of the jedi
alien to aliens (tho' it failted)
FotR to RotK
Matrix to Matrix Revolutions
so, then, QT doesn't provide that... so we can't help but
to feel jipped.... or let down... or that it was a mistake...
was it????
i was totally satisfied on a PHYSICAL level
with vol 1 ...
with vol 2, i was satisfied on a psycho-emotional
level...
yes, i wish there was more fighting....
but the movie isn't flawed b-c of it, IMO.
you're right tho... i will like it more with
subsequent viewings.
Left to Right said:
actually, i found it shortly after i saw Kill Bill vol 1.
i got to a certain point and refused to go further....
i had to delete history to make sure that i didn't ruin it...
i was more interested in the added convo in the first fight scene.
Left to Right said:
is the GoGo sister thing really necessary?
revenge of revenge....?
alittle much, don't you think?
Left to Right said:
well, i think QT realized that there some things that are unnecessary.
why does she need ANOTHER narrow escape? he just
fought off "88" sword weilding ninja brats....
after that, anything else along those lines would be
unnecessary....
when writing, the object isn't to make example after example
after example after example... movies like these would never
end ... why stop with GoGo's sister...? why not her dad... why
not the Proprietor's old yakuza investor (i'm sur QT could have
written taht in, too)... or a pissed off flight attendant who is bound
and determined to take the sword away from her ....
no, you don't do that... rather make your ONE example and let it
be the example of all examples... we don't need more demonstration
of her skills.... she kicked "88" crazy fuckers... DECISIVELY.
Left to Right said:
probably because the middle part before she kicks MAJOR ass...
woudl be alittle too drawn out.... and if the scenes happened
AFTER the major ass kickin', then you're not left with an ending
that you're still high off of.
i don't know about you, but i was AMPEED after that.... anything
else would have dropped the energy (probably) and ruined the
flow.
QT's main point is that too many characters may have become
too distracting...
ok, who is the black dude... why is he involved... what's his back
story... what's GoGo's sister's backstory... who are these gambler's...
what's their backstory...
ok, Bill has enamoured them.... but who are they? why should we
be impressed that Bill has 'won them over'....? see....
too many extraneous shit.
we already got the impression that Bill was a bad ass...
he's called the snakecharmer.... he's got all these bad-ass
bitches who kick major ass and run crimeworlds and they
have snake names.... so ... we're already privvy to Bill's
bad-ass-ness... we need no further example.
Left to Right said:
your attention was supposed to be away from what The Bride
could over-come.... she beat up "88" crazy ass teenage ninjas!!!
nothing else, besides maybe the car scene, coudl have topped it.
but it wasn't needed. the first one was physical.
the second one was psychological.
even the obstacles were more psychological.
being buried alive is a big fear for many... and a re-occuring
nightmare for yourstruly..
fear of snakes....
Left to Right said:
i didn't feel it was wasted. it shows another side of Bud.
an honourable side. He indeed did not sell his sword.
he indeed respected The Bride. But, above all
others, he loved Bill... his brother. And that love was
far stronger than his respect. Hence, why he was able
to continue to defend himself and try to kill Beatrice
when he in fact thought he deserved to die.
Left to Right said:
Are you sure ? she even said in Vol 1 how she respected
her... killing her in her sleep was a GIFT to Elle....
Really, why go to the trouble of getting, carrying and handing over that much real money to someone if you intend to kill them and keep it anyway?
Building tension. It's a common tactic.... -shrug-
QT uses it way too much. (plus, see below)
Left to Right said:
no it wasn't.... it almost got The Bride at once....
also, you're forgetting that the BLACK MAMBA was
a method The BRide employed in her killing days
as.. teh Black Mamba.... Elle was gonna frame
The BRide with Bud's murder and then say SHE
killed The Bride... how else would she get away with
killing Bill's most beloved brother??????
it made perfect sense.
Left to Right said:
really? but pushing up agains the flow of 6 ft of dirt
in a tiny confined space doesn't do that..???
altho they could have incorporated the snake in the battle sequence...
Elle vs the bride vs the snake.....
but did you REALLY think about the snake when they were fighting???
Left to Right said:
really? just b-c he quit doesn't mean that he was repetent...
remember, he said that SHE deserved to die, too. If he was
TRULY repetent, he would have accepted his demise... instead,
he fought it, tricked her, and then attempted to profit from it.
he loved Bill... and his love and honour was admirable.
but he was not a good repetent man.
