Kill Bill - part 1

[Rune]

Which is, of course, completely ridiculous. If Tarantino was left with 360 minutes of footage that he felt he just couldn't trim, then I could see it. But three hour films have been proven to be marketable and profitable for years now.

Return of the King will be $8-10 but Miramax has the gall to ask $16-20 to see Kill Bill in its entirety? Sure, just make it twice as good as Return of the King. As it stands I'll probably just wait until both Volumes are at the $2 theatre pubs. That's crap I'm just not going to support with my wallet.

Yeah, but Miramax wanted Peter Jackson to cut LotR down to one movie, too.

 

[Eldorian]

Actually, parts of the movie take place in both japan AND china. When the bride goes to get her katana she goes to Sonny Chiba's character Hattori Hanzo in Japan to have it made.

During her training to be part of Bill's group of assassins, he takes her to mainland china to be trained by Priest Pai-Mei. the same Pai Mei from Executioners from Shaolin and the beginning of Fists of the White Lotus. Except this time instead of being played by Lo Lieh he's being played by Gordon Lui who's character in Fists of the White Lotus kills Pai Mei during the opening credits of that movie.

True, there's no Sammo Hung, but the fights have been cheoreographed by Yuen Woo Ping. Although I have to say that Uma looks a little stiff in her fight scenes.

I was interested in seeing this movie right up until Weinstein decided to fleece the public by convincing Tarintino to split the film in two. Now I couldnt care less...

I bow to your supperior knowledge of Kung Fu. Your Kung Fu is strong.

Eldorian Antar

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

But I'll shell out 12 bucks instead of 6. You guys that pay 10 bucks a movie need to move to the midwest.

If movies in the midwest were free with complimentary Junior Mints, and Californians had to pay $20 a ticket and the movie didn't come out in theaters until midwesterners already had it on DVD, I STILL wouldn't move to the midwest.

No offense, but the midwest is going to have to offer me a heckuva lot more than cheap movie tickets to give up Cali.

[/HIJACK]

Well, the rap on Kill Bill is that