Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

It's Official... Tarantino's KILL BILL will be two flicks....

Father Geek here... Miramax made it offical today breaking the news to the New York Times... KILL BILL will be two (2) action/adventure Motion Pictures, not a single one of epic length... We here at Geek Headquarters knew this as fact 3 weeks ago from several phone calls we recieved from insiders with that company and Tarantino's production company. Harry wanted to hold off on the announcement until we could include the actual release dates of BOTH flicks, buuuuuut since the Times has made it offical and no longer just fan rumor, I'll post up their story.

However, the word given to us 3 weeks ago in those phone conversations is that the second film (basicly all ready to go) would more than likely follow very, very closely the release of the first flick... six (6), or maybe even just five (5) weeks later. This is something Quentin wants very bad (a speedy second release)... soooo there will be NO 3 year wait, or a one year wait, or even a 6 month wait...

Now on to Laura Holson's NY TIMES story...

New York Times... July 16, 2003

New Tarantino Film to Be Released in 2 Parts

By LAURA M. HOLSON

LOS ANGELES, July 15 - Miramax Films will take the unusual and potentially risky move of releasing "Kill Bill," the much-anticipated Quentin Tarantino martial arts action-adventure film, as two movies, the first to open in the fall.

Miramax will in effect be taking a three-hour film with a 200-page script and turning it into a serial. Harvey Weinstein, a co-founder of Miramax, which is financing the film, said in an interview on Monday that the first installment would be in theaters on Oct. 10. The second release date is in still being negotiated, but it could be two to six months later, he said. To many in Hollywood, the decision will come as a surprise. Mr. Weinstein, who in Hollywood is known as "Harvey Scissorhands," after the title character in the movie "Edward Scissorhands," has a reputation for forcing directors to cut both costs and the lengths of their movies. Mr. Tarantino spent 155 days shooting the film, well more than planned and longer than usual for most films. But Mr. Weinstein said Mr. Tarantino was something of a special case. The popularity of his violent yet original 1994 film, "Pulp Fiction," helped put Miramax on the map and generated an abundance of cash to help the studio bankroll other movies. "Miramax is the house Quentin Tarantino built," Mr. Weinstein said. And because of this director's stature he was granted "carte blanche," Mr. Weinstein added. "Kill Bill'` is Mr. Tarantino's first foray into action filmmaking. His limited body of work also includes the equally violent yet critically praised "Reservoir Dogs."

When Mr. Tarantino first approached Mr. Weinstein about doing "Kill Bill" several years ago, it was with the condition that he be allowed to film the whole 200-page script that he had written. When Mr. Weinstein visited the set in its last month of shooting late last year, Mr. Tarantino said in a statement, Mr. Weinstein brought up the idea of splitting it in two. No decision was made at the time although Mr. Tarantino shot two opening-credit sequences, he said. Mr. Weinstein said it was not until he visited Los Angeles three weeks ago, when Mr. Tarantino showed him more than an hour and a half of the film, that the two decided on the two-film approach.

"Kill Bill" is the story, told in chapters, of the world's deadliest female assassin, who survives being shot on her wedding day and, after five years in a coma, seeks revenge on the man who tried to kill her. The film's samurai-style fight sequences were filmed largely in China and take place in everything from a nightclub to a snow-covered garden to a suburban home. "There were no obstacles involved in splitting up `Kill Bill' at all because I've always designed the movie, thought about the film, as malleable in any number of versions," Mr. Tarantino said in his statement. That includes different versions for Asia, America and Europe. The serial approach to "Kill Bill" has parallels to the making of the second and third installments of the "Matrix" series and "The Lord of The Rings" trilogy, which were filmed as one story but divided into parts and have been released on a staggered schedule. But those films were conceived as multipart releases; "Kill Bill" was not.

Despite the success of the "Matrix" and the "Lord of the Ring" franchises, Miramax's decision carries risks, given the box-office figures for a number of sequels, prequels and serials. Several have been disappointments this summer, including "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle," which received heavy publicity and generally favorable reviews as an enjoyable romp but which still failed to attract crowds. The serial films that have done well at the box office, like the "Matrix" series, have had built-in audiences already interested in the story. "Kill Bill," on the other hand, is from Mr. Tarantino's original screenplay. Mitigating some of the risk is the movie's price tag, which Mr. Weinstein estimated at more than $55 million, not including marketing costs: less than what many blockbusters cost because many of the actors worked for union-scale wages and because production costs in China are lower than in the United States.

What Miramax and Mr. Tarantino are betting on is that the director's avid fan base and the pent-up interest in "Kill Bill" - which has taken almost a decade to make and is Mr. Tarantino's fifth movie - will pack theaters not once, but twice. Still Mr. Weinstein said he was worried about overselling this film, calling it "just a fun B-movie." The question is: Fun for whom? "Kill Bill," not unlike other films that Mr. Tarantino has made, is intensely violent. That will limit the people who can see it, particularly the younger action-film audience that studios covet. In one spectacular fight in the "House of Blue Leaves" nightclub, nearly 100 people are killed, according to one person who worked on the set in China. Much has been made of the notion that Mr. Tarantino wanted the blood to be a particularly vibrant red. "Tarantino is something of an innovator who takes audiences into different realms," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of Exhibitor Relations, a Los Angeles company that analyzes box-office returns. Miramax has yet to work out the actors' salaries for the two movies, Mr. Weinstein said.

The studio is renegotiating contracts, including one for Uma Thurman, who stars as the bride who is shot, and another for Lucy Liu, who plays a member of Bill's hit squad. Two Hollywood executives familiar with the contracts said the two actresses would receive a percentage of the box-office revenue. Because the contracts were originally based on only one movie, they will have to be changed to reflect the two-part scheme, the executives said. Stars' salary demands can often derail a movie, but Mr. Weinstein expressed confidence that a new agreement would be reached since the actors will not have to shoot new scenes.

The New York Times Company

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • July 16, 2003, 1:23 p.m. CST

    WEINSTEIN SUCKS

    by TarantinoWebsite

    no offense meant. but this guy really is a pain in the butt. 2 movies? are they nuts? we're waiting years to see QT's new movie and now we're not even getting an entire movie! fucking shit.... tarantino.info is wearing black today, because this is something to mourn about... QT is a victim of capitalist intrigues now...

  • July 16, 2003, 1:27 p.m. CST

    So... will they only be charging half price at the cinema?

    by Stryder

    I'm getting really sick of paying full price for half a movie. Another important question: Will they be releasing it on one DVD or am I going to have to buy two of those, too?

  • July 16, 2003, 1:40 p.m. CST

    This is the big one....I'm coming to see you, Elizabeth...

    by jimmychitwood

    Weinstein sucks and now QT is a sell out too

  • July 16, 2003, 1:41 p.m. CST

    Good news? Bad news?

    by WeedyMcSmokey

    One can only hope that Miramax is convinced that the film is good enough to survive a double release. I read the script - and it is the geekiest extravaganza bloodfest since the Shaw Brothers. Is Tarantino's disciple-like following strong enough to support such a move? Only time will tell. Definitely unexpected. Please premier this thing at the TIFF.

  • July 16, 2003, 1:43 p.m. CST

    TarantinoWebsite

    by user id indeed!

    I'm a little confused. You've been waiting years to see a Tarantino movie, and now you're mad because you're getting TWO? Or are you upset because Tarantino gets to show his movie the way he wants it to be shown, instead of being mercilessly cut at the hands of Miramax executives? Either way, my head starts to hurt when I think about it too much.

  • July 16, 2003, 1:46 p.m. CST

    Kill Bill 2

    by NubtheSquirrel

    Wow, at least Tarantino won't have to do another movie for a long time after that. Personally, I can't wait. I've read the script twice now. In fact I' m going to go and read again, just so I can satiate my hunger for Tarantino's next damn film!

  • July 16, 2003, 1:54 p.m. CST

    aint it not cool news...

    by The Tao of Joe

    Despite what my title would have you believe, I am not writing to bash on Harry's site, I am simple posting some disturbing news I read that affects us. Here it is:::::Movie Industry Fights Internet Rights Bill Sacramento lobbyists for the motion picture industry are planning to launch an all-out effort to block passage of a bill aimed at allowing Internet users to maintain anonymity when they make statements on line that could be considered libelous or violate trade secrets. Under the bill, which has already passed the California Assembly and is now being considered by the Senate, Internet Service Providers would be required to notify customers if they receive subpoenas seeking their identities. The customers would then be given 30 days to challenge the subpoenas. According to today's (Tuesday) Los Angeles Times, film executives are concerned that the law would make it more difficult for the film industry to ferret out Internet users who offer and/or download movies online. :::: This isn't good. Piracy is one thing, but this is privacy. We got to take a stand. Come on harry, father geek, moriarty, quint, et al, mobilize. We got to FIGHT! The internet is our turf, come on!! We can do this. Maybe not. Its been a sad time to be an American recently. ToJ out.

  • July 16, 2003, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Will they change the trailer to say "The 4th and 5th films by Qu

    by Margot Tenenbaum

    This worked so well for The Matrix: Reloaded. What I can't wait for is Quentin showing up on every talk show acting like a coked-up nerd ass. Too bad Tom Snyder's no longer on The Late, Late Show because the TS/QT pairing was just so full of dorktacular digressions and nervous tics -- the meeting of the Martian minds.

  • July 16, 2003, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Holding Back Scoops?

    by Vaebn

    Hey! I have a fantastic idea. How about you share your news with everyone, instead of holding back news when you get it? I can't believe you want us to be impressed that you 'knew this as a fact' weeks ago when you didn't deign to share it with us then. Any other choice tidbits you're sitting on without reason?

  • July 16, 2003, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Complete bullshit

    by Mockingbird Girl

    This is nothing more than a blatant attempt to make people pay twice for the same movie. I have yet to hear a compelling explanation from either QT or Miramax of why audiences cannot handle a single 3+ hour film.

  • July 16, 2003, 2:52 p.m. CST

    This sounds so amazingly cool

    by Blacklist

    and such a ballsy move. Tarantino must have more leverage than I thought. Personally, I would've been content with just one really long epic, but the two volume approach is quickly growing on me. My greatest fear is that it would turn out to be two movies of straight kung-fu, but I suspect that having a 200 page script would indicate otherwise. In other words, I hope that calling Kill Bill a 'just a kung-fu movie' would be like calling Jackie Brown 'just a blaxploitation flick.'

  • July 16, 2003, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Fucking Bullshit

    by earthworm

    This appears to be nothing more than a cheap cynical trick to squeeze a few more quid from the fans. Until anyone else pursuades me otherwise it's what I'll carry on believing. Well I hope the fucking thing bombs, and I never thought I'd hear myself say that about a QT film. He's just lost my 5 (or 10) pounds. And as for delaying the scoop, well fuck off to that too. I'm only glad you've deemd it the right time to tell, youknow, after getting scooped by the NY times or whatever. Jesus...

  • July 16, 2003, 3:06 p.m. CST

    the bottom line is...

    by GrandoCarIissian

    ... instead of paying $9 to see one 3-hour movie, we'll pay $18 to see the same 3-hour movie split in half, 6 weeks apart. this ain't about protecting QT's artistic vision, preventing the film from being edited, or any of that bullshit. isn't QT one of the directors who has 'final cut' privileges on his films? if he wants to release a 3-hour long cut, he can. no, this is just some more hollywood money-grubbing bullshit, trying to make twice as much money off the same film. and i really hope it backfires and blows up in their faces. if they get away with this, we're bound to see more of this. who knows, maybe 'return of the king' will be split and half, and we'll have to come back to the theaters 6 weeks later to see the last half of that film. maybe episode III will be split in half too, so we can wait an extra six weeks and spend an extra full-price admission before seeing anakin turn into vader. whoopeee. it's also pretty lame to try and take credit for a scoop by claiming, 'oh we knew about this 3 weeks ago, we just didn't tell you.' yeah, sure, is this site so desperate for REAL scoops that now you're pretending that other people's scoops are yours? someone remind me to put on my wading boots before visiting AICN, cos the shit's getting pretty deep.

  • July 16, 2003, 3:06 p.m. CST

    Tao of Joe - and, well, everyone else

    by WeedyMcSmokey

    You fuckers should've taken the time and energy to read those goddamn Patriot Acts when they were being accelerated through the government. Sure, they're to protect the government and citizenry from 'terror' by loosening the reigns of law enforcement - but guess what? Big business might just benefit to. Bye bye civil liberties. Of course - have faith that thanks to nepotism and cronyism - the majority of people in power are actually completely unsuited to the job, and morons to boot. They have a hard enough time learning what an underscore is, let alone how to prevent anonymity on the net.

  • July 16, 2003, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Couldn't make it a Trilogy... huh Harvey?

    by AndrewWanKenobi

    Well Don't blame Harvey for the split. If it were up to him he would make a frickin' trilogy out of it. ...The 3rd one would be filmed in "Hemoglobin Vison" and come with 3-D glasses.