Left to Right said:
she was without forigiveness.... that was the whole point of
vol 1.... she even said it to her second victim... we're already
shown her sense of honor, too, in that she didn't want to
be even with Vivica Fox, b-c that would involve killing two
innocents (the daughter and the husband) and she was
ABOVE that.... so we didn't need another example.
Bud, like them all, deserved to die.
the one person who didn't deserve to die was
sword maker... he was TRULY repentent... so
much so that he understood his responsibility
for all the massacre and broke his oath to God
(not to be taken lightly) to make it right.
Left to Right said:
does it?
how so?
you just explained it.
it's a typical cliche...
how much of a ballsy bitch is Elle?
she's ballzy enough to kill Bill's brother... kill the
trainer that made them all bad-ass (Pei Mei has
to be bad, too... he'd know what kind of people
they were that he was training... that they loved
to kill... he has some responsibility in this too....)
Left to Right said:
mmm hmmm
yeah.... big mistake.
and her scene was so perfect. they're whippin' ass
and she's talking and laughing in her cell phone....
but her body damage.... well.... it was left to the imagination.
same as The Bride's beat down.
we see SOME of it... but the rest is left to a animatic
and 2 shots...
I originally thought Sophie was fucked up more than
jsut 2 arms missing.... that's b-c my imagination
went wild... that's the beauty of NOT showing it.
Left to Right said:
i would agree with the Bud as a weakling thing... way too
over done... could have been done alot quicker... but QT
loves his tension... i heard some kids behind me say "aww
shit, Bud's gonna kick some ass..."
so for those kids, when he DOES basically come on top,
it was more of an impact for them... unless they missed
it totally....
and with the assassin, i think you fall in with the "need more"
(which is what many ppl felt about all of vol 2... need more
fighting ... need more blood.... et al)... you needed to see
more convincing... but it's the INTENSITY of the scene that is
convincing.... the assassin looks really confused and scared
and out of sorts... as if the whole thing shook her constitution.
remember how she went from stoic assassin to this hapless
dazed and almost frightened girl...???? it was an excellent
portrayal of 2 people at odds with their lives.
Left to Right said:
really???
I think all his movies, with the exception of MAYBE Pulp Fiction,
he uses the 'ramble-to-build-tension' almost to the point of
flaw....
Left to Right said:
i think we all had that.
Left to Right said:
it was his first in what...? 4 years.....?
i'd say he had something to prove...
Left to Right said:
true.. QT is infamously sloppy.
but it doesn't have to be perfect....
Left to Right said:
that sounds infamously like Warner Bros' 12 yr battle with
prince's 1 album-a-year output....
Left to Right said:
well, it also helped that LOTR was written by a genius.... (albiet
one with really bad cahracter development issues...
)part of the issue is simply, QT wanted this movie to be
dif't than the first... but WE see it as a SEQUEL ... not
as continuation of the story.
as such, we fall into the standard "sequels gotta be
bigger, better, badder" than the first....
star wars to return of the jedi
alien to aliens (tho' it failted)
FotR to RotK
Matrix to Matrix Revolutions
so, then, QT doesn't provide that... so we can't help but
to feel jipped.... or let down... or that it was a mistake...
was it????
i was totally satisfied on a PHYSICAL level
with vol 1 ...
with vol 2, i was satisfied on a psycho-emotional
level...
yes, i wish there was more fighting....
but the movie isn't flawed b-c of it, IMO.
you're right tho... i will like it more with
subsequent viewings.
physix
Bluelight Crew
jesus!
what a read!!!!!
what a read!!!!!
physix
Bluelight Crew
it's been four years since people were talking about him. I do remember reading (not critics or actors but other industry folk) saying he was difficult to work with and sometimes a dick. you can tell by his interviews that he can be a dick... you can tell by his AMERICAN IDOL judging that, funny tho it was, he was being a dick...
i doubt i can find it again... and i'm not rummaging thru the intruweb to find it thru 4 or 5 years of stuff... sorry.
other artists call artists eccentric... businessmen call them dicks.
poTAYto poTAHto.
i doubt i can find it again... and i'm not rummaging thru the intruweb to find it thru 4 or 5 years of stuff... sorry.
other artists call artists eccentric... businessmen call them dicks.
poTAYto poTAHto.
Re: Re: Kill Bill Vol2, Was I Spoiled or Is it Seriously Lacking?
