The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

Kill Bill - One Film or Two?


#1

Is Kill Bill one film or two?

  • It’s ONE film seperated into two volumes.
  • It’s TWO seperate films.

0 voters

I think it is ONE film seperated into Volumes. Each volume is not a complete film. Both volumes together make a whole complete film.



Here are a few points to back up my argument:


  • QT has said it is ONE film.
  • It was intended as ONE film hence the ONE script.
  • It was a single production - the very first trailer was titled Kill Bill (with footage of BOTH volumes)
  • It was too long to be released as one film, so had to be seperated into halves or Volumes much like how an encyclopedia will be separated into volumes as it’s inpractical to release one GIGANTIC book.
  • They aren’t called Kill Bill 1 and Kill Bill 2. They are called Volumes 1 and 2. The definition of (volume) which is - “One of the books of a work printed and bound in more than one book”. Just change the word book for film, and what do you get?
  • Volume 2 features the credits of Volume 1. Why would this happen if they were two distinct films? Why doesn’t Terminator 2 feature the credits of Terminator 1?
  • Volume 2 was advertised as “The New Film by Quentin Tarantino” (as it would be silly to advertise it as “The second half of QT’s 4th film”.
  • Death Proof is being advertised as “The 5th Film by Quentin Tarantino”.
  • The Kill Bill Wiki says “Two Volumes, different versions. One film. Kill Bill was created as one film and then released as two volumes. However, it is considered to be one film (the entire saga has also been termed The Whole Bloody Affair).”
  • Articles and reviews I have read claim Kill Bill is one film. A few extracts:



    “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.” - <LINK_TEXT text=“http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/16/movie … r=USERLAND”>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/16/movies/16KILL.html?ex=1373688000&en=29fb5e1ab54f0697&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND</LINK_TEXT>



    "…Death Proof is a film that he simply cannot stop talking about. It’s not, he insists, one half of a novelty film. The script is most definitely The Fifth Film From Quentin Tarantino… " - <LINK_TEXT text=“http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/in … 97,00.html”>http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,2071697,00.html</LINK_TEXT>



    The “Death Proof” portion of “Grindhouse,” as all true cinema devotees know, is the “fifth film from Quentin Tarantino” (if you count the “Kill Bills” as one movie, which he does). - <LINK_TEXT text=“http://www.cleveland.com/film/plaindeal … xml&coll=2”>http://www.cleveland.com/film/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/117533131199020.xml&coll=2</LINK_TEXT>





    Vote away…

#2

If: Nothing to prove. Youre 100% correct.


#3

yeah i hate it when people say “the first kill bill” or “kill bill 2”. glad you cleared it up for everyone. nice job.


#4

If audiences were into 3 + hour films it wouldve been released as it was originally intended. But they arent which makes me wonder now why the hell Robert Rodriguez wanted to even do a Grindhouse double feature knowing that fact. He basically gave QT his first dud. Am I right or wrong?


#5

[quote=“Pete”]
If audiences were into 3 + hour films it wouldve been released as it was originally intended. But they arent which makes me wonder now why the hell Robert Rodriguez wanted to even do a Grindhouse double feature knowing that fact. He basically gave QT his first dud. Am I right or wrong?
[/quote]

i bet DP did make it´s money back in the international run. it must have been a cheaper production.


#6

[quote=“Crazy_Hattori”]
i bet DP did make it´s money back in the international run. it must have been a cheaper production.
[/quote]

Why haven’t you voted?


#7

1


#8

[quote=“Ify”]
Why haven’t you voted?
[/quote]

i just did now.



and i´ll post something maybe tomorrow, just in case you were wondering.


#9

You made your point clear and pretty much irrefutable, Ify. However, early ads for volume 2 announced it as “the 5th film by Quentin Tarantino”, which is kinda contradictory, but now it’s just “the new film by Quentin Tarantino” on the DVD cover.

I personally think it is more interesting to think of it as one film because it’s one story, to think all those things happened in one adventure.

Still, it’s easier not to confuse people who aren’t into this by just telling them “Kill Bill 1, Kill Bill 2”, or they’ll cross you out as a nerd.


#10

[quote=“Starvin Marvin”]
You made your point clear and pretty much irrefutable, Ify. However, early ads for volume 2 announced it as “the 5th film by Quentin Tarantino”
[/quote]

Really? I didn’t see or read anybody claiming Volume 2 to be the 5th film. In the trailer and in the TV spots it was always “the new film” over here in the UK.