  • July 16, 2003, 3:28 p.m. CST

    So what, it's his movie....

    by dmbman32

    When I first heard that "Kill Bill" might be split into 2 movies, I was torn. On one hand, it kind of sucks that we basically have to see one movie on 2 separate occasions. On the other hand, it's an exremely ballsy move. Not many movies have EVER done this before. The only other one to do something like this is The Matrix: Reloaded, but it was meant to be 2 separate movies, but one long STORY. The Lord of the Rings was always going to be 3 movies, because there are 3 books. However, the story is one big one. Same thing with the Star Wars movies. So, this is a very new, interesting way of seeing the movie. People keep whining about, "Oh, I have to pay 8 bucks on 2 separate occasions to see one movie." Well, if you have a job, I'll bet you can make enough money between the time the 2 movies come out to see the second part. So, I say kudos to Tarantino for making this move. By the way, this is a damed if you do, damned if you don't situation. OK, so it stays one long movie. You know what people will say? "Yeah, the movie dragged too much. Oh, they should've cut some scenes out." By doing this, people probably won't be bored more easily. The pacing will probably be helped as well. One more comment for people who are complaining.....if you don't want to pay for 2 tickets, DON"T SEE IT!! Or, just rent them when they come out.

  • July 16, 2003, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Makes sense considering the LotR and HP movies have proven that

    by minderbinder

    I don't think it's inherently a bad idea, I'd love to see them do it for HP4 and 5, but the problem here is that 3 hours isn't that long, and 90 minutes is pretty damn short. If the original running time is 4-5 hours (or more) it makes sense, otherwise it will just be viewed as a money grab. Can't wait to download this/these one/two.

  • July 16, 2003, 3:30 p.m. CST

    So what, it's his movie....

    by dmbman32

    When I first heard that "Kill Bill" might be split into 2 movies, I was torn. On one hand, it kind of sucks that we basically have to see one movie on 2 separate occasions. On the other hand, it's an exremely ballsy move. Not many movies have EVER done this before. The only other one to do something like this is The Matrix: Reloaded, but it was meant to be 2 separate movies, but one long STORY. The Lord of the Rings was always going to be 3 movies, because there are 3 books. However, the story is one big one. Same thing with the Star Wars movies. So, this is a very new, interesting way of seeing the movie. People keep whining about, "Oh, I have to pay 8 bucks on 2 separate occasions to see one movie." Well, if you have a job, I'll bet you can make enough money between the time the 2 movies come out to see the second part. So, I say kudos to Tarantino for making this move. Besides, this is HIS movie. He should have the right to do what HE wants. Remember, this is the guy that has given us arguably the BEST film to come out in the 1990's. So, what not give him the benefit of the doubt. By the way, this is a damed if you do, damned if you don't situation. OK, so it stays one long movie. You know what people will say? "Yeah, the movie dragged too much. Oh, they should've cut some scenes out." By doing this, people probably won't be bored more easily. The pacing will probably be helped as well. One more comment for people who are complaining.....if you don't want to pay for 2 tickets, DON"T SEE IT!! Or, just rent them when they come out.

  • July 16, 2003, 3:31 p.m. CST

    Bitch, bitch, bitch

    by shadoman

    Got to agree with 'User ID indeed!' here, why not use the power that you have and 'decide' NOT to purchase a ticket for the offending movies?.......... You could always download it from the net in a coupla weeks anyway.... ooooops!!! Didn't mean it, honest guv'nor!!

  • July 16, 2003, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Why can't you fucking people just give us the kick ass movie you

    by Jim's Monster

    This is a case of Tarantino's ego and Mirimax's greed. I hope they plan on releasing the second half direct-to-video. I'll pay to see two films, but me and four other nerds are about the only ones that will.I had a whole long rant here, but the computer ate it and I don't have time to type it all out again. Suffice it to say, Tarantino is one of my heros and it breaks my heart to see that he's done nothing but sell out since Jackie Brown. From Dusk till Dawn 2 and 3 my ass. Rolling Thunder Pictures? Whatever. I guess it's hard to maintain artistic integretity when everything's handed to you.

  • July 16, 2003, 3:48 p.m. CST

    retarded

    by Gorf

    Splitting up Kill Bill is a crappy idea. People have sat through 3 hour movies many times before, and I am sure we could all do it again. What if Part 1 tanks at the box office? Miramax will not exactly be dying to release Part 2 in a timely manner. Also, let's not forget that this is really one movie, not two. Yet, we will all have to pay for two movies in order to see the whole thing. What about the DVD? Will that be split into 2 separate products are well? What a scam.

  • July 16, 2003, 3:53 p.m. CST

    I got it wrong

    by v1c_vega

    Well i said i was not convinced it would be released in two parts and it now looks like i'm a twat. What was i thinking!. Now as much as i love inovation and as much as i love Tarantino i would rather see this as one big mega movie. If it is to be split into two parts i would rather they both be released ON THE SAME DAY ! I would even be happy to pay twice to see it on the same day as Tarantino makes a great movie and he deserves his pay cheque. What concerns me about this is it smacks of STUNT rather than inovation i am foaming at the mouth already for this movie and now i'm gonna have to wait even longer as i can not see it in it's glorious entirety. There may be one saving grace here - if the movie is to be two 3 hour length features then bring on the two parts with separate dates now that would be cool. will this happen ? not sure about that. I will wait with Anticipation for more news on this and see what the TMan himself has to say about this topic before i make a complete judgement but as sure as god made little green apples i will be seeing this as ONE GREAT EPIC.

  • July 16, 2003, 3:53 p.m. CST

    I got it wrong

    by v1c_vega

    Well i said i was not convinced it would be released in two parts and it now looks like i'm a twat. What was i thinking!. Now as much as i love inovation and as much as i love Tarantino i would rather see this as one big mega movie. If it is to be split into two parts i would rather they both be released ON THE SAME DAY ! I would even be happy to pay twice to see it on the same day as Tarantino makes a great movie and he deserves his pay cheque. What concerns me about this is it smacks of STUNT rather than inovation i am foaming at the mouth already for this movie and now i'm gonna have to wait even longer as i can not see it in it's glorious entirety. There may be one saving grace here - if the movie is to be two 3 hour length features then bring on the two parts with separate dates now that would be cool. will this happen ? not sure about that. I will wait with Anticipation for more news on this and see what the TMan himself has to say about this topic before i make a complete judgement but as sure as god made little green apples i will be seeing this as ONE GREAT EPIC.

  • July 16, 2003, 4:09 p.m. CST

    Tolkien's original book; Harry Potter; Kill Bill

    by Trader Groucho

    Tolkien originally approached the publisher with one really long novel, and it was they who, for marketing reasons (not to wring more lucre out of it, but because publishers simply weren't publishing new novels of that length at that time), asked him to split his epic into three. As for Harry Potter, as Rowling has say-so over how her books are scripted/filmed and she's loathe to having anything important to her cut, it's likely that HP4 and HP5 will each be split into two films. Rumors about Goblet of Fire being split abound already. Order of the Phoenix runs over 800 pages. Good luck squeezing THAT into three hours. In QT's case, it may well be they were originally planning around three hours and then throwing a bunch of extra footage onto the DVD; they may have decided instead to put something closer to four hours on the screen. When you're dealing with heavy action, a 200-page script does not necessarily translate into 200 minutes on film. The Patriot screenplay wasn't that long, because the big fight scenes were not described in detail. Could be the same thing here with Kill Bill. My .02.

  • July 16, 2003, 4:14 p.m. CST

    I will PAY to see Part 1, and SNEAK into part 2.

    by Darth Siskel III

    I'm not paying $10 twice to see a damn movie that should have been released as a 3 hour movie, but wasn't due to greed.

  • July 16, 2003, 4:16 p.m. CST

    I'll wait till it comes on dvd then

    by jimmy_009

    I'm not paying twice to see a movie once. They're making a mistake on this.

  • July 16, 2003, 4:41 p.m. CST

    READ THE SCRIPT HERE!

    by onefettinthehand

    http://come.to/killbill. I think it's fairly obvious where they would cut it and that would suck! Notice how detailed the descriptions of the fights are, down to every blade swing. There's no reason why this film should be any more than 2 1/2 hours long. This is bullshit and we need to send a message that we wont stand for it. I propose that we don't see it opening weekend. let them see those figures and shit their pants! What's next, charging an audience by the hour to see a film? SEND THE MESSAGE, THIS IS BULLSHIT! By the way, didn't Harry have a thread about this yesterday saying he didn't know if it would be split? Was it completely deleted? Gee, hypocrisy. That's a new one for this site.

  • July 16, 2003, 4:43 p.m. CST

    MAJOR NEWS - SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!

    by ChickenGeorgeVII

    Oh man oh man oh man!!!! I just found out some MAJOR FUCKING NEWS ABOUT THIS PROJECT!!!!! TURNS OUT THERE IS MORE REASON BEHIND THIS SPLIT!!!! TURNS OUT - MR. TARINTINO HAS (part two of this talkback will be released in two to six months)....And thus, Harv teaches us how to maximize! - - - George, The 7th Chicken!!!!

  • July 16, 2003, 4:59 p.m. CST

    Stop your whining, cheapskates!

    by JohnnyBarrett

    All this complaining is fucked. We all know most movies released by Hollywood are lame and empty. QT has made a movie so rich and full of ideas that it needed to be expanded into two movies. They aren't watering anything down, they're giving us more (they would have had to cut stuff out to make only one movie). My only concern is the release date of volume 2. As far as I'm concerned, the sooner it comes out, the better. Volume 1 better be fresh as a daisy, in our minds, or volume 2 will lose it's momentum. I want to come out of volume 1, counting the minutes until volume 2 (not the months!). Also, they better not release two separate DVDs. This should be released like the Musketeers DVD: each movie gets one disc, in a 2 disc set.

  • July 16, 2003, 5:01 p.m. CST

    Release it first run as a double feature

    by Electric Tsunami

    It would complete that drive-in/grindhouse feel. Charge a few bucks more than usual but not double.

  • July 16, 2003, 5:05 p.m. CST

    That's so annoying!

    by Silver Shamrock

    I haven't read the script, but from what I've heard about the story, it can't possibly justify twice the movies, twice the ticket price! I love QT's films, but I doubt I'd pay to see any of them as part 1 and part 2... It's not like he's Sergio Leone or even Bob Dylan.

  • July 16, 2003, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Different versions for different markets???

    by Electric Tsunami

    There was this in the NY Times article ******** "There were no obstacles involved in splitting up `Kill Bill' at all because I've always designed the movie, thought about the film, as malleable in any number of versions," Mr. Tarantino said in his statement. That includes different versions for Asia, America and Europe. ******** So is he following that cult film tradition of having 3-5 edits of his movie? Hasn't "Evil Dead 3/Army Of Darkness" taught him anything? Is this another "Zombie/Dawn Of The Dead"?

  • July 16, 2003, 5:28 p.m. CST

    hard to see how this is a good idea

    by blue7

    At first I thought that as long as one of the two movies was good then, well, whatever. I'd wager that the 3rd Matrix will have at least a few things considerably different than the 2nd one because they were PLANNING to release two films. Everyone concerned with KB has said that it was originally intended to be one long movie, which would suggest that KB part 2 will be a little too similar to KB part one to justify paying twice to see two 90 minute movies instead of once to see a 3 hour movie. For all you QT sycophants who say lamebrained stuff like "QT has made a movie so rich and full of ideas that it needed to be expanded into two movies", in a word, ha. There's no idea QT's brain hasn't coughed up that hasn't been done better by someone else first. I still enjoy his movies, well, most of them, but this stinks. Release one motherfucking endless movie, dammit. Oh, and for those of you who bleat "you can afford it" as to why we should have no problem paying twice to see one movie, kindly get fucked. Just because we can afford it doesn't mean we should have to pay it. Ten bucks is more than enough for Kill Bill if the "stars" and the script are any reliable indication.

  • July 16, 2003, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Tarantino...

    by Death Machine

    ...is one of the most overrated people in Hollywood today, and that's saying a lot. I'm amazed he could even focus his cocaine and A-D-D rattled brain long enough to write a three hour movie. He was a spectacular writer once upon a time and I respected the hell out of his work. His two best movies weren't even his movies, but you could feel his mark on them (Crimson Tide and the immortal True Romance). Reservoir Dogs worked because it was minimalist. The characters were real and the story could've been told on a single stage with no more props than a coffin, a duffel, a gas can a radio and a razor. Then someone gave this ego-maniac Quentin the keys to the car but buried them at the bottom of a bag of coke. Pulp Fiction was dijointed and, although peppered with truly great moments, was largely a self-indulgent film school project with a monster budget. From Dusk 'til Dawn was so bad it's funny. Four Rooms? What the hell was that? And the only truly enjoyable moment of Jackie Brown (a great story, by the way) was when DeNiro shot Bridget Fonda. These are the carrots Tarantino has seen fit to dangle in front of us while promising this masterpiece of 70s-style Kung Fu action and intrigue. Now he thinks its not too terribly important that we see it all at once. In fact, if he spreads it out long enough maybe he can coast on the promise of the second film/part being the REAL pay-off and use that to silence disappointed fans and critics. I'll bet one of the four DVDs they'll release this as will contain an hour of Quentin, rubbing his nose and telling us how he cut scenes because, even though he directed them, they seemed more like people trying to direct like him than something he himself would've directed. What a ridiculous a$$! Someone should take all his toys away and make him sing (read: write) for his supper again. Maybe then we'd get some of the inspired dialogue and characterization that made so many of us love his work in the first place. "No man... I'm pretty fuckin' far from okay." - ripped-off fans after finally seeing the second unwatchable half of Kill Bill.