Thanks for the correction, DigitalDuality.
Excellent reply, Physix (as far as i've read it so far). I'll attempt to keep this discussion up, even though I'm planning to see the movie again tonight, so my opinion will change one way or another. Not to mention the influence I'll be under this time. Hell, tomorrow I may go so far as to take back all I wrote. Fingers crossed.
I found this scene very exciting to read and so I was really looking forward to seeing it. I don't think it'd be too much to add this "vengeance for vengeance" scene because it creates a major consequence to Beatrix's choice to go on her mission. After all, she is killing people.
At the moment I have difficulty understanding QT's selections of which sequences stay and which're cut. Maybe his film homages were as important to QT as the story, and so since I (probably) don't know most of the movies he's homaging, I may not "get" alot of them. Now I have seen a fair sum of asian movies, and I guesstimate my exposure to asian cinema is at least slightly above the average of all who see kill bill worldwide. Now if i don't get alot, then at least half of Kill Bill's worldwide audience are at least as confused or unsure as I am.
btw: there aren't 88 minions in "the crazy 88"
The battles aren't there to provide examples of Beatrix's skill. They are there (IMO) to illustrate the price Beatrix is willing to pay to get her satisfaction and, in a simple vengeance plot like KB, is the main key in creating drama & tension.
Beatrix's written battle with Yuki is very different to her fight with Go-go, so there is no plot nor action repetition and it is a direct consequence of Beatrix's mission and the film's main plot. If another character was then written to seek vengeance for Yuki's demise, then the plot would be repetative and the new turn would have nothing to do with the main story.
QT has the ability to create and add plot twists and/or character interaction/relationship development (with slick dialogue) with energy equivalent to if not greater than any action sequence.
The six original members of DIVAS (including Kiddo) are the only main characters. Everyone else is there to support and emphasise their characters, so as each main character meet their kharma, it means more and is a larger accomplishment and thus higher satisfaction is reached.
Bad ass names and slick leathers only reflect a character's view of themselves. In order to establish chacterisation (so the audience gives a shit about their fate) the character needs to perform under some sort of pressure. The way the character handles themselves in said situation illustrates who they are.
In the title of the movie and the quick retelling of the history which caused this woman to make this huge decision that is the plot, it seems like Beatrix set herself up to do the impossible. In order to achieve the seemingly impossible, how she does needs to be shown. She does it by enduring & overcomng incredible hardships and battles. The greater the hardships and battles (and consequences IMO) the greater the accomplishment in the end.
out of time.. to be continued....
Thanks for the correction, DigitalDuality.
Excellent reply, Physix (as far as i've read it so far). I'll attempt to keep this discussion up, even though I'm planning to see the movie again tonight, so my opinion will change one way or another. Not to mention the influence I'll be under this time. Hell, tomorrow I may go so far as to take back all I wrote. Fingers crossed.
physix said:
I found this scene very exciting to read and so I was really looking forward to seeing it. I don't think it'd be too much to add this "vengeance for vengeance" scene because it creates a major consequence to Beatrix's choice to go on her mission. After all, she is killing people.
physix said:
At the moment I have difficulty understanding QT's selections of which sequences stay and which're cut. Maybe his film homages were as important to QT as the story, and so since I (probably) don't know most of the movies he's homaging, I may not "get" alot of them. Now I have seen a fair sum of asian movies, and I guesstimate my exposure to asian cinema is at least slightly above the average of all who see kill bill worldwide. Now if i don't get alot, then at least half of Kill Bill's worldwide audience are at least as confused or unsure as I am.
btw: there aren't 88 minions in "the crazy 88"
physix said:
The battles aren't there to provide examples of Beatrix's skill. They are there (IMO) to illustrate the price Beatrix is willing to pay to get her satisfaction and, in a simple vengeance plot like KB, is the main key in creating drama & tension.