[quote]Still, it’s easier not to confuse people who aren’t into this by just telling them “Kill Bill 1, Kill Bill 2”, or they’ll cross you out as a nerd.[/quote]

It’s not about being nerdy, but about being correct. :slight_smile:


#11

If Kill Bill which was I think 220 pages and could be split into 2 films, and IB is supposedly 600 pages, how many volumes would it take to make that? I dont know how it will be made into a regular movie at that length.


#12

[quote=“Ify”]
Really? I didn’t see or read anybody claiming Volume 2 to be the 5th film. In the trailer and in the TV spots it was always “the new film” over here in the UK.
[/quote]
Well, I was certain about that, I did a quick search and found this.


#13

[quote=“Starvin Marvin”]
Well, I was certain about that, I did a quick search and found it.

[/quote]

Holy crap, that’s the first I’ve seen. Is that Japanese? It’s just incorrect marketing.

[quote=“Pete”]
If Kill Bill which was I think 220 pages and could be split into 2 films, and IB is supposedly 600 pages, how many volumes would it take to make that? I dont know how it will be made into a regular movie at that length.
[/quote]

Something tells me that IB will be a mini TV series. I will pray that, that isn’t the case.


#14

[quote]Something tells me that IB will be a mini TV series. I will pray that, that isn’t the case.
[/quote]

Something in that sort, i agree it might be a mini series.

right now, i don’t think IB is getting made at all into a movie and if it does it will probably be later down the line. Grindhouse cost the company a shit load of money, i don’t know if there going to be throwing an insane amount of money to him for a 600 page script (roughly 10 hours).


#15

Well a 600 page script I think (wishful thinking :wink: )could be turned into three films, each film would be long but as long as we get them as films I’m happy. The length of script doesn’t mean much, depending on how much dialog there is, it could be shorter, like Death Proof which was 127 pages and was 113 minutes. But, who knows…


#16

I think one film. When I compile a top ten list of my favourite films I put Kill Bill. Not Kill Bill Vol1 and Vol2. To me, regardless of whether or not they’re supposed to be one whole film or QT says it’s one whole film, I still can’t think of the first volume without thinking of the second volume. The Bride’s adventures continue into volume 2 in a way that doesn’t indicate a sequel, but a continuation.


#17

I’ve always saw Kill Bill as one film and was pretty pissed at QT and the Weinsteins in particular for splitting it. But now that I see the way he wanted to do it would not have worked. It’s one thing to do Lord of the Rings, but Kill Bill (The Whole Bloody Affair) had an intermission and such and would’ve been too much for the regular movie-goer.



I still don’t care for the Weinstein’s that much, but alas. I do think Kill Bill cuts of vol 1 & 2 are films that exist. I don’t mind different cuts. I think now we’re not even getting theatrical cuts anymore since a lot of films are going straight to DVD as “Unrated” and such. So, I view the split Bills as Theatrical cuts and Quentin’s “Whole Bloody Affair” as the true director’s cut.



As for Inglorious Bastards, man, I still don’t know. I imagine if Quentin did the film like the “Lord of the Rings” he’d make everyone happy. That is shoot the entire thing complete from script to screen, and then make shorter edited versions for the theater. But give us true fans the 3hour plus versions on Extended DVD’s which will probably sell better than the film. I’ve seen grandmothers argue with stupid Best Buy kids about reading the original LOTR books and they want their kids to have the Extended versions. The DVD market seems to be where the money is now, look at 300.


#18

[quote=“countmalachithrone”]
If audiences were into 3 + hour films it wouldve been released as it was originally intended. But they arent which makes me wonder now why the hell Robert Rodriguez wanted to even do a Grindhouse double feature knowing that fact. He basically gave QT his first dud. Am I right or wrong?
[/quote]
Actually Kill Bill in it’s whole is 4 hours. Had LOTR been 4-hour films too, they wouldn’t have been the same success. Maybe big success still of course, but not as big. And I always see Kill Bill as one film, and it would have been cool to see how it would be recieved both critically and commercially had it been one film.



On another note, why wasn’t either one of them nominated for any Oscars? Winning is another topic, but they deserved a nomination in at least one category.


#19

One film. Plus on the posters DP as listed as QT’s 5th film.


#20

[quote=“NonStop”]
One film. Plus on the posters DP as listed as QT’s 5th film.
[/quote]
Yeah, but wierd considering that poster I found above. Still, I do hope they release it on the big screen, I’d be happy to have that experience again.