Anyone seen Kill Bill yet? [merged]

[barsoomcore]

Okay let me rephrase: When has a three or slightly longer than three hour movie ever underperformed due solely to its length?

Well, how is anybody supposed to answer that question? Presumably you're suggesting that there were other reasons why the films named performed poorly -- I'd like to see your evidence on that.

If there was a way to determine exactly why films failed, then Hollywood would only make films that didn't fail.

The best you can say is that not many really long films do very well. One of the problems is that it can be difficult to convince theatre owners to take really long films since long films usually mean less showings per day -- translating into less revenue per day. That can be overcome by high attendance numbers per screening, but it's one layer of resistance shorter films don't have to deal with.

 

[Kai Lord]

Well, how is anybody supposed to answer that question? Presumably you're suggesting that there were other reasons why the films named performed poorly -- I'd like to see your evidence on that.

The films mentioned were 4 to 4.5 hours long, and not related to the point that Kill Bill would have been fine as a 3 hour movie. So I rephrased the question to more accurately reflect my point.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Funny, I don't remember this much ill-will generated towards Matrix: Reloaded/Revolutions, even though it's doing the exact same thing:

• One story, split across two movies
• "overly long" scenes that "pad the film"
• 20-minute action sequence
• Ends the first part on a cliffhanger

The Matrix Reloaded has a run-time of 138 minutes. That's 2 hours and 18 minutes. I'm assuming that Revolutions will have a similar run-time. I think that's the reason it hasn't generated the same type of controversy. 3 1/2 hours is much different that 4 3/4 hours. There's also the fact that the Matrix, Empire Strikes Back/Return of the Jedi were originally planned to be separate movies with a continued storyline.

Kill Bill is either 2 movies at an 1 1/2 hour each, or one move at 3 1/2 hours. Personally, I think that run-time is a part of this debate that really hasn't been addressed. In my opinion, one and a half hours is a little under what I want to pay to go see for any movie. 3 1/2 hours is slightly over, but I can deal with it. The Lord of the Rings movies seem to be doing just fine in the theaters with long run-times. To me, this is clearly about corporate greed (like I'm one to comment on that), and if this does well at the box office, this sends a clear message to the movie studios that people are willing to pay twice to see one movie. I would normally give Tarantino some slack, but this sets a precendent and pretty soon we could start seeing marginal quality movies split in two. Ultimately it comes down to a case of caveat emptor, but I'm not overly fond of what this could potentially mean to the future of movies in general.

I don't want to pay twice to see one movie, so I'm skipping Kill Bill until it hits DVD.

 

[barsoomcore]

The films mentioned were 4 to 4.5 hours long, and not related to the point that Kill Bill would have been fine as a 3 hour movie. So I rephrased the question to more accurately reflect my point.

My question still stands -- how are you going to prove that any given movie failed solely due to one cause or another? Lots of films fail.

It's straightforward enough to go through film releases of, say, the last ten years, pick out all the ones that exceed three hours in length, and compare their box office performance with that of films that are shorter. What I have heard is that if you do that you will find that longer films generally haven't performed as well. This may have changed with the recent successes of LotR and the Matrix, and James Bond movies were always pretty long as I recall, but I haven't done the research myself so I can't say. I do know that every time a movie turns out to be longer than anticipated, studio executives worry about its performance.

But even doing the research won't give you answer to your question. All it will do is provide you with what the past has been like for long movies -- it won't explain WHY any of those films failed.

If Harvey Weinstein thinks that three hours is too long and that by splitting the movie he will make more money, well, he's probably examined the issue more closely than either of us has, with better access to the relevant data. Time will tell if he's making a smart business decision or not.

Certainly I have no complaint with him making decisions in order to maximise the profits of his company. That's his job, and everybody who works for Miramax is probably glad he's good at it.

 

[Pants]

The films mentioned were 4 to 4.5 hours long, and not related to the point that Kill Bill would have been fine as a 3 hour movie. So I rephrased the question to more accurately reflect my point.

So Kill Bill Vol 2 is going to only be an hour long? Kill Bill clocked in at 2 hours long, so if that's true, then he is ripping us off.

 

[Kai Lord]

So Kill Bill Vol 2 is going to only be an hour long? Kill Bill clocked in at 2 hours long, so if that's true, then he is ripping us off.

The script was reported at 200 pages, which equates to a 3 hour and 20 minute film, easily trimmable by 10-15 minutes to hit closer to the 180 minute mark.

The fact that Volume 1 was 1 hour and 51 minutes suggests one of two things, that Volume 2 will be extremely short, or Quentin is using the double movie stunt to pad each chapter with additional fluff above and beyond the original script submitted to Miramax.

 

[Pants]

The fact that Volume 1 was 1 hour and 51 minutes suggests one of two things, that Volume 2 will be extremely short, or Quentin is using the double movie stunt to pad each chapter with additional fluff above and beyond the original script submitted to Miramax.

Well most of it was fighting and there was that whole Uma fights 88 guys part, which lasted quite a while (and I enjoyed every second of it ).

 

[Oni]

The runtime for volume two is supposed to be 1hr 34min.

 

[jdavis]

The script was reported at 200 pages, which equates to a 3 hour and 20 minute film, easily trimmable by 10-15 minutes to hit closer to the 180 minute mark.

The fact that Volume 1 was 1 hour and 51 minutes suggests one of two things, that Volume 2 will be extremely short, or Quentin is using the double movie stunt to pad each chapter with additional fluff above and beyond the original script submitted to Miramax.

The script was 200 pages when shooting started but:

During production, Tarantino wrote new scenes as he shot thus compiling massive amounts of footage.

(I've linked to this quote already at least twice)

Here is another one straight from the horses mouth so to speak:http://www.cinemareview.com/production.asp?prodid=2224

There was also a much simpler practical consideration, Tarantino says, for dolling out Kill Bill in smaller, measured doses:

After all, the final fight sequence in Vol 1., “The Showdown at the House of Blue Leaves,” is a 20-minute samurai sword battle between The Bride and the minions of killer-turned-yakuza boss O-Ren Ishii (Liu), that took a full eight weeks to shoot, on a soundstage at the Beijing Film Studio— only two weeks less than the entire production schedule of Pulp Fiction. “When you get to the end of Vol. 1,” Tarantino says, “you’re exhausted. You’re ready to take a break.”

On a more philosophical level, Tarantino suggests, “This is supposed to be my version of a grindhouse movie, and the very idea of a three hour grindhouse movie is a contradiction in terms. It seemed pretentious, whereas two 90-minute grind house movies seems more app.”

He isn't making a epic here he's making a homage to 70's B movies, this isn't Gone With The Wind it's The Master Killer or Lone Wolf and Cub 2: Baby Cart at the River Styx. He's not doing Dances With Wolves here it's not meant to be of epic scope, why make it epic length?

 

[Kai Lord]

He's not doing Dances With Wolves here it's not meant to be of epic scope, why make it epic length?

Ask the guy who wrote the 200 page script.