Beatrix's written battle with Yuki is very different to her fight with Go-go, so there is no plot nor action repetition and it is a direct consequence of Beatrix's mission and the film's main plot. If another character was then written to seek vengeance for Yuki's demise, then the plot would be repetative and the new turn would have nothing to do with the main story.
physix said:
QT has the ability to create and add plot twists and/or character interaction/relationship development (with slick dialogue) with energy equivalent to if not greater than any action sequence.
physix said:
The six original members of DIVAS (including Kiddo) are the only main characters. Everyone else is there to support and emphasise their characters, so as each main character meet their kharma, it means more and is a larger accomplishment and thus higher satisfaction is reached.
physix said:
Bad ass names and slick leathers only reflect a character's view of themselves. In order to establish chacterisation (so the audience gives a shit about their fate) the character needs to perform under some sort of pressure. The way the character handles themselves in said situation illustrates who they are.
physix said:
your attention was supposed to be away from what The Bride
could over-come.... she beat up "88" crazy ass teenage ninjas!!!
nothing else, besides maybe the car scene, coudl have topped it.
but it wasn't needed. the first one was physical.
the second one was psychological.
even the obstacles were more psychological.
being buried alive is a big fear for many... and a re-occuring
nightmare for yourstruly..
fear of snakes....
In the title of the movie and the quick retelling of the history which caused this woman to make this huge decision that is the plot, it seems like Beatrix set herself up to do the impossible. In order to achieve the seemingly impossible, how she does needs to be shown. She does it by enduring & overcomng incredible hardships and battles. The greater the hardships and battles (and consequences IMO) the greater the accomplishment in the end.
out of time.. to be continued....
Last edited:
onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
nice analysis, left to right
i don't think i've quite got the time to go through and reply to each and everything you've said, but i'll mention a couple of things.
firstly, i think the unnecessary pauses you mentioned weren't actually so bad. from his very first film, tarantino has known how to make some very beautiful shots, and in kb2 i really thought that many of these moments just allowed us a moment to reflect on how nice everything liked.
on pei mei's beard stroking - i see your point, but wasn't it the entire idea of this to go blatantly over the top? if he just did it once, i don't think the joke would have been as amusing, personally.
and though i see what you're saying about the cutting of certain scenes and characters...well, i think the film is about kiddo, not about bill. and though it might not have been the case, i think what you mentioned may have actually taken away from the bride's character.
good to see it's making people think though
and i thoroughly enjoyed the film, btw.
i don't think i've quite got the time to go through and reply to each and everything you've said, but i'll mention a couple of things.
firstly, i think the unnecessary pauses you mentioned weren't actually so bad. from his very first film, tarantino has known how to make some very beautiful shots, and in kb2 i really thought that many of these moments just allowed us a moment to reflect on how nice everything liked.
on pei mei's beard stroking - i see your point, but wasn't it the entire idea of this to go blatantly over the top? if he just did it once, i don't think the joke would have been as amusing, personally.
and though i see what you're saying about the cutting of certain scenes and characters...well, i think the film is about kiddo, not about bill. and though it might not have been the case, i think what you mentioned may have actually taken away from the bride's character.
good to see it's making people think though
and i thoroughly enjoyed the film, btw.
physix
Bluelight Crew
Re: Re: Re: Kill Bill Vol2, Was I Spoiled or Is it Seriously Lacking?
and then i'm gonna let your own words iterate my thoughts, too.
bingo.
those stories were alittle 1 dimensional... the only reference to consequence would be the equivelent of The Bride letting Vivica Fox's character's daughter know that she'll "be waitin'" hence a consequence.... but the westerns that QT was emulating never really went beyond that...
that's just what Bill said to his brother.
methinks to calm him down.
when you see the look in Bill's eyes when he says "oh, no they just call themselves that..." you can tell he's lying... or at least, that's what Igot out of it.
now, i'm pretty sure SOMEONE here has paused the scene when they surround her in vol 1 and counted them... but what we see is irrelevent.
they are called 88... there's alot of them.... we can infer that they were indeed 88 of them...
sort of a "ok, QT, we get the point" without him actually having to show 88 yakuza gettin' killed...
er, sorry, 87, she let the really young one go.
(which was out-of-character, by the way... but DEVESTATINGLY funny...)
which is exactly why i said she didn't need ANOTHER obstacle... you said she needed more obstacles... I said she didn't... you're right, the battle scene was to show what she was willing to go through... and it doubled as a testamont to her skill... another obstacle would be over-kill and unnecessary... not to mention lackluster in comparison.
exactly why it was good that it was left out.
another battle scene was not needed... QT could have made the scene where B realizes she's pregnant right before the assassin gets there... that could have turned into a fight scene just as easily as any others, with the pregnancy revelation thrown in there to halt the fight... but he didn't...
only 2 other fight scenes, ultimately (maybe 3) were needed... GoGo's sister just isn't one of them. Cool to have, most definitely... but needed?
but not in this case... i don't think he could have ended vol 1 in a better
spot.
she kicked ass... she kicked MAJOR ass... she scalped a bitch... cut some heffer's arms off... through her down a hill into a hospital... made some more threats... and Bill was like, "she know i got her daughter..."
