my dad and i are always getting into debates about violence in movies and our debate got particularly heated after we saw KILL BILL together. he enjoyed everything except the crazy 88 scene in house of blue leaves. he said that the violence was so over the top that it stopped being art and just became “garbage.” just to defend my dad, he is a HUGE pulp fiction fan, and although he liked KILL BILL as a whole, he hated the crazy 88 scene.
Do you think that violence prevents something such as Kill Bill from being viewed as art?
If so, is it being judged wrongfully or is it simply a difference between a more liberal modern generation and a more conservative older generation?
In my opinion Kill Bill isn’t art at all. But the violence and gore is nice 8)
[]D.[].[]V[].[]D
man bullet you just like dat blood and gore shit…for example…ur icon and ur apocolypse now thing… but hey its ur opinion
i think that ass long as it stays true to life than its art … as long as she doesn’t cut off his leg and he starts to run away spewing blood as if he were fine… or he crawls off to get out of the way of the fight scene…well its pretty tight regardless
Mr. OrANgE
Apocalypse Now has really no violence in it.
Stupid
And my Icon is a line from a movie
Stupid
[]D.[].[]V[].[]D
shit nigga y u always followin me… god damn… well i aint never seen apocalypse now and in ur pic it is very bloody
and it looks like his face is melting offf!!!
stupid
plus ur icon aka. ur pic wut are u talkin about a line in a movie the pic of that beirded guy that looks like he got the shit beat out of him
stupid
Mr. OrANgE
Apocalypse Now is a war movie, one of the best war movies without using extreme violence (I’m not saying that ALL war movies need extreme violence though). And the guy on my avatar is Kakihara from a movie called Ichi The Killer, a movie you are to close-minded to probably see.
Stupid
Anyways fuck that YES I did like violence in Kill Bill ALOT, FUCK who doesn’t like thier movies nice and violent!
Art can be intrepreted as many different things by many different people. I have never really liked referring to movies as ‘art’ cos its sounds so arty farty gay.
As for the Crazy 88 scene being garbage, i think that opinion is truly garbage. Kill Bill was extremely violent most of the time. Kill Bill is based upon violence, after all it is a story about assassins and revenge. The Crazy 88 scene was just an orgasm of all the violence in Volume 1 - the climax of the movie. If QT didnt have the crazy 88 scene or deleted the entire scene it wouldnt be faithful to the movie or QT’s original vision. I guess you have to be a fan of asian movies to realise what QT was getting at. Japanese Samurai movies and a lot of anime can always get that bloody and gory like the HOBL scene. All QT was trying to do was to top all of them, and i think he suceeded in some ways - although i do wish the B&W wasnt present on the future DVD release.
And i think QT was also to some extent basing the HOBL scene on some basis of black comedy. Monty Python and the Holy Grail does this when the Black Knight gets his arms and legs chopped off and blood sprays everywhere. The HOBL was so unrealistic and cartoonish that i didnt really think is took away from the movie at all. Afterall KB is set in QT’s movie-movie universe - where things arent supposed to be realistic - where rules are based upon genre film and have an almost cartoon-like quality. Huge arterial blood sprays, people carrying swords on planes, uber violence - this is what Kill Bill is all about. The crazy 88 scene is based upon all of that and it is my opinion that it doesnt detract from the movie at all, or stops Kill Bill from being “art”. So QT would have to get rid of or change the crazy 88 scene so Kill Bill would still be classified as “art?” Bullshit.
[quote] Ichi The Killer[/quote]
correct me if im wrong, but isnt that that ultra gorey film?
Yes it is. Why do you ask? Because I like violence? Fuck off?
And Ichi The Killer is a violent film. more so then Kill Bill.
violence is tight but only in a way were it can be explained… do u know what im sayin? … for example if someguy got killed just cuz he sits legs crossed thats pointless (hypotherical of course)… but in kill bill all of the violence was explained and had passion and hate and love behind all the killings… not specifically in that order
DEATH TO ALL WHO OPPOSE CHIAKI
no i dont get you, you make little sense kill bill had some meanless violence but some meaningful violence made up for what was meaningless
[quote] no i dont get you, you make little sense kill bill had some meanless violence but some meaningful violence made up for what was meaningless[/quote]
LOL, when orange says "no i dont get you" then you KNOW it's time for "killerbiller" or "Chiaki" or whatever the fuck you are to leave....
[quote]
LOL, when orange says “no i dont get you” then you KNOW it’s time for “killerbiller” or “Chiaki” or whatever the fuck you are to leave…[/quote]
I wanna run that muthafucka outta this place. There is enough morons (including me) here already. We don’t need some ignorant piece of turd making pointless incoherent posts only talking shit about someone.
[quote]
I wanna run that muthafucka outta this place. There is enough morons (including me) here already. We don’t need some ignorant piece of turd making pointless incoherent posts only talking shit about someone.
[/quote]
Word, cuz
(the "z" is silent in the word "cuz")
The scene did not need over violence. I would have been just as good or better with out it. But Tarantino wants violence in his movies for some reason, and he is the director. The director is always right( even if a movie sucks).
I think QT wanted Kill Bill to be more like a older/modern age kung-fu movie, and that’s why maybe he put in so much violence. A lot of the cheezier kung-fu movies have excessive gore and violence. Also, I think all the violence and blood is a art form, it shows the anger and revenge of The Bride.
[quote=“VikingWithNoName”]The director is always right( even if a movie sucks).[/quote]
I’m inclined to agree but where does that reasoning end? If his goal is to make a good movie and the movie sucks, was he right?
[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”][quote=“VikingWithNoName”]The director is always right( even if a movie sucks).[/quote]
I’m inclined to agree but where does that reasoning end? If his goal is to make a good movie and the movie sucks, was he right?[/quote]
Yeah, I agree. You can only extend that "director is always right" thing so far, and it doesn't allways go for every director. Writer/directors who has creative freedom, then yes. A director who was "hired" by a studio to make someone elses' film, No.
And also you get to the, what is "right"?
"Right" as in successful?
or
"Right" as in directors' view, so "it is what it is" type of thing? Success or failure, it is right because it is what the director intended?
There was violence in Kill Bill?? ??? Hmm. I never noticed. I’ll have to watch it again and see if I can spot it.
for me it was love story…