  • July 16, 2003, 5:44 p.m. CST

    There's more to this movie being split into two parts than what

    by Dolemite_fan

    I think it's pretty evident that QT did not mean for this film to become two parts, and if he had it his way, it would probably touch the 3 hour mark, however, he has gone on record that he wants to make a film no longer than 2.5 hours, so my guess is that together, they'll add up to 4 maybe 4.5 hours total. But I believe it's more to it than just a matter of running time, and I have a strong feeling it has to do with contractual obligations. QT has to release a film on October 10, 2003 and right now he is only halfway done with the editing (thank you tarantino.info for the German R. Stone interview), and QT is very meticulous about how his films are edited, so rather than stop focusing on the story, and just edit the action scenes and release an uneven version of his dream project, releasing it as "two" films is probably the only way he can keep his artistic vision, and not let his movie become a latter day BLADE RUNNER and any other countless number of films that have been tinkered with before and after their release. I also believe that while QT does have final cut, Weinstein is the still the main financier, which inevidentably means he has the final say. Weinstein probably gave him an ultimatum to the extent of, "Quentin, on Oct. 10 you have to have a movie for me, even if it means you have to chop it up because you're not done editing it." Remember guys, the film was only going to cost $35 million, but then QT keep shooting and shooting and shooting, and soon that final price tag went to $50+ million, which was NOT in the contract. How else can QT repay him with such a risky film? Releasing it as two, however, any action movie released in todays market is guaranteed to make at least $50 million, but Weinstein likes to do better than break even. Now before calling QT a "sell out" isn't it better that he have the balls to get his film released, his way, unlike Ridley Scott or Terry Gilliam who have both been crushed by studios because they lack the balls to stand up for their vision(s)? Yeah, it is. I commend QT for doing this and for Weinstein to allow it because I really hate seeing a movie at the theatre, and then having this unnerving feeling that it was tinkered with, only to have to wait until the DVD to get a "director's cut" or "R-rated version" or "Unrated version" when I would prefer to have the goddamn director's version the first time around. And just think, in five years from now people can always say, "well he did release KILL BILL uncut to the theatre his way and he didnt have to wait for the DVD to get a 'final cut." So if it takes me two times going to the theater to see KILL BILL, then so be it because I will pay twice if I have to. Of course now the big question is how long will KILL BILL 2 be released after the first? Will they release the DVD of part one first and then release part two six months down the road? Hard to say, but if the script is as twisty and turny as I've heard, then my guess is that the DVD will be split up for now as well. And you're that mad at QT and Weinstein, then don't go see the movie, but we all know that eventually you will settle down and spend your money to see KILL BILL. And finally, lets just hear what happens at ComicCon before everyone goes on a witchhunt for Weinstein and Tarantino.

  • July 16, 2003, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Okay Children - a lesson about editing and pacing.

    by No Name Brand

  • July 16, 2003, 5:56 p.m. CST

    I'll pay for another ticket... just want to see the film!

    by LordSummerisle

    I think its worth it (I'm probably one of the minority). Even if the first 'volume' is bad, I'll still be anticipating the second.. bring it on! There's no point getting negative, nothing we can do about it. Tarantino seems to have created a monster!

  • July 16, 2003, 6:09 p.m. CST

    The Kevin Murphy Solution

    by rootwitch

    I don't for one second believe splitting this movie into 2 parts is just an attempt to get more box office, but at the same time I'm not paying twice to see the entire movie. So, that being said, I urge everyone who has been waiting for Kill Bill to come out to still go see it in it's 2 part form... but use the Kevin (MST3K) Murphy's gem of an idea to mess with the official box office returns. When Kill Bill part 2 is released, buy a ticket for another movie... preferrably a small indie, one deserving of the extra return, like a Whale Rider for example... and then sit in the dark and enjoy Kill Bill 2. You'll feel better about yourself for making a small film that much richer, and you won't feel cheated having to pay twice for what should be a 3 hour kung fu epic.

  • July 16, 2003, 6:14 p.m. CST

    Miramax Films Can Lick My Balls

    by DuluozTrip

    This is completely about money, although I'm sure they'll tey to put some spin on it... "a step back in time to the serial movies of the past".. blah, blah, blah... they know this movie isn't going to play to a wide audience with the extreme violence it depicts, but it will drag in the Tarantino fans... which, while probably a sizeable number, are not nearly enough to recoup that $55 million... so they already know they have this built in audience, so they sell us suckers 2 films for the price of one... someone who spent $10 on the first one is definitely going to see the second one... these aren't nearly as self contained as even the Lord of The Rings or the Matrix are (aren't in reality)... this is some bullshit like at the end of that really bad Halloween film, I forget which number, when all of a sudden some guy appears who hasn't been in the entire movie and breaks Michael out of jail... anyway, I digress, probably a bad example... but this is the only way Miramax is going to make back their cash... despite his talents, Tarantino has never been box office "gold", but he's good for the attention, respect, what have you he brings to Miramax... two films, fuck that.. this one I will download.

  • July 16, 2003, 6:17 p.m. CST

    Let's be pragmatic...

    by drewcaster

    If the two movies don't have anything resembling a complete structure (even Tarantino's non-linear movies have a beginning, middle and end) then the first one will fall on it's face...get bad reviews and kill the box office on the second one. Then maybe that will stop execs from getting any more stupid ideas. I suspect that Matrix Revolutions migh suffer because of the abrupt way Reloaded ended. There were a LOT of groans in the audience. I may be wrong. The last time I heard an audience groan that way a movie ended was Blair Witch. Look at the box office on Blair Witch II to see how audiences liked that. As much as it pains me to see Havery and Quentin do what i think is a stupid, greedy, and unartistic thing, we'll let the market decide.

  • July 16, 2003, 6:19 p.m. CST

    Which Talkback is this?

    by Sherlock_Holmes_

    I'm confused...

  • July 16, 2003, 6:21 p.m. CST

    HARVEY AND JOEL

    by Indiana Clones

    STOP GAMBLING ON INCREASINGLY INGENIOUS WAYS TO MAKE MONEY FROM THESE FILMS AND START MAKING SURE THE MOVIES ARE GOING TO MAKE MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE. THIS SHIT ISN'T WORKING.

  • July 16, 2003, 6:23 p.m. CST

    QT should worry more about making a good movie than coming up wi

    by MrCretin

    Last time around he was more concerned with surprising everyone by making a "mature" movie than actually making something interesting. Seriously, go back and watch Jackie Brown with that in mind, and it's embarrassingly obvious how hard he's trying to be the new, mature QT. Since no one went to see that movie, or remembers it but a handful of filmgeeks he's got to have some kind of hook that will get people interested...hmmm, what could he do with the movie that would get a story in the NYT? Make a film that actually thrills audiences and expands the limits of cinema? Fuck no, he stopped doing that after Reservoir Dogs. Splitting the movie in two is way easier. That way maybe the audience won't notice he's foisting off a Charlie's Angels 2/Matrix Reloaded hybrid on us. BTW, if anyone is still under the mistaken impression that Pulp Fiction was a good movie, go ahead and put your soundtrack CD on and tell me that the dialogue between Travolta and Jackson doesn't sound extremely lame and stilted now. This shit just aint cool anymore.

  • July 16, 2003, 6:28 p.m. CST

    Okay Children - a lesson about editing and pacing.

    by No Name Brand

    First off who here is an editor? I mean a card carrying member of the Motion Picture Editors Guild Local 700 as a registered picture editor. Well me. Who has a credit list beyond just their student film or the video they made with dad's camera and their friends in the backyard? Well me. So as someone who actually has a clue about what their talking about, a rarity around here obviously, let me give you kids my take on why Kill Bill is being split in to two and why this is a good thing. It's called........PACING!!!! My guess is that at three hours the movies pacing was just not right. It got bogged down, it became overload, whatever. There was a reason in the edit room that in order to tell the story in it entirity it needed to be split up. This is a creative decision not a financil decision. All of inexperienced "fan boys" need to with hold judgement until the movies are released. If the movies come out and they don't work as two I will kindly eat crow, but for now everybody needs to stop the whining. Damn people seem to always be pitchin' a bitch about somethin' - a thought this was a place for people who lived movies.

  • July 16, 2003, 6:28 p.m. CST

    NO ONE CARES

    by MyNameDoesn'tFit

    Tarantino is possibly the most overrated director of all time. And the fact that he wants to charge people twice as much to see his crummy double movie is, I'm sure, entirely accurate. He knew his audience was gonig to be minscule anyway, so better double up the people he CAN get into the theater. But what am I even posting here for? I wasn't going to see it anyway. Oh, and by the way Harry--this site has gotten unbelievably slow. I have to click a link ten times before I don't get a time out error. I'm on a cable modem for chrissakes and when I come here I might as well be using a telegraph.

  • July 16, 2003, 6:30 p.m. CST

    Just for clarity's sake

    by Ardee-El

    This was done before. Exactly like this. Movie came in too long

  • July 16, 2003, 6:30 p.m. CST

    no shit, STOOPID

    by blue7

    that's exactly what I'm going to do. Keep on buying your Reservoir Dogs dolls and your Destiny Turns on the Radio Underoos or whatever, champ. I'm sure you'll be stoked to have your "limited edition" Mr. Pink version of the Reservoir Dogs 10th anniversary edition DVD years from now when it's worth $20.50 instead of $19.95. God forbid people complain about getting ripped off. Like I said, no shit. I won't be paying a dime to see this in the theater. Now go back to screaming into your pillow ya ponce.

  • July 16, 2003, 6:38 p.m. CST

    Weedy McSmokey...

    by The Tao of Joe

    You sir, are a fucker. I know about the fucking patriot act. I wrote letters to all of my state's congressmen contesting the legislation. Instead of trying to alienate me, and the other people who go to this website, by pretending to be smarter and more informed than all of us "fuckers" as you put it. What are you? 12? I don't know if it was your goal to offend me, but you certainly did. God help you, either for your lack of tact, or your lack of inteligence. Trust me, you do not want to meet me in public. Not now. Stay away from me. ToJ out.

  • July 16, 2003, 6:40 p.m. CST

    cha-ching!

    by Jack D. Ripper

    There are any number of reasons I could cite for this being split-- economics, QT's possible fear of having another insanely long stretch between films--but I believe that it is utter bullshit to say this film NEEDS to be divided. I've read KILL BILL. Quite frankly, 70-75% of it is crap and the script is only so crazy long because QT has these meticulously detailed fight scenes. Whoever said, 'the film is so packed with ideas and themes that it must be divided', I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. This is a regurgitation of kung fu not a meditation on the meaning of life. And if it was just a THREE HOUR FILM, I am NOT seeing either part. minderbinder's right that people will be perfectly willing to sit through a three hour film. If it were five-six hours, then they could justify dividing it, but it's not, so they can't. Maybe Harvey smells a bomb and thinks he can at least recoup some of the cost from the fanboy fanbase or maybe QT really isn't done editing. Either way, there's no way I'm seeing TWO of these in the theater. No fucking way. MATRIX, LOTR, HP--they're all one big STORY that has to be divided into multiple films. KB was designed as one film so it's lame of them to be cutting it up. Fucking hollywood lameos. Stick a fork in QT, he's done.

  • July 16, 2003, 6:43 p.m. CST

    as for you No Name Brand

    by blue7

    Way to pour on the irony! You would appear to be an arrogant nimrod who could use a lesson in using the message board properly -- unless, of course, you meant to post with only a subject line. Way to go!

  • July 16, 2003, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Quentin > Martin???

    by Larry of Arabia

    So, is Mirimax saying that Tarantino has earned the right to make a longer work while Scorsese doesn't have the pull to make his dream project the way he wants to? Jesus Flippin' Christ.

  • July 16, 2003, 6:47 p.m. CST

    Trilogys, sequels, prequels...

    by DyslexicHrt

    I'm looking forward to Kill Bill, but, I think the whole trilogy, "one story over several films" thing is getting a little tired. Is there something wrong with getting the same thing done in under two hours? It's like a really good pop song, get it done in three minutes and drop all the masturbatory soloing.

  • July 16, 2003, 6:48 p.m. CST

    Read the script before you spout off your mouths (!!!SPOILERS!!!

    by Er@serheaH

    Listen up, all you jerk's who are referring to Tarintino as a sellout: Go and read the script for KILL BILL. It's long, very long; in fact before all of this news broke about splitting the film people would often mention the length of the script as somewhat of an oddity. Now I'm guessing I know exactly where the film will end. It will be during the chapter where THE BRIDE is trapped in a grave and has to dig her way out. This is a classic cliffhanger ending. And for all of you assholes that think this is some CORPERATE SCHEME then refer back to the 1920's when almost every silent film ended with a cliffhanger in order to refurbish it's audience. Whether or not Tarintino can pull this move off in 2003 I do not know, but one thing is for sure; if you read the script you will realize that KILL BILL is going to be a huge audience pleaser, the kind of film that unites its viewers.