BLAM
done.
I'll re-read the written ending as soon as I can find it again... but I doubt the written ending would have been "cliffhangery" enough.
Remember MISERY? When the crazy antagonist was talking about those westerns, where the cowboy would be tied up on a burning wagon, racing towards a cliff... then would fly off the cliff, on the burning wagon... you could see him on the wagon as it crashes... then, next week, you'd see the cowboy riding off to get the villain and then a flashback to the burning wagon to reveal that he had gotten off the wagon "just in time"...
that's how seriously fucked up they were .. you'd SEE the person basically get killed... no way he could have survived it!!! then, the next week, "oh, we were just kiddin.... this is what really happened..."
shit like that ...
the "i got her baby" thing was beautiful! And the crowd I was with made an audible GASP that probablycollectively sucked out all the oxygen in the room...
would the original ending have done that, and remained true to the films he was paying homage to in vol 1????
yes, but you can't introduce people ... and then say "wow.. Bill's a bad ass b-c he won these people over or they respected him" and just let it be that... you cannot do it... who gives a fuck that Gambler #2 is SO enamoured or respectful of Bill... he can be a fuckin' drunk loser pedophile for all we know...
in order to provide proper context, the character has to have a backstory, no matter if they are main character or not... if I am to believe that Bill is a bad-ass because he went to these people's turf and beat them, i NEED TO KNOW that those people he beat DESERVE MY RESPECT.
example:
in a gambling movie... you have the protagonist come up to challenge the hot shot gambler.... you KNOW the antagonist is a good gambler, b-c he's got all the chips there, smoking some fat cuban cigar with a swaggert look on his face (a look of "pssh,nigga please!") and all the hot honies are on his side... there. out antagonist beats him, steals his chicks, has all the chips/money on his side, and is now smoking a cuban cigar...
the stage was set ... we were given tools to identify why our antagonists victory was so sweet....
if he'd just sat down to any ole regular table with some dude with some money but not alot, had a humbling look on his face, no honies... well, then we'd be less impressed if our antagonist bankrupted him...
same theory, setting up the REASONS these people deserved our respect would take too long... altho' it would have been very very very interesting...
ANOTHER perfect example WITHIN THE MOVIE...
QT didn't just leave it with The BRide telling us that "hey, that GoGo bitch is fucked up...!!!" he GAVE us a backstory... she SHOWED us how bad-ass and fucked in the head she was before the showdown...
the fact that she WAS made the victory sweeter.
no you're talking real life... we're talking about literary world... and in literary world, you take things... well.. literally. i think you're missing out on ALOT of symbolism...
there is no frivilous information in a good piece of literary work... and things aren't coincidental like they are in real life... there is a REASON Bill is called THE SNAKECHARMER... there is a REASON all the girl assassins are named after snakes (BTW, did Bud have a snake name??? I don't remember seeing it)...
If the name given to the person is an IRONIC ACRONYM, let when they call a tall dude Shorty or a fat dude "Slim", then we are given plenty of context to immediately identify that the name SLIM is ironic for this fat man. There's no reason to think anything other than Bill is a bad-ass. The name helps reinforce that, not bring it to question. There is no irony in it... tongue in cheek maybe, but not irony.
now, again, ase the name(s) alludes to Bill's bad-assness... we do NOT need an example of his bad-assness... it would be nice, yes. And QT wrote it in... but undoubtedly, he probably realized that in order to write in these characters to show why we should respect Bill, he would need to establish why we should respect the other characters...
i mean, we don't respect the dude that beats up on the cripple kid...
no, we respect the Davids who beat the Goliaths... and we better know why Goliath is bad-ass... so, as a writer/director, you better show it...
so then you have all these backstories you need to iron out... and that could ultimately be too confusing...
the problem many artists have is that they have ideas ... and these ideas are all wonderful... and they want to incorporate all of them in there...
you've read a great script... liked some great scenes that weren't in the movie... and naturally you think "man, i bet that would have been neat..." and you wanna see it...
but an artist HAS to be able to pull back and say "ok, do I really need this...? What is redundant...? What is unncessary..."
perfect example: RETURN OF THE KING. The taking of the Shire by Sauromon...
