I love Quentin Tarantino movies and I was looking forward to Kill Bill but this idea of splitting the movie in two is moronic!
But with preliminary versions running at three hours, it was almost twice as long as a normal movie, meaning theaters would have fewer screenings in a day and risk losing ticket sales.
Poor, poor movie theaters, making us pay through the nose already with high prices will know have the chance to make us pay twice for the same movie. “Almost twice as long as a normal movie” my foot! Almost all movies are within minutes of the 2 hour mark. Granted, 3 hours is pretty long, especially adding up the sitting early to get a good seat and the nearly 20 minutes of ads and previews but splitting a movie in two?? And dont give me The Matrix example, those were made to be two movies from the start.
If they absolutely have to be morons and do this couldnt they put both parts out at the same time and encourage theaters to offer a deal when buying tickets for both? More than the money though it’s the feeling of getting scr**ed over that gets me.
6 Comments
My first reaction was “oh, this is just a stupid idea they won’t actually go through with”. Then I read the article.
I’ve grown accustomed to living with other people’s stupid decisions, but when they affect great movies, it pisses me off!
Well… I’m not sure its such a bad idea.
The majority of the viewing public doesnt have the cinematographic stamina to sustain a 3h movie. And if its an action flick it might even be harder for a lot of people.
If the movie is to be any good its better to have it “complete” in two parts than to have it reduced and axed from a 3h format to a 2h and missing many of the original ideas of Tarantino.
Also, my guess is that both movies might go over 1h30 now that they have room. More time for ambiance, musical/action sequences and dialogs… which I hope will be worthy of Tarentino.
I prefer to see it complete in theater than to have to wait for the “Special Edition” on DVD.
The vast majority of three-hour movies could stand to have an hour chopped out of them. That’s what editors are for — to foil the director’s self-indulgence.
That may not be the case with Kill Bill, but the premise of the film doesn’t make it seem like it could support 180 of film.
I agree that most three-hour movies should be shorter, so if anything this one should be pared down rather than artificially chopped in half.
On the other hand, I actually enjoy longer movies that really allow me to immerse myself into another world, and explore the characters more thoroughly. Sadly, many of them are just longer, not deeper (cf. Gangs of New York).
So: either it’s long without being dense in material, in which case it could simply be shortened, or it’s long AND dense in material, in which case the three hours are justified. IMHO.
I think it’s the fact that they’re telling you that it will be two different movies. I mean, maybe the Matrix was one big movie all along, split in half! It’s kinda like Tolkien writing one big book, not three!(I’m not an LOTR fan btw).
Right after the first Matrix they said they had material written for 3 movies while for Kill Bill it’s been talked about and publisized as one movie for a while now and just recently switched to 2 so I think it’s definitly not something that fits with the original ideas behind the movie(s).
I think c-speedchick is right, 3 hour movies are fine if they have the content for it. Although Blork as a good point too, it doesnt sound like this one does have the content. Hm…