  • July 16, 2003, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Plea to Tarantino

    by Rick Sparks

    Dude. Q-man. DON'T let this happen. What the hell?!? This "splitting one movie into two" sh|t is exactly the kind of stuff you made fun of when you were humping stacks of VHS in that rental store. ONE movie, that's what it is, right? Tell the suits to screw off. Hell, do a seven-minute intermission to let the audience pee and snack up. But don't be a punk. (Appeal over and out.)

  • July 16, 2003, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Fuck Weinstein and Fuck ratings

    by Archduke_Chocula

    I'm 17 and i'm going to see both fucking parts!! Be it walking up to them and hoping stupidity kicks in or taking a parent who will throw up from the violence.

  • July 16, 2003, 6:58 p.m. CST

    People born in the 80s

    by JohnnyBarrett

    Anyone born in the 80s or later is at a QT disadvantage. QT is definitely a generational taste (as his films are very pop culture-oriented). Many of the people who visit this site are teenagers who were still in diapers when Reservoir Dogs came out and, let's be honest, you guys just don't get it. Of course you don't like Quentin. You've probably never even heard of Jean-Luc Godard. And I bet you think Taxi Driver is over-rated, too. Go watch Charlie's Angels, again. You're out of your element.

  • July 16, 2003, 6:59 p.m. CST

    Sorry Blue7

    by No Name Brand

    This was the first time I posted to AICN. Usually I'm to busy working to take the time out to get into asinine arguements with people. I screwed up posting on Ain't It Cool News - so I'm a Nimrod. Damn my life's hard.

  • July 16, 2003, 7:04 p.m. CST

    i call bullshit on naysayers

    by mr_show

    as if every single one of you naysayers isnt going to line up the 2 fridays this thing comes out. lets face its a q.t. movie. its like pizza, even if it is bad it is still better than mandy moore's new movie. or the latest j.lo/affleck b.s.

  • July 16, 2003, 7:07 p.m. CST

    A Great Big Cup of WHO THE FUCK CARES

    by watashiwadare

    with cream on top.

  • July 16, 2003, 7:09 p.m. CST

    I'd love to watch a 3 hour Tarantino martial arts film!! Two mov

    by CbabbittRAIN

    Just give us the three hour version. If it's great cinema it doesn't matter how long it is. This is Quentin Tarantino we're talking about. How could this not be a classic three hour epic!? Two movies from one original screenplay is just ridiculous. No one wants to wait!! If three hours is really a problem for miramax just put an intermission at the half-way mark. This was not meant to be like this. Hopefully, some people at miramax will read these talk-backs. Plus, this idea doesn't seem too smart for box-office grosses, if that's what they're worried about with the three hour version.

  • July 16, 2003, 7:25 p.m. CST

    How about making 36 five minute movies and releasing one every 7

    by Chingachgook

    That would only be slightly more absurd than this. This is going to backfire..... big time. I have spoken.

  • July 16, 2003, 7:28 p.m. CST

    You Guys 'Kill' me, Bill

    by shadoman

    'Newsflash'! QT is releasing 2 films from one....... You really think he gives a rats arse what you all think?? People will (and most of you whining dunderheads will too) line up to watch the two, whether to marvel at his latest pop-culture meisterwerk or to jeer at his 'failed' experiment. But you know what? He'll still get paid, he'll still make films and you lot will still be bitchin in this very 'Talkback' about the 'next' sellout/ripoff/'OMG they cast beetlejuice as the new Terminator moment.............. As the 'Shat' said "Get a Life"

  • July 16, 2003, 7:28 p.m. CST

    SPLIT: Ok a numb BUTT or a quick ride....

    by Cinemajerk

    Personally I'd sit thru a 3 hour samurai epic. If its done well like the SEVEN SAMURAI. I think if a film is concieved and shot as a 3 hour epic..its one thing...but when you try to split it into two seperate movies...um...i think you run the risk of destroying the original narrative flow and pacing of the film. I dunno. The Q man has got my vote of confidence...but I just wonder if his arm was twisted by the big fat fuck Harvey.

  • "I don't dig on swine; Uma's a filthy animal, brother."

  • July 16, 2003, 7:48 p.m. CST

    It's a rental

    by Son Of Batboy

    oh and Weinstein can eat shit.

  • July 16, 2003, 8:09 p.m. CST

    Young people don't give a shit about Tarantino

    by eraser_x

    I saw the Kill Bill trailer in a theater full of teenagers. The audience cheered loudly after seeing another trailer, I forget which one. After Kill Bill's, there was total, indifferent silence. Well, it's good for Tarantino/Miramax that the budget was relatively small because I don't see Kill Bill as having a mass audience. Maybe Tarantino will settle down into having only a niche audience, as has Woody Allen or Spike Lee or Kevin Smith.

  • July 16, 2003, 8:14 p.m. CST

    The World Just Got A Little Crazier

    by Saluki

    Hmmm... Crazy. I will be displeased if both movies are only 90 minutes, however if they both run at two hours, then I'll be cool with it. I honestly don't want to watch a four hour film on the bigscreen, and just adding an extra hour to the DVD is a rip, because I want to see it ALL on the big screen. While audiences enjoy large stories, they are not going to put up with what could have been a three hour movie being split.

  • July 16, 2003, 8:26 p.m. CST

    Surprising and sad

    by Jabbathenutt

    pathetic Miramax. You split an epic into 2 films to try to double revenue. Well you won't get a cent from me you rat bastards, even if it is QT. Suck it!

  • July 16, 2003, 8:35 p.m. CST

    Teenagers suck!

    by JohnnyBarrett

    Who cares what teenagers think? These movies are gonna be rater R, anyway. QT makes movies for grown-up movie geeks, not dumb-ass, trend-loving children.

  • There I said it, I will not be seeing Kill Bill in theaters, no matter how big a fan of Quentin Tarantino I am. I just can't bring myself to do it. LOTR was an established trilogy of books before it was a trilogy of films. Matrix was an established genre, and the directors set out to make it a trilogy. Harry Potter book 4 is being planned for two movies, but it is also being scripted and prepared that way. But, this is a case of taking a 3 hour film which has not established itself in the eyes of the general public, and cutting it in half in hopes of people paying $18 EACH minimum grand total to see a film that they do not care about seeing in the first place. I hate to say this about a Quentin Tarantino film but I hope this experiment crashes and burns as a box office flop for this stunt just to send the message to Hollywood that enough is enough!!! Ticket prices have gone up $3 in 3 years WITH NO ECONOMIC INFLATION. So ticket prices are increasing faster than inflation, theater owners are throwing on 20 to 30 minutes of ads and trailers before movies, and films are getting shorter so they can squeeze more showings in. THIS IS BULLSHIT I TELL YOU BULLSHIT!!! So I will gladly pay the $20 when the full 3 hour epic arrives on DVD, but I will not see it in theaters no matter how good it is supposed to be. It is the principle of the thing.

  • July 16, 2003, 8:52 p.m. CST

    different versions 4 us, asia, europe?

    by Acne Scarface

    i hope this doesn't mean that i'll eventually have to hunt down three different dvds if i want the complete vision.

  • July 16, 2003, 8:53 p.m. CST

    Stop whining assholes!

    by inertself

    First off Fuck OFF to any assclown that says Quentin is a sell out. That said I'll give you a simple explanation why Kill Bill Won't work as a three hour Kung Fu Epic. Its because most American's have a short attention span and cry about how long 3 hours is. With few exceptions could they pack a theater for a 3 hour movie, but a 3 hour kung fu movie by a director with a cult following isn't going to win over most people. So maybe if they get a taste of the first one and understand the style brought to the screen they'll want to see the next. Frankly I'd sit through it either way 3 hour or 2 parts. Its worth my money, come on how many of you ass clowns shelled out money for Charlie's Angels or T3. See you wasted your money on crap already stop whing about studio's stealing your money. You give it to them.

  • July 16, 2003, 9:22 p.m. CST

    pulp fiction's still a masterpiece though

    by Jack D. Ripper

    a brilliant film. second best of the 90s

  • July 16, 2003, 9:38 p.m. CST

    It's the script that counts

    by I. Ratzkywatzky

    Whether KILL BILL comes out as one or two movies it really doesn't matter, as long as it's a good script. Richard Lester split his THREE MUSKETEERS into two films, and I don't mind that a bit, because they're both superior entertainments. When it comes right down to it, this news just means I'll see two Sonny Chiba films this year instead of one.

  • July 16, 2003, 9:46 p.m. CST

    Uh oh, the Times is showing its bias again

    by Frisco

    This was supposed to be a news story, right, not an opinion piece? Then what's all this about the "violent yet original" Pulp Fiction and "violent yet critically praised" Reservoir Dogs? Wow, so let me get this straight, Ms. Holson: Pulp Fiction is violent, but at the same time it's also original? Only a person who has utter contempt for the subject of her story would assume that her readers would suffer from cognitive dissonance over such an idea.

  • July 16, 2003, 9:47 p.m. CST

    FUCK TARANTINO

    by BuLLeT_TiMe

    This is bullshit. People can handle a 3 hr+ film. "Lord of the Rings", anyone?------------------------------------------------- It take effort, but if the movie is GOOD and EXCITING, nobody will care except people with severe ADD. Hell, I have ADD and I'd sit through it, so what does that say about those who won't?------------------------------------------------ 7 bucks to see a movie is ENOUGH. I'm not paying $14 to see someone I'm not 100% POSITIVE will be worth that much. I'm pirating the sucker. God bless high speed university access. Fuck you, QT. You sell out. You've lost my money.

  • July 16, 2003, 9:52 p.m. CST

    you knew it 3 weeks ago... i dont believe you

    by name-name-name

    You knew it 3 weeks ago. I don't believe you. Yeah, yeah and my cousins uncle's dog knew it 6 months ago!. All i know is that someone else told us 1st... thats all that matters... not who claims they knew it 1st

  • July 16, 2003, 9:56 p.m. CST

    So will they have different Titles?

    by Archduke_Chocula

    or will the second part be called Kill Bill 2? It'd be funny if Titanic did that "Titanic 2" But seriously, maybe it would'e been better to have an intermission or something.

  • July 16, 2003, 9:58 p.m. CST

    Remember when filmmakers were talented enough and confident enou

    by Commando Cody

    Yeah, those were the good ol' days. Before they all started to develop this new age, artsy-fartsy, self-delusional mentality that every word they write and every frame they shoot is Holy and thou shalt not edit anything. I guess clean, concise storytelling went out the window sometime when I blinked in favor of now milking a movie for as much as they possibly can, with the studios or filmmakers hoping to launch either a franchise or create uber-bankable sequels that most likely will suck. All I can say is this better be good and not be another drags-like-snails movie like JACKIE BROWN was, otherwise I say screw Tarantino for quickly proving yet again that he just got lucky with PULP FICTION (ie. that fluke creative lightning bolt moment in time kind of thing) and he's now one of the most overrated people out there...

  • July 16, 2003, 9:59 p.m. CST

    sounds like...

    by ElGuapo

    a simple, potentially cool revenge movie turned into a self-indulgent vanity project and someone wants their money back...

  • July 16, 2003, 10:30 p.m. CST

    What about QT's reputation?

    by JohnnyBarrett

    You guys are writing as if McG directed these movies. Have you forgotten how great Quentin's other movies are? Have you forgotten that Quentin loves and appreciates movies more than anyone involved in this goddamned talk-back? Give him some credit. He's certainly earned it.

  • July 16, 2003, 10:35 p.m. CST

    I remember when....

    by EazyB

    ...the world of internet movie rumors was simple, and killer sites with guys like Harry running it got the scoop before any of the major news sources (like the Times) and shared the news with all the fans, getting everyone excited in the process and bypassing the mainstream...everybody's always talking about the good old days...Kill Bill will be great anyway though...

  • July 16, 2003, 10:47 p.m. CST

    What about the DVD? Does Weinstein suck a hoovermatic into our

    by Commando Cody

    ...Or does he release BOTH films together in one set, but "up" the price twice over claiming its now a little box set with technically TWO movies inside, so he should be allowed to charge double? Someone brought his up above and I think it's a valid gripe about what MIGHT happen down the road. Me, placing a bet in Vegas, I'd bet on it. I can see it already. I smell one thing in the air here and it's not Quentin going about this for artistic integrity. I smell Weinstein maneuvering and doing everything he can to ensure that he's gonna get back the inflated budget money since this ballooned from a $30-35 million action flick to $50-60 million film, all because Tarantino just kept shooting and reshooting and reshooting and no one stopped him. Weinstein clearly wants ALL his cash back no matter how much he has to squeeze the public for it, and he doesn't care if you're pissed or not...he just wants his dough.