...........
totally unnecessary...
SO many people WANTED to see it.... why?
b-c it was in the book... and it was written well... it made the Hobbitts (all of them) realize that the world isn't safe...
but... that wasn't the point of the trilogy. The point of the trilogy was the Ring and all that it symbolized.. yadda yadda yadda... why add to it?
Peter Jackson's most brilliant show of direction was in the simple DELETION of the final taking of the Shire, thus changing the dynamic of the hobbitt heroes alittle... they alone bear the burden of knowing the evils that surround them. Poetic.
QT probably did the same thing.
He obviously thought these scenes were needed... I mean, he wrote them down... plot, settings, dialogue and all... he more than likely had storyboards for those scenes... maybe even animatics for them... hell, some of them he even shot. But in the end, were they "must have"s...? or are they simply "cool to have"s...? It's hard for an artist or writer to be able to do that (hell, that's why novelists have editors and shit most of the time) so i comend QT for having the ability to say "man, even tho' I wrote this bad-ass scene and I KNOW this would be bad-ass on film, I just don't need it."
phew!
you are making me think, i tell ya!
Left to Right said:
and then i'm gonna let your own words iterate my thoughts, too.
Left to Right said:
bingo.
those stories were alittle 1 dimensional... the only reference to consequence would be the equivelent of The Bride letting Vivica Fox's character's daughter know that she'll "be waitin'" hence a consequence.... but the westerns that QT was emulating never really went beyond that...
Left to Right said:
that's just what Bill said to his brother.
methinks to calm him down.
when you see the look in Bill's eyes when he says "oh, no they just call themselves that..." you can tell he's lying... or at least, that's what Igot out of it.
now, i'm pretty sure SOMEONE here has paused the scene when they surround her in vol 1 and counted them... but what we see is irrelevent.
they are called 88... there's alot of them.... we can infer that they were indeed 88 of them...
sort of a "ok, QT, we get the point" without him actually having to show 88 yakuza gettin' killed...
er, sorry, 87, she let the really young one go.
(which was out-of-character, by the way... but DEVESTATINGLY funny...)
Left to Right said:
which is exactly why i said she didn't need ANOTHER obstacle... you said she needed more obstacles... I said she didn't... you're right, the battle scene was to show what she was willing to go through... and it doubled as a testamont to her skill... another obstacle would be over-kill and unnecessary... not to mention lackluster in comparison.
Left to Right said:
exactly why it was good that it was left out.
another battle scene was not needed... QT could have made the scene where B realizes she's pregnant right before the assassin gets there... that could have turned into a fight scene just as easily as any others, with the pregnancy revelation thrown in there to halt the fight... but he didn't...
only 2 other fight scenes, ultimately (maybe 3) were needed... GoGo's sister just isn't one of them. Cool to have, most definitely... but needed?
Left to Right said:
but not in this case... i don't think he could have ended vol 1 in a better
spot.
she kicked ass... she kicked MAJOR ass... she scalped a bitch... cut some heffer's arms off... through her down a hill into a hospital... made some more threats... and Bill was like, "she know i got her daughter..."
BLAM
done.
I'll re-read the written ending as soon as I can find it again... but I doubt the written ending would have been "cliffhangery" enough.
Remember MISERY? When the crazy antagonist was talking about those westerns, where the cowboy would be tied up on a burning wagon, racing towards a cliff... then would fly off the cliff, on the burning wagon... you could see him on the wagon as it crashes... then, next week, you'd see the cowboy riding off to get the villain and then a flashback to the burning wagon to reveal that he had gotten off the wagon "just in time"...
that's how seriously fucked up they were .. you'd SEE the person basically get killed... no way he could have survived it!!! then, the next week, "oh, we were just kiddin.... this is what really happened..."
shit like that ...
the "i got her baby" thing was beautiful! And the crowd I was with made an audible GASP that probablycollectively sucked out all the oxygen in the room...
would the original ending have done that, and remained true to the films he was paying homage to in vol 1????