  • July 16, 2003, 11:13 p.m. CST

    Pacing? Bullshit.

    by floridamike

    This isn't rocket science. Mr. QT has gone on the record saying Pulp Fiction was designed for the largest audience possible (read: $$$$). Anticipation is way up there... Jackie Brown was good, but disappointed the cool/gore/drugs crowd. Weinfuck just went to hell and back with Marty Scorcese with GONY!!! How soon we forget the business is all aboot money! Scorcese's Gangs was a disappointment money wise, QT probably started crying he couldn't make Oct. So Harv said, fine you fuck, we'll pull a Martrix and do two films. 2 times the QT, 2 times the kung fu and... ready; 2 times the box office, 2 times international, 2 times dvd, video games! Hooray, we're going to be sooo rich and we can hide it in "creativity". Pacing? QT's long shots probably suck for action, that's probably why he's dicking around so much. My 2 cents, it's going to be worth it! But lets not kid ourselves, it's for money.

  • July 16, 2003, 11:26 p.m. CST

    johnny barret

    by Jack D. Ripper

    you can eat crow. Born and raised in the 80's and love pre-JACKIE BROWN Tarantino. Watched Pulp Fiction the other day and marveled at it's brilliance. Reservoir Dogs is great too. Oh, and Godard? How about ALPHAVILLE and BAND OF OUTSIDERS, motherfukcer? I guess since I wasn't BORN IN THE 70'S I CAN'T UNDERSTAND GREAT FILMMAKING. Poor me! Oh, and TAXI DRIVER is Scorsese's second best, right behind RAGING BULL. So think twice before you make such a broad generalization about a generation. Just becaus PULP FICTION and RESERVOIR DOGS are masterpieces--that are MUCH beloved by teenagers--doesn't mean that KILL BILL--which looks like shit--will be of the same calibre. I mean, how would you like it if someone said, oh these kids from the 70s they cant get Truffaut because they weren't around post WWII France? You wouldn't like it very much.

  • July 16, 2003, 11:41 p.m. CST

    Hey NoNameBrand...

    by drewcaster

    Maybe if you weren't too busy trying to figure out how to condescend to everyone here you would have been able to get your post up right the first time - and then not have to blame your faux paux on being "too busy working". Real classy the way you mention your creds as a way to tell people that you're the best judge at correct story structure here. I've written a book on filmmaking, lecture on filmmaking, done two features and got stuff running on broadcast television right now. Guess what? There are people lurking here who got little gold men standing on their shelves. I'm sure they can outdo your (and my)resume in spades. I'd think twice before trying to pull weight on the folks on this board.

  • July 16, 2003, 11:46 p.m. CST

    It all depends on what kind of edit we were looking at.

    by Lobanhaki

    If it results in a pair of snappy films instead of one energy draining three hour film, then its a good idea. As for Whatever money Weinstein rakes in... well lets see what they really earn doing this.

  • July 17, 2003, 12:12 a.m. CST

    The important thing here is not that the movie is split in 2. IT

    by Rcamacho2278

    cmon stick to whats important people!!!!

  • July 17, 2003, 12:12 a.m. CST

    Hey here's an idea, why not just trim it down?!?!?

    by Castor777

    I'm sorry but this bullshit about splitting this movie into two... well not just that... taking 200 minutes to tell a kung fu revenge tale? Fucking bullshit. This isn't a risky move, this is one of utter stupidity. How the hell can it take you that long to tell this story? This isn't Sergio's Once Upon A Time In America coming our way folks. This is just going to be a wild and crazy martial arts film at best. Hey, I have no problem with that other than the fact that some filmmaker way past his prime can't seem to get a cut of his film less than 3 hours. This is some of the most disappointing news I've heard in awhile. Fuck, I'd rather hear the Ashton Kutcher as Batman rumor come true before this shit.

  • July 17, 2003, 12:26 a.m. CST

    Pulp Fiction doesn't pass the test of time

    by eraser_x

    Some art seems refreshing because it is perceived as being different from the tired stuff that came immediately before. However, such art, when it doesn't bring something that's good in it's own right, does not stand up to the passage of time. For me, Unforgiven differed from conventional westerns and even now remains a wonderful movie. In contrast, Pulp Fiction, I now believe, was merely different from much that came before, without being great in its own right. When I stumbled onto Pulp Fiction playing on someone's TV recently, it was very easy for me to watch it for just a few minutes and leave the area. It would not have been so easy to get away had the movie been a really good one. Maybe the reason Pulp Fiction is somewhat annoying to watch a second time is that, once I'm not following along for the story to unfold, I notice that way too many people in the movie are posers. I think both Tarantino and Kevin Smith make movies in which there are too many posers who can't pull off the posing. It's hard for these people to be cool when they're trying so hard to be cool. Because the whole point of cool is not having to try. Very few posers can pull it off. Bruce Lee and Al Pacino are two of the few who come to mind.

  • July 17, 2003, 12:44 a.m. CST

    What's gonna happen to my HSX stock?

    by jzcjzc

    'cause i bought max quite a while ago.

  • July 17, 2003, 1:19 a.m. CST

    You know what woulda been cool. MATRIX RELOADED and REVOLUTIONS

    by Rcamacho2278

    and a bottle so I can piss in, but damn that would be cool, wait a minute, NO it wouldnt,. In fact anything more than 1 hour 30 minutes is TOO LONG to be in a movie theatre dammit!!!

  • July 17, 2003, 1:44 a.m. CST

    JohnnyBarrett

    by blue7

    I was born in 1971 and can tell you that Pulp Fiction was good. Jackie Brown was barely OK. Reservoir Dogs was good, but suffered from the fact that QT ripped it off part and parcel from someone else. I'm not saying that QT is a shitty director/writer. I'm saying that this splitting KB in two is a shitty idea. Oh, and no matter how wet QT makes your panties, don't EVER compare anything he's ever done to Taxi Driver. I'd wager that Quentin himself would slap the taste out of your drooling mouth for having the temerity to do so.

  • July 17, 2003, 1:44 a.m. CST

    A new level of self indulgence

    by Wozza31

    Now, I'm sure I'm gonna get berated for daring to complain about two Tarantino movies, but this smacks of self indulgence. I was sold on the initial wave of Tarantino mania, since then I have grown up. I believe the best film from one of his scripts is True Romance and that's because someone else directed it. Someone who was prepared to cut out the flab. Hell, NBK's better that anything he's directed himself. Just look at Pulp Fiction for proof of this. The Bruce Willis segment is the best on paper, but once it's all put up on the screen, god does it drag. There's soooooo much dialogue that you just don't need. This is a visual medium. Tell your damn story with images sometimes. Any way, I'm going off on one. But it highlights my great fear about this film. As Weinstein himself says, it's a B-movie. I have no problem with B-movies, I love 'em when they rule. But a 3 hour B-movie. Come on, you're pushing the boat too far there. So, they're gonna cut it in half and have two 90minute B-movies. Well, no. Not really. This isn't two movies like LOTR is three. This is one movie. Just like the Matrix thing should have been. It just seems to me that he can't cut anything from his movies. He believes in own hype. He believes everything he writes is gold and must be there on the screen. Well, no. That's the hardest part of putting your films together. There's a scene you love that you want to keep, but it harms the film as a whole. That scene has to go and, while I hope I'm wrong (i never want to dislike a film), I don't think Tarantino can do this. Incidently, after reading the new Potter book I felt the vaguest pang of hope that the Matrix Revolutions may not be quite as goddawful shite as the Matrix Thing was. Nothing happens for almost 500 pages in Potter, but the last 200 fuckin' rule. Maybe the Matrix will be like this. Maybe Hagrid's just come back and it's now gonna start to kick into gear. This, though, I doubt. It is the Wachowski's after all. They've blown two Matrix movies, what makes you think they're gonna pull the third out of the bag?

  • July 17, 2003, 1:51 a.m. CST

    Idiots and Monsters

    by Stuber

    I can't wait until Kill Bill Pt. I bombs at the box office and then the idiot Corp. heads don't bother ordering the same amount of prints for Pt. II. You say you like Pt. I? that's great, but now you have to drive 40 min to the next town to see Pt. II.

  • July 17, 2003, 2:52 a.m. CST

    I don't understand what the big deal is about this.

    by Andy Travis

    So they're splitting the movie up into two films...is that it? What's the problem? I admit I'm probably not going to see it, certainly not on opening night (I'll be at the Coen Bros' Intolerable Cruelty in the theater across the hall).

  • July 17, 2003, 2:53 a.m. CST

    I think splitting Kill BIll in 2 is a great idea but...

    by FD Resurrected

    Miramax should offer discounted tickets for the second part of Kill Bill to appease some bitches on this TB complaining that QT is a sell-out. QT is one of the most gifted writer/director auteurs in Hollywood, so give him a break. It's been, what, 6 years since Jackie Brown was released in theaters? All you fanboys are funny. I've read QT's published screenplays (including original draft of Natural Born Killers), owned 3 biographies and have a killer-cool large poster of QT on the wall (posed for EW Best of 1994 Special magazine). I remember I was such a fuckin' huge fan of QT I had the clipped photos of QT on the folder surface back in high school prompting perplexed questions from peers ("Who the fuck is that dude?") when I was a 17-year old teen in 1995. I still have it somewhere in the closet. IMO, Jackie Brown is equally the best on par with Pulp Fiction yet there are some disappointed QT fans complaining Jackie Brown is not too conventional, hip or shit like that expecting QT to throw in cool, hyperactive dialogue shit. Who gives a fuck about that? Get a grip. I refuse to read Kill Bill screenplay because I want to preserve for the moviegoing experience of being blown away by QT's latest film, whether it's merely good or ass-kickingly great. QT can do anything he wants and he don't give two shits about your fanboy opinion. He's dedicating Kill Bill two serials to the sheer aesthetic guilty pleasure of B-movie filmgoing experience that had occupied his mind since he was a kid. Kill Bill is like 70's Sonny Chiba/Street Fighter and Shaw Brothers in a blender. From what I saw in the trailer Kill Bill will own my and your casual moviegoer & fanboy geek ass.

  • July 17, 2003, 2:56 a.m. CST

    dear Meleractor...

    by GrandoCarIissian

    thanks for fucking up the talkback and making it unreadable. moron.

  • July 17, 2003, 3:09 a.m. CST

    What do you mean QT ripped Reservoir Dogs off of someone else?

    by PlutoNick

    Have you ever seen that movie? I have been hearing this for years. The movie you are talking about but haven't even seen, let alone know its name is City On Fire, directed by Ringo Lam. It is not a rip off. There are similarities. And i agree, Tarantino show that movie, but his movie is not a copy of City On Fire. Character's are different. Character development is different. In city of fire, chow yun dies in the end while his wife is expecting him in an airport. How is that a rip off of Tim Roth's death scene? Rip off is a heavy word. Homage perhaps, but not rip off. Has sergio leone ripped off Kurosawa? Is Rocky a rip off Raging Bull simply because both protagonists are boxers?

  • July 17, 2003, 3:11 a.m. CST

    Meleractor you moron

    by PlutoNick

    god, are you a moron

  • July 17, 2003, 3:13 a.m. CST

    uhm Grando?

    by Meleractor

    Your welcome! You see folks, one man CAN make a difference!

  • July 17, 2003, 3:14 a.m. CST

    BOYCOTT THIS RETARDED MOVIE

    by 12345678

    i might see this if tickets were only $ 3 dollars = half of matinee price or if it features warewolfs and vampyres BOOYAA OR PIRATE IT aRRG

  • July 17, 2003, 3:35 a.m. CST

    I've been deleted!!

    by Meleractor

    ...like so many visionaries before me. Ah, but my message remains...I will see these films regardless of the split. There are a great many SERIOUS problems on this planet gentlemen, I do not count this development among them. Perhaps it's time to reevaluate our priorities? hmn? ((((TYLER I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who have ever lived -- an entire generation pumping gas and waiting tables; or they're slaves with white collars. (more) TYLER (cont) Advertisements have them chasing cars and clothes, working jobs they hate so they can buy shit they don't need. We are the middle children of history, with no purpose or place. We have no great war, or great depression. The great war is a spiritual war. The great depression is our lives. We were raised by television to believe that we'd be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars -- but we won't. And we're learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed-off.))) -FIGHT CLUB

  • July 17, 2003, 3:36 a.m. CST

    As I said before, this is being done so QT can add a bunch of CG

    by jules windex

    Hopefully we won't have a Reloaded situation, where nothing happens and it becomes clear the filmmakers coulda easily had ONE film.

  • July 17, 2003, 3:55 a.m. CST

    "RECEIVING"

    by gertrude perkins

    Not "recieving". "i" before "e" except after "c"! Repeat five times. Also, Tao of Joe or whatever you're called, Weedy McSmokey has long been the most witty and erudite poster on this site and boasts a good deal of "inteligence".

  • July 17, 2003, 4:34 a.m. CST

    They should just charge by the minute.

    by Duck of Death

    That way, you only pay for the amount of movie you actually watch. If you think the movie sucks, you can leave after 15 minutes and not feel ripped off. Or for a long movie like this, fuck it, just run it for 3 or 4 hours or whatever, and people who think that's too long can just leave and come back for the rest later.