Left to Right said:
yes, but you can't introduce people ... and then say "wow.. Bill's a bad ass b-c he won these people over or they respected him" and just let it be that... you cannot do it... who gives a fuck that Gambler #2 is SO enamoured or respectful of Bill... he can be a fuckin' drunk loser pedophile for all we know...
in order to provide proper context, the character has to have a backstory, no matter if they are main character or not... if I am to believe that Bill is a bad-ass because he went to these people's turf and beat them, i NEED TO KNOW that those people he beat DESERVE MY RESPECT.
example:
in a gambling movie... you have the protagonist come up to challenge the hot shot gambler.... you KNOW the antagonist is a good gambler, b-c he's got all the chips there, smoking some fat cuban cigar with a swaggert look on his face (a look of "pssh,nigga please!") and all the hot honies are on his side... there. out antagonist beats him, steals his chicks, has all the chips/money on his side, and is now smoking a cuban cigar...
the stage was set ... we were given tools to identify why our antagonists victory was so sweet....
if he'd just sat down to any ole regular table with some dude with some money but not alot, had a humbling look on his face, no honies... well, then we'd be less impressed if our antagonist bankrupted him...
same theory, setting up the REASONS these people deserved our respect would take too long... altho' it would have been very very very interesting...
ANOTHER perfect example WITHIN THE MOVIE...
QT didn't just leave it with The BRide telling us that "hey, that GoGo bitch is fucked up...!!!" he GAVE us a backstory... she SHOWED us how bad-ass and fucked in the head she was before the showdown...
the fact that she WAS made the victory sweeter.
Left to Right said:
no you're talking real life... we're talking about literary world... and in literary world, you take things... well.. literally. i think you're missing out on ALOT of symbolism...
there is no frivilous information in a good piece of literary work... and things aren't coincidental like they are in real life... there is a REASON Bill is called THE SNAKECHARMER... there is a REASON all the girl assassins are named after snakes (BTW, did Bud have a snake name??? I don't remember seeing it)...
If the name given to the person is an IRONIC ACRONYM, let when they call a tall dude Shorty or a fat dude "Slim", then we are given plenty of context to immediately identify that the name SLIM is ironic for this fat man. There's no reason to think anything other than Bill is a bad-ass. The name helps reinforce that, not bring it to question. There is no irony in it... tongue in cheek maybe, but not irony.
now, again, ase the name(s) alludes to Bill's bad-assness... we do NOT need an example of his bad-assness... it would be nice, yes. And QT wrote it in... but undoubtedly, he probably realized that in order to write in these characters to show why we should respect Bill, he would need to establish why we should respect the other characters...
i mean, we don't respect the dude that beats up on the cripple kid...
no, we respect the Davids who beat the Goliaths... and we better know why Goliath is bad-ass... so, as a writer/director, you better show it...
so then you have all these backstories you need to iron out... and that could ultimately be too confusing...
the problem many artists have is that they have ideas ... and these ideas are all wonderful... and they want to incorporate all of them in there...
you've read a great script... liked some great scenes that weren't in the movie... and naturally you think "man, i bet that would have been neat..." and you wanna see it...
but an artist HAS to be able to pull back and say "ok, do I really need this...? What is redundant...? What is unncessary..."
perfect example: RETURN OF THE KING. The taking of the Shire by Sauromon...
...........
totally unnecessary...
SO many people WANTED to see it.... why?
b-c it was in the book... and it was written well... it made the Hobbitts (all of them) realize that the world isn't safe...
but... that wasn't the point of the trilogy. The point of the trilogy was the Ring and all that it symbolized.. yadda yadda yadda... why add to it?
Peter Jackson's most brilliant show of direction was in the simple DELETION of the final taking of the Shire, thus changing the dynamic of the hobbitt heroes alittle... they alone bear the burden of knowing the evils that surround them. Poetic.
QT probably did the same thing.
He obviously thought these scenes were needed... I mean, he wrote them down... plot, settings, dialogue and all... he more than likely had storyboards for those scenes... maybe even animatics for them... hell, some of them he even shot. But in the end, were they "must have"s...? or are they simply "cool to have"s...? It's hard for an artist or writer to be able to do that (hell, that's why novelists have editors and shit most of the time) so i comend QT for having the ability to say "man, even tho' I wrote this bad-ass scene and I KNOW this would be bad-ass on film, I just don't need it."
phew!
you are making me think, i tell ya!
Edge80
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2004
- Messages
- 949
I was a big fan of Kill Bill Volume 1. I couldn't wait until Kill Bill Vol 2 came out. When I finally saw it my opinions on the movie vary. There was alot less fighting and a lot more dialouge. although the dialouge did make me understand more about the first movie. In my opinion i think that they could have left it at one movie rather then dividing it into to volumes.