  • July 17, 2003, 4:37 a.m. CST

    3 weeks ago?

    by Unclemo

    So you knew about this 3 weeks ago? Waiting for both release dates, or unwilling to upset the studio? More and more I'm thinking that AICN is just an extension of the studio PR machine.

  • July 17, 2003, 4:38 a.m. CST

    THIS IS A VERY,VERY SMART DECISION FROM MIRAMAX, AND IN A WAY, K

    by SIR-SLEDGE450

    Think about it. "A fun B-Movie", "limited audience appeal".By splitting it up into 2 films, worldwide, both film only have to make roughly $110million between them,to break even, and how hard will that be, considering its been 6 years since a taraantino flicks been released, geek-buzz alone,will get it past $70million,and Dont DARE Say "oh,im not paying fr two films", beacause if some of you twats are sad enough to spunk $10 to see LXG,then you will pay double to see the work of a genius. But it will still suck ass.In a geeky way.

  • July 17, 2003, 4:39 a.m. CST

    From Today's Guardian:

    by gertrude perkins

    "Harry Knowles, the influential editor of AintItCoolNews, says he can put reviews on his site, [ungrammattical, no need for that comma] which are picked up and carried by nearly every paper in the U.S. He compares film websites to the life of an American folk hero. "The internet is the Paul Revere of news. It's the first place you hear what is going on and the rest of the world scrambles to find that out." Knowles is used to Hollywood studios trying to woo him but he is determined to "keep the site straight."" Then the article carries on... blah... overweight ginger bastard..... blah..... Surely Paul Revere is the paul revere of news? The internet must be the paul revere of something else.

  • July 17, 2003, 4:57 a.m. CST

    I'm with stoopid...

    by Bob X

    At least on this I am. Why can't people hold their bithing until they have at least SEEN that thing? QT is one of the very few filmmakers who have never disappointed so a little trust might be warranted. Sheesh, this is almost like a Buffy talkback. Nothing like bitching fanboys to start the day.

  • July 17, 2003, 5:02 a.m. CST

    Who the hell is Paul Revere?

    by earthworm

    Perhaps I aleady know the answer, I'm just not going to tell you until someone else does. And delaying Batman films, thats a new one on me....

  • July 17, 2003, 6:39 a.m. CST

    SLOBRO.........

    by SIR-SLEDGE450

    RD Will not stand the test of time like Pulp Fiction will, beacause RD Is a too much based on "City on fire", an equally ace Hong Kong film about 4 years before "dogs", and although Dogs kicks it 's ass,Pulp fiction will now almost surely be Tarantino's Masterpiece.But,back to Kill Bill, the one film that will truely kick ass in the next 4 years is QT's other masterpiece, "Inglorious Bastards" (love that title).Why's there no news on that?

  • July 17, 2003, 6:46 a.m. CST

    Tarantino: GET A FUCKING EDITOR

    by Delete Me

    Yeah yeah, he's got a hard-on for Hong Kong chop-sockey flicks, I got it, but THREE HOURS of Uma Thurman chopping people with a sword? Couldn't he have exercised just a tiny bit of restraint and edited that fucker down a bit? Now it's split in two. Don't tell me that's not going to mess with the flow of the story. But no, Tarantino has to be in love with every goddamn cheeseball shot, so he burns the village in order to save it. He cuts his movie in half to prevent it from being edited down. How Solomon-esque. I'm sorry, but there's such a thing as restraint. All good directors and creative minds have it. Tarantino has lost it, and when this movie bombs it's going to take what's left of his career with it.

  • July 17, 2003, 7:10 a.m. CST

    SLEDGE

    by earthworm

    That'll be just like that tiny Fistfull of Dollars film Sergio Leone did before his masterpiece Once upon a Time in the West. Fucking Jojimbo rip off.

  • July 17, 2003, 7:14 a.m. CST

    Snowbro, Reservoir Dogs is almost excellent but was hindered by

    by FD Resurrected

    I'm sure this problem is common with every amateur movie director working from limited experience in filmmaking on a low budget, independently financed movie (doesn't apply to big budget directors/hacks). Most of the time it's always unbearably bad. Badly written, bargain-basement production value, laughably amateurish acting [Michael Rapaport makes a hilarious example of this as Dick Ritchie acting idiotically in a casting director's office in True Romance, written from QT's experience as a struggling actor] and ineptly filmed & directed. and generic independent film festival/direct-to-video/family reunion trash. Examples are Skycraper (with Anna Nicole Smith as a moronic actress with enormous juggles) or the top 'bottom' 9 of IDMb's worst movies of all time (http://us.imdb.com/bottom_100_films). Currently 'From Justin to Kelly' tops the list as the worst movie of all time as a recent new release with a budget of $12 million, so it does not count as the other 1. It happened to James Cameron, he made a bad movie called Piranha II The Spawning although technically it really wasn't his movie; the first director left the project and Italian producers hired him to complete the film. "Finest flying piranha movie ever," go figure. Fine, I'll discuss Reservoir Dogs. QT wrote and directed with incredible command of filmmaking, but I find QT's penis monologue at the beginning infantile and lame. QT's brief acting in RD seems typical of a low-budget amateur actor not to mention laughable scenes of QT as Mr. Brown crashing into another car and screaming "Fuck!" then a moment later dropping dead with fake blood on the forehead with his famous chin sticking out. Other than amateurish scenes, Reservoir Dogs stands out on its own with the support of experienced actors articulating from the strength of a riveting, versatile character-driven screenplay that had old cops-vs-robbers cliche refreshed for a plot that refuses to follow the convention of chronological storyline. Plus the fact that RD may not be exactly original if QT has ever seen Ringo Lam's City on Fire (which I did see on a bootleg rental video when the accusation of plagiarism surfaced mid-90's and it is strikingly similar) which was made 3 or 4 years prior to RD's production. As for QT's acting range, he improved with Pulp Fiction and did alright in Sleep with Me, From Dusk Till Dawn, Desperado and Four Rooms. He was terrible in Destiny Turns on the Radio but that's the director's fault. I'd like to see him act again in one of his own films, like Pulp Fiction-esque cameo impersonating Dale Dye or R. Lee Ermey in Inglorious Bastards or something...

  • July 17, 2003, 7:34 a.m. CST

    Call the second part '2 Bill, 2 Furious'...

    by trench404

    ... and get some fast cars in there, stat.

  • July 17, 2003, 7:41 a.m. CST

    Thank you for being a friend...

    by Slugworth

    I finally caught the QT episode of Golden Girls, where he hams it up as an Elvis impersonator yesterday. Effing hilarious.

  • July 17, 2003, 7:48 a.m. CST

    TOXIC AVENGER PART 2

    by FatPaul

    Lloyd Kaufman did the same thing back in 1989 with The Toxic Avenger Part 2. It was too long, so he added some voice-over work and cut it into two movies. He made good money off the video sales of both movies, AND THEY BOTH FUCKING BLEW! Of course, even if it was just one movie, it would have been bad, but as two movies it was fucking god-awful. This was the start of the "suck" phase of Kaufman's career, and it took him until 1996 to pull himself out of it. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The moral of this story is: No matter how much money it will make you, DON'T MAKE YOUR ONE LONG MOVIE INTO TWO AWKWARD AND DRAWN-OUT MOVIES. They will suck, and your next movie will suck even worse and have a monkey in it, and you will have to use the car flip you shot for it in your next three movies just to make up for the loss you took on that stupid monkey movie. This is an important lesson that we all need to learn.

  • July 17, 2003, 7:53 a.m. CST

    I'm not the one being cynical.

    by Delete Me

    I'm not the one who's accusing Tarantino of "selling out." Look at these comments. Most of the ones bitching are doing so about the notion of paying twice to see one movie, thinking this is all a ploy to squeeze more of their hard-won geek-dollars. Hardly. This is a matter of trimming. Somebody took a look at "Kill Bill" and figured out what should have been figured out a long time ago: a revenge flick, no matter how stylish, does not make for a three-hour-long epic. Revenge flicks are supposed to be fun, they're supposed to be goofy, they're supposed to be mindless entertainment. How the fuck did this turn into three hours in the first place? Again: good directors are RESTRAINED when they're doing great work. "Magnolia" was flawed because it ran so long you started to feel the length of it. You started to feel like some of the characters could've been cut, like some of the scenes could've been shorter, that somehow Paul Thomas Anderson could've taken a loving scalpel to his film and just shortened it a bit. "Kill Bill" is a simple story. No amount of "chaptering" and nonlinear structuring can take away from the fact that CUTTING IT IN HALF WILL REALLY FUCKING KILL THE FLOW OF THE MOVIE. Similarly, letting a revenge movie with tons upon tons of chop-em-up fight scenes run for three hours probably wasn't a great move in the first place. Tarantino should have thought to myself, "My project is getting bloated, I'd better do some cutting so it doesn't get out of control." Instead, like I said before, he's got a dud on his hands that only his hardcore fans will watch, and he can kiss his career goodbye.

  • July 17, 2003, 7:57 a.m. CST

    fuck you little bitches in your stupid asses

    by goatboy500

    so what if you have to buy 2 dvd's or pay for 2 tickets? if it was the latest rob cohen flick i would understand, but this is tarantino for fuck's sake, he's the reason most of you little assholes are on this site, he's responsible for more movie geeks than anyone else. and as for calling him a corporate whore, QT has always maintained that his movies must make money, to allow him to make more movies. what the fuck is wrong with you people? QT doin a kung fu flick with woo ping and uma thurman? i'm so fuckin there, and so will all of you, admit it. moaning little bitches.

  • July 17, 2003, 8:11 a.m. CST

    3 hr Martial Arts flicks

    by shadoman

    Shade, you don't wach a lot of martial arts flicks do you??? You a girl???

  • July 17, 2003, 8:19 a.m. CST

    Kill Bill

    by boris the spie

    Okay if you don't live four ferry rides and one filght away from a cinema. Stange how the three hour long Jakie Brown wasn't slpit or the episodic Pulp Fiction. Oh and Harry, you suck to. I thought the point of this site was to get us the news first. You sound like another industry lackie these days, now lick.

  • July 17, 2003, 8:22 a.m. CST

    Rip!

    by Dr

    This is all about the money they will make from DVD sales.Release them seperately, then together,then the "Directors cut" "LTD Edition" "Extreme Edition" etc etc.

  • July 17, 2003, 8:22 a.m. CST

    Well I guess now Uma Thurman won't be killing Bill until 2004...

    by BigPoppi

    I think this could also boil down to recouping costs. A shoot that goes 155 days most of which is on location in China with some pretty high price talent adds up to one thing. . .a lot of money. I'm not saying that this movie is not highly anticipated by every movie geek in the world, but will the geek movie going populace be enough for these guys to turn a profit? Methinks that Harvey Weinstein is a little worried about this so he figures he'll get people to come out and see part one in October for full price and then six weeks later we'll get part two and we'll pay full price again all the while part one is in the second run theaters still making money. Then Harv can sit back and look like a genius for his business acumen. However, I hope this is not setting a trend in Hollywood for film makers to basically rape the movie going public. People may say that LOTR started it all but that's not fair to those films. Those were always meant to be a trilogy because that's how the original source material was presented. Things like the Matrix and it's subsequent sequels could go either way. The first movie stands well on it's own and we can all re-think our position on Reloaded after Revolutions comes out and see how the trilogy stands up as a whole. Bottom line though is that the movie industry is an enterprise and they want to make money, if they have to resort to making bloated films that shouldn't be just to break up the film into seperate parts and thereby making a franchise out of it then so be it. We'll still go see them anyway.

  • July 17, 2003, 8:31 a.m. CST

    A TOUCH OF ZEN

    by FatPaul

    Of course, King Hu made A Touch of Zen as two movies, and they didn't suck. They were a little slow, and the ending seemed kind of tacked-on, but I think we can all agree that it wouldn't have had the same feel and impact if they'd taken out any more than the ending. Actually, as one normal-length movie, it probably would have sucked. Sucked bad. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ And the moral of the story is: Releasing your long movie as two shorter movies is better than editing it down to one short bad movie, even if you should have left off that part with the guy we've never seen before fighting the monk who doesn't have anything to do with the story for no reason, when you should have left it with the guy finding the baby, but every kung-fu movie has to end with a big fight scene even if it doesn't make any sense. Yet another important lesson for us all.

  • July 17, 2003, 8:35 a.m. CST

    COMMENT FROM AN ORDINARY TICKET-BUYER

    by MKiro

    I'm Joe Average - I go to the movies a couple of times a month with my wife. I actually purchase 3 or 4 DVDs a month as I consider myself a movie lover. I enjoyed Res. Dogs; loved Pulp Fiction and was disappointed with Jackie Brown. I read about Kill Bill on this site and was mildly interested in the concept. After seeing the trailer, I figured it looked a fun film... maybe the 'B-Plus movie' Weinstein was referring to. I would go see the movie. However... After reading this latest news I have now dismissed any desire to see this film. Three hours is a good running time for a great, compelling movie and had this been the case with Kill Bill, I would have given it a chance. However, there is no way on earth I plan to make the effort to see this film knowing I have to then wait and see the second part in a few weeks/months. LOTR is an example where this worked, as the structure of the trilogy made each film a 'chapter' in its own right. In contrast to KB, it was developed specifically as a multi-part story and was structured accordingly. The Matrix Reloaded was a piece of self-indulgent junk in my opinion (and BORING - an unforgivable flaw in any film) and I have no desire to see the next one in November. As far as Kill Bill is concerned, I will wait for the reviews before passing judgement. If the reviews are good, then I will wait and get the 'single story' on DVD. If not I will be glad of the extra 3-4 hours of my life I had not wasted. Whatever happens though, I will NOT be seeing this in a theatre. As far as I'm concerned (being non-geek), this is not a matter of greed/money//ego/inconvenience. It is just personal choice based on what I have seen of the movie so far and read about WHY this is being made into a two-parter. I simply do not believe that this decision was made with my (average movie-goer) interest at heart.

  • July 17, 2003, 8:53 a.m. CST

    'Average movie goers'

    by shadoman

    Mr QT does not make average films for the average movie goer. He makes films for movie geeks and film buffs like himself. Hes always said that he makes films for 'himself'. So, again I say, 'leave well enough alone if you are not that interested'

  • July 17, 2003, 8:53 a.m. CST

    Father Geek are you implying that your journalistic standards ar

    by BannthisUcommies

    release dates that would have been a key to a story. Of course are you sure its true? Maybe its 3 parts? -------- NY Times --------- All the shit we can make up and then some.

  • July 17, 2003, 9:07 a.m. CST

    trying to make it up for GONY

    by TarantinoWebsite

    actually Miramax is lacking a few bucks because of the flop that was GONY. Now Harvey Fattto Weinstein wants to earn some more shitloads of cash to back up the little bump in his purse... it's bullshit to cut a movie in half, we all know that, QT knows that, but what shall you do? QT works for a fuck-company called MiramAxe. They fuck up good movies, examples: Hero, Shaolin Soccer...etc.. Someday somehow people will learn to move away from people like Harvey, because some people still like epics and still hate that capitalist money-making sequel bullshit. the Rolling Stone Mag article I posted at www.tarantino.info includes a passage where QT sais he takes the DVD very serious, now we can understand this like that: He will take it serious to produce at least 5 or 6 discs, for each of the 2 Kill Bill parts a single-disc release, a 2-disc release, then a box with all 4 discs, then one with seamless branching where you can watch it all on a flipper disc and a year later we get the entire thing again on HD-DVD. And clever people on the internet already begin thinking about downloading both Kill Bills and putting them together on a DVD-R....

  • July 17, 2003, 9:18 a.m. CST

    Look you dweebs...

    by Buck_Turgidson

    All this bellyaching about "screwing the consumer" is complete fanboy girly-screaming. All it means is that you will have to pay $18 for the movies OVER A 3 TO 6 MONTH PERIOD. What do you want, to put the movie on layaway? $18 is probably the weekly Vaseline budget for most of you. You probably all paid $18 for Jar Jar Binks action figures 3 years ago. Get a job if you think that $18 is expensive to see the movie in its entirety, uncut. Numbnuts.

  • July 17, 2003, 9:19 a.m. CST

    So after yet another...

    by Kid Z

    ... "Summer of Shit", we'll now get to look forward to a "Fall and Winter of Shit" too? Chuck D and the immortal Flavor Flave said it best: "Burn Hollywood Burn!"

  • July 17, 2003, 9:19 a.m. CST

    shadoman......

    by MKiro

    Ooooh! Sounds like a very exclusive club, and I'm SO upset that I'm not a part of it. I'm sure Miramax are delighted to have (over)invested in a two-part movie just for the benefit of you and your 'club'. I'm sure they aren't interested in making movies for the general public, nor is Mr Tarantino who isn't in this to make money but just 'wants to be known for his art'. Grow up, shadoman. Don't be so naive. If you want to continue living in your fairytale world, where QT is making films just for you and your buddies then fine. However, I don't buy into your fantasy.

  • July 17, 2003, 9:21 a.m. CST

    shut up

    by pig2dpen

    Bottom line.... Everyone in this talk back will see this movie...well both these movies. You can cry, whine, bitch, hold your breath until you turn blue, you will still see these movies. If you say you wont you are lying. Hell yeah it is a stunt to get twice your money. Any movie exec with half a frigging brain knows that ever geek out there (and we are all geeks) will pay twice to see a crappy movie. Slap a little Uma and Lucy fight scene for the spank bank and every geek will drop the allowance their mommy gives (in my case Wife) and be happy about it. Here is the proof you went and saw Jar Jar in both movies. Stop complaining you get to bad ass flicks and it will spawn enough copy cat rip off movies by equally shitty directors that you will have fodder for talk back for at least 3 years.

  • July 17, 2003, 9:22 a.m. CST

    mKiro

    by shadoman

    ..... Do I give a fuck????

  • July 17, 2003, 9:23 a.m. CST

    And they shall call them: KILL BILL and KILL BILL STILL!!!!

    by Drath

    Mark my words, it shall be! And this movie had BETTER BE WELL WORTH all the damn headlines it's been getting here.

  • July 17, 2003, 9:25 a.m. CST

    Waaaaahhhh!!!

    by rev_skarekroe

    Weinstein wants my money! Waaahhh!!! He's just a big mean businessman! All this time I thought he and Tarantino were my friends, but it turns out all they want to do is turn a profit! Sob! They're making me go to see the same movie twice! Sniff. Actually it's just one 3+ hour movie split into two parts, so it's not REALLY like I'm seeing the same thing twice, but BOO HOO!! Those big meanies! I'm going to hold my breath until they change their minds! sk

  • July 17, 2003, 9:37 a.m. CST

    MKiro has a good point...

    by Kid Z

    ... The Wachowskis make Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions at the same time and released them as 2 films, as was their plan. Unfortunately, while Reloaded made money, it was a disappointment and was almost universally panned by the critics. Now Revolutions will come out in a few months and a lot of folks will be saying, "No way am I getting screwed one more time!" Warners is screwed, basically and the Wachowskis are getting that "1 hit wonder" stink about them. Why the hell do Tanrantino and Weinstein think they can avid this same fate? After all, the risk they're taking is even bigger: Reloaded and Revolutions were designed to be two films whereas Kill Bill (maybe we should start calling it.. er... them "Kill Bills"???) is one film that Scissorstein is snipping in half. Yeah... that'll work...

  • July 17, 2003, 9:41 a.m. CST

    Damn it, I'd sit through a three-hour QT film!

    by WarDog

    His movies are so engrossing you don't really notice the passage of time sitting in a theater. Did audiences with The Green Mile? Shit, this would be not that much different. Oh well, maybe that pussy Weinstein doesn't have the confidence in QT that he might with another director/screenwriter. Rats, rats, rats. They'd damned well better put the whole movie on one DVD then.

  • July 17, 2003, 9:47 a.m. CST

    Here's an idea. It worked for me last week.

    by Nozoki

    I lucked out last week when I was coming out of Charlie's Angels 2. As I was heading to the exit, I heard the previews playing in the Bruce Almighty theater. Being as I had nowhere else to go right away, I strolled in and sat down. Two flicks for the price of one. And I only paid matinee price. I figured I made up for paying 10 bucks for popcorn and a watery Coke. Now if the first part of Kill Bill is still playing when the second part hits theters, then I'll try to catch a double feature again.

  • July 17, 2003, 9:49 a.m. CST

    a sad loss

    by The Waxer

    If you want release a two-part, kung-fu, blood and violence no holds barred epic

  • July 17, 2003, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Tao of Joe - chill homie

    by WeedyMcSmokey

    How can one get so offended by an anonymous internet post? I'm glad you were voicing your concern over the Partirot Act - too bad the rest of the country didn't bother to pay attention. Much as my post seemed to have raied your ire - your's did mine - none of these moves should come as a surprise, in fact today I read that buying pirating copies of films and music supports terror - according to the federal gov't.. Apparently Al Qaeda has a lucrative software smuggling operation. Couple that with the policy to prosecute ordinary citizens who have shared files (more than 10 shares equals theft of over $2,500 - a federal offence - up to 5 years) and you've got yourself a governement run amok. Fuckers is a euphamism for people. If your that sensitive, get a helmet. Plus, I'm a real tough guy - I eat kittens and beat up wrestlers. As far as you know. Peace.

  • July 17, 2003, 10:23 a.m. CST

    Someone should send a Terminator back in time, to 3 weeks ago..

    by Riggy469

    To take out that money hungry Harvey before he made it to LA to ruin this film for everyone.... T4 - Rise of the movie ticket purchasers

  • July 17, 2003, 11:40 a.m. CST

    typical AICN

    by ZO

    "we knew about it but just didn't post it" ur a rumor site. why doi u need to confirm anything???? pick a way of journalism and go with it

  • July 17, 2003, 12:59 p.m. CST

    The main problem with Kill Bill will probably be the fact...

    by Diskatopia

    ...that Tarantino directed it. Writer (and sometimes <ahem> "borrower"), he is. Director, he ain't.

  • July 17, 2003, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Cheap A** whiners!

    by Exalay

    WAH!! First of all, the typical length for movies of the genre are typically short. When guys I know who are into these movies cross-over into other genres, the first or second thing they check on is the running time, hoping for brevity. Second, there's a reason why these movies are short. 3+ hours of non-stop butt-stomping can get OLD. Tbird, if this is the way you get to see the 'director's vision,' what's the prob. You won't have to wait for the Special Edition DVD for a change, you'll get the full package first. Last, there's not one of you who wouldn't part w the extra $9 for a quality flick, so if KB is good enough, there's zero problema. 'Nuff said.

  • July 17, 2003, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Think about it

    by Exalay

    Matrix is not a trilogy--M2 is just a non-interactive video game w very little plot. Since we were all ripped off $9, according to this talkback's movie theory that makes The Matrix a suck movie/the director a sellout/the studio who made a bunch of theiving asswipes. Better yet, it means everyone complaining about 2 KILL BILLs won't be seeing Matrix 3 either. Or maybe they WILL see it because they THINK THE FILM WILL BE WORTH IT. If KB gets good word of mouth, all this whining is moot.

  • July 17, 2003, 2:43 p.m. CST

    Solution for you outraged geeks

    by GypsyTRobot

    It's called "Matinee and smuggle in your candy (or stuff your face right before you go to the theater)." $5.00 + $1.00 king-sized Hershey bar versus $9.50 + $2.50 Raisinets. Thus, you can see 2 QT movies for the price of 1. I won't participate in movie piracy on the net, but the price they charge for movie candy is piracy in and of itself.

  • July 17, 2003, 2:52 p.m. CST

    This is *maddening*

    by Philsy

    We all have to boycott this. If it's successful, it will happen *all* the time. I'm going to wait for the DVD, and even then I'm going to watch it with a bad taste in my eyes. Yeesh.

  • July 17, 2003, 3:16 p.m. CST

    Shows what you guys know

    by Zone55555

    We know direct your attention to: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=14558 MMMMM, that's some tasty crow, ain't it fellas?

  • July 17, 2003, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Tarantino Meant To Do This All Along! I Have The Scripts, BILL

    by Buzz Maverik

    INT. POWER PLANT -- DAY The horrific kung fu fight rages on! Worse, Bill smashes equipment causing gagues to snap and electro-bolts to shoot everywhere. A streaming bolt of power chases the Bride, who suddenly cuts and runs right toward Bill! Before the electricity can zap her, the Bride dives aside. The bolt nails Bill. CLOSE on the Bride, looking up from the ground. Is it really over? Has she had her revenge at last? NO! We see Bill in x-ray, then two negative images of Bill...a final power burst leaves two bewildered Bills staring at each other. Bill Red has blue hair and Bill Blue has red hair. Evil smiles form as the two Bills realize what's happened. They turn and leer at the Bride...

  • July 17, 2003, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Well just finished reading the 'screenplay'

    by ANGELS-EGG

    ....and wheres the story? A frikkin 7 year old could of wrote that! It could be done completely in 1 1/2 hour....theres nothing to itexcept the bride kills off the bad guys 1 by 1 until she gets to bill. Some cool stuff in there though and I will go see it(I have already seen worse this year). And to all you geeks complaining...You all complained about T3 before it come out and it rocks! Dont judge a film before it comes out. The trailer...and script could turn out differently in the finished product.....

  • July 17, 2003, 4:50 p.m. CST

    QT nutlicker fanboys

    by blue7

    Hey stoopid, I thought you said you weren't coming to the talkbacks any more. Way to take a stand! I also fail to see how QT is anything other than a modestly talented writer and director -- certainly not an auteur or one of the greatest working today. Shit, he's pretty good, but enough already. And as for the semantic quibbles regarding Reservoir Dogs, does anyone who has actually seen City on Fire believe that if it hadn't been made Reservoir Dogs would have ever come into existence? RD is a good movie, no doubt, but spare me the bullshit. Call it an homage or a theft, it's all the same thing. And finally, even QT's section of Four Rooms is better than the pathetic lump of worm-riddled shit that is NBK. Shit, I'll take anything QT's directed over anything Oliver Stone's ever done, Platoon and Salvador included. Talk about a hack.

  • July 17, 2003, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Just think, if PJ used this same logic, LotR would be released a

    by minderbinder

    And Reloaded/Revolutions would be three. And I can't even imagine what the HP series would look like, OotP would probably be a trilogy on it's own.

  • July 17, 2003, 5:39 p.m. CST

    Check this out

    by TheMayor

    http://www.upcomingmovies.com/killbill.html I kinda doubt fathergeek knew this three weeks ago too

  • July 17, 2003, 6:16 p.m. CST

    5th movie?

    by James Bond

    What, are they counting his contribution to FOUR ROOMS as his third film? And what the fuck is up with this anyway, since when is 3 hours too long? This has to be the absolute most retarded thing I've ever read.

  • July 17, 2003, 6:22 p.m. CST

    And another thing...

    by James Bond

    Thanks for sitting on the story for 3 weeks. What the fuck is this site good for anyway. Jags.

  • July 17, 2003, 6:24 p.m. CST

    Oh, please

    by Meleractor

    Hollywood's trying to rape us? Hollywood's been raping our asses for decades. Are you telling me your hole is just now feeling tender. Or mabye it doesn't strike you as the least bit disproportionate that we pay (and I do mean WE) some humans millions of dollars to "pretend" while most of the populace pull less than 100,000 a year? You've set a precedent of being malleable ssclowns for quite sometime now. Quite your bitchin and return to your cage to await your next steaming helping of gruel,

  • July 17, 2003, 6:25 p.m. CST

    Quit Bitching!

    by Special K

    All you cheapskates that are so concerned about paying $16 instead of $8 to see all of Tarantino's new vision can just wait for the DVDs and rent 'em on a weeknight from Blockbuster 6 months after they're released. Either that or get a better paying job or a job at all for all you lazy asses who don't work but instead spend all your time babbling in here. But just shut up already!

  • July 17, 2003, 6:38 p.m. CST

    So, nobody here was going to see a 3-hour Kill Bill TWICE?

    by Trav McGee

    Amounts to the same, right? So now, to maintain your notion of integrity, you can only go see each half once, which will be difficult for you, as I suspect both parts are going to be quite, quite, quite fucking good.

  • July 17, 2003, 7:11 p.m. CST

    On reflection it could work.

    by v1c_vega

    After seeing er@serheahs comment about were it would be cut from reading the script (don't read it if you don't want a spoiler) i agree, i checked my script again and it would probably work a treat and it is at about the halfway mark. I suspect Mr Wienstein is unhappy about the return he going to get from Kill Bill he's calling it a good B-movie , It's violent , very violent and potentially 3 hrs long , OH NO limited audience limited return. I think that maybe the TMan has had to compromise to keep Wienstein happy. Wienstein has already let the TMan have his way with filming the whole script , waiting for Uma to have her baby as the TMan would not do it without her , it even sounds like the TMan got his way about David carradine as Warren Beatty was going to be Bill. On top of this the TMan then goes over time and over budget how much more does Weinstein have to bend over for the TMan. Weinstein finally sees a version of the film and says Tman great film but it's very violent and to long i want some return on the money i invested in your film CUT IT DOWN. The TMan says you know i made this film the way i like it and as much as i've tried i can't CUT IT DOWN anymore. Weinstein replys I've let you do everything you wanted to for this movie i want the best return it's too fucking violent and it's too fucking long CUT IT DOWN. TMan thinks and says i aint CUTTING MY FUCKING MOVIE however realising Weinstein has been good to him offering the money and letting him have so much of his way ,going over budget , shooting the whole script , going over time , waiting for Uma etc he offers a compromise TMan says i tell you what i could do i could do the movie in two parts as i think it could work. Weinstein replys with are you a fucking mad man !. TMan then shows Weinstein where the film would be split he buys it and voila we now have two parts because the TMan's showing it as the way he wants it to be seen and Weinstein going to get the return he wants cus lets face it unless the first ones crap (not a chance) were gonna see the second. It sucks on the people who don't want to pay two times to see one film but it's got limited appeal and most of us that will like it will see the two parts and i now think it might just work out OK.

  • July 17, 2003, 7:53 p.m. CST

    I sea eh pat urn here

    by Carl w/ a 'K'

    Coming soon: Starwars: Episode Three part one: when we dead awaken...and, Starwars: Episode three part two:wallets have been raped Lord Vader. Oh yeah and Peter Jackson has to film the ending of the two towers plus The Return of the King, and it's going super tough, thus The Return of the king, Part one. and The return of the king, part too: electric boogaloo; Will Smith's making a cool movie called I Robot which we could call ayeRoBoT part one and ayeRobot part two. And actually, just to let you know...Matrix Revolutions is really three films in one...so that means three tickets.

  • July 17, 2003, 8:32 p.m. CST

    QT's a walletwhomper rigt now...but his next flick will be justi

    by Carl w/ a 'K'

    remember how Marty did that 'Alice' movie w/ supercool Kris Kristofferson right after directing Mean Streets... Maybe QT should do the same: direct an all woman cast of Hamlet, make a kids film full of fun and whimsy...or a straight ahead "my dinner w/ Andre" style flick that doesn't end with detectives pulling slugs out of shellshocked slices of foccia bread. Or maybe he could adapt something my Edith Wharton, W.O. Mitchell, Jane Austin, Mary Wollstencrofte, Ken Kesey, Tom Wolfe (would be cool); Jack Kerouac, Allan Ginsberg; Sherman Alexe, James Joyce, Thucidies, Michael Ondaatje, Sartre, deSade, Joseph Heller, Saul Bellow, Lucius Apuleius, the unfinished memoirs of Anatole Broyard, not to mention great playwrite with century old craftmenship of good drama that could be poured into the cinematic mouldings: Jean Genet's Blacks a clown show...or Ibsens Ghost Sonada, Eugene Ionesco's plays like "The Lesson" "The Bald Soprano" "Jack, or The Submission" and how dare we forget the Indians...George Ryga wrote hundreds of plays: his best were "Captives of the Faceless Drummer" and "The Ecstasy of Rita Joe...very sad...very QTappropriate. But there's more: Bertolt Brecht's work needs cinematic adaptation...especially "Mother Courage and her Children." who could forget John Kennedy Toole's posthumous publication of "A Confederacy of Dunces" this is a film qt could direct with his eyes closed and rumor has it that Philip Seymore Hoffman eez gonna get that sweet lead.

  • July 17, 2003, 9:12 p.m. CST

    Tarantino

    by barrys2000

    it's Tarantino. he's yet to touch anything that hasn't turned to gold. have faith, geeks.

  • July 17, 2003, 10:19 p.m. CST

    thanks for all the exclusive 'official' insider info harry

    by scttkrkwd

    http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=14558 so which is it? guess the NY times has better insider info than harry.

  • July 17, 2003, 10:36 p.m. CST

    My only question is...

    by Cap'n Chaos!

    will it be released as one film on DVD? I don't mind paying to see this as two films in the theater. If there's a bug up my ass, it'll be if I like it and have to pay twice as much to own the damn thing.

  • July 18, 2003, 12:48 a.m. CST

    shade, you are delusional

    by blue7

    I am not a Tarantino fan. The word fan is short for "fanatic", and I don't see how saying his movies (as in Reservoir Dogs on Fire, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown) are better than the used rubber drippings that are Oliver Stone's "oeuvre" is in any way being fanatical about anything. Natural Born Killers has about as much to say about violence in our society as Camp Beverly Hills. If you honestly believe that it is meaningful in any way, you're about as deep as a puddle. Quentin Tarantino's script for that piece of shit was total garbage, too, so spare me any conjecture that I'm disrespecting Stone. Nobody involved with that queef deserves anything less than scorn, except for Rodney Dangerfield.

  • July 18, 2003, 6:05 a.m. CST

    Hmmm, so now it'll be the 4th and 5th film by QT. Excuse me as I

    by TheGinger Twit

  • July 18, 2003, 6:59 a.m. CST

    The more I think about this, the more I think what a dip shit Ta

    by TheGinger Twit

  • July 18, 2003, 7:02 a.m. CST

    here I am watching Directors cut T2... at least Cameron had the

    by TheGinger Twit

  • July 18, 2003, 11:24 a.m. CST

    FUCK TARRANTINO... He has ruined my year!!!

    by zion99

    Possibly the most dissapointing news I have heard this year, One of the last few directors that gives a shit about the movie going experience has finaly gone for the riches and sold out to the big cock suckin bosses at Miramax!! I dont quite know what Tarantitwank is doin but he must have consumed large amounts of drugs between his last masterpiece and the 2 part piece of crap that will be KILL BILL.

  • July 18, 2003, 1:14 p.m. CST

    I'm Glad Its Going To Be Two Movies

    by madoo14

    and here's why. If QT had to fit the entire story into one movie there are certain parts that would have had to wait until the dvd release to be seen. Now instead of just 3 hours we'll probably get closer to 4 and maybe even more! Maybe as a promotional type thing you could get a discount for bringing your stub from the first one. Doesn't matter anyway cause I'll see em both for free.

  • July 18, 2003, 5:27 p.m. CST

    for god's sake

    by Ftse100

    My God people what the hell is going on with you people an extra

  • July 18, 2003, 6:49 p.m. CST

    Jesus Christ on a bike!

    by Mithril

    Thanks a lot, Miramax and QT. Sheesh! Now, I'm sorry but this is lousy. First of all, it smells of milking money out of the audience (and don't give me that "you know you'll go see it anyway" crap, I can wait for DVD. Actually, I can even wait a few years for a Special/Director's Edition DVD set if I have to). Secondly, there doesn't seem to be any real reason for doing it, since a) 3 hours is not very long, b) it may fuck up the pacing, c) there isn't enough plot and thematic to carry or justify 2 films (and as for Exalay's "3 hours of butt-stomping can get old" - well, seeing the same in two parts is just as boring, especially since it just keeps repeating the same "find a baddie, kick their ass, get more names, find the next baddie" formula), d) you couldn't trim the movie even a little? Quentin, it's called "killing your babies", and it's what a lot of great writers and directors have learnt over the years: your favourite bits are usually the ones that on the screen edited together fuck up the pacing and make the movie stilted, so you have to know how to cut stuff. Sheesh, we've learnt that JK Rowling is hopeless at this when it comes to the HP movies, but I had bigger hopes for QT. And e) I'm hoping the pressure to create two full movies long enough to justify the cut in two will not mean QT will put in stuff he hadn't planned to have in the film (tiny edited bits, for instance) to give it more run time. And finally f) it's a huge risk, and a stupid decision that'll probably come back to haunt Weinstein and QT. ***Oh, and honestly, I'm surprised more people haven't complained about the "different versions for U.S., Europe and Asia" line. WTF?!? Oh, let me guess, if you want to see them all, you'll have to get three different DVDs. Or wait several years for the fourth DVD version of the films for an "ultimate edition" with all the versions or footage. Which also raises the question of how there can be several versions of the movie if QT is using the "I want my full, complete vision to be up on the screen and refuse to cut anything" line? What, is it gonna be the same stuff, but in a different order? Or from different camera angles? This stinks bad.

  • July 19, 2003, 7:39 a.m. CST

    KILL BILL:RELOADED......KILL BILL:REVOLUTIONS Coming Soon

    by Monkey_King

    Heh heh. Had to do it.

  • July 19, 2003, 10:26 a.m. CST

    Who cares? QT's hack, anyway

    by Drunken Rage

    What's he made, 3 1/4 movies in 10

  • July 20, 2003, 6:27 a.m. CST

    Shade: Oliver Stone is a demi-God filmaker superior to that over

    by chien_sale

    That`s my take on the man. NBK of course was a master-piece, by far supperior to that awful shock Tarantino pseudo-script.

  • Aug. 2, 2003, 1:05 p.m. CST

    For the guy who thinks DOGS is a rip off from city on fire

    by Freemon

    Hey jack ass who made the comment about QT stealing from city on fire! That movie was anything from original when it came out. They spit out Action flicks in Hong Kong at record numbers and they pretty much have the same concept, it's the style and substance that counts and QT has some fuckin style. All of you guys bitcin about QT and saying his movies suck are the same guys that say that shit about every movie that comes out. Do ya'll like anything or are you just so sad and angry that you've got to bitch about everything. The movie is gonna ROCK!!!!

  • Aug. 6, 2003, 4:48 a.m. CST

    Screw all these assholes who say QT ripped off City on Fire! Cit

    by shogunpoker

    Lots of directors see movies that they love and it has an effect on what kind of movies they want to make. If Hidden Fortress was never made, Star Wars would not have been made, or it may have been a lot different. While the story of city on fire is essentially the same as Rdogs, the movies are completely different. Differnt look, tone, pacing. Rdogs is a character piece, City Fire is an action movie. Quentin takes from a lot of movies. Anyone see the Taking of Pelham 123. Four guys with guns take control of a subway car and hold the passengers for ransom. They all ahve code names like mr.Gray, Mr.Blue. QT uses his love of movies to make really great movies that "steal" the best parts of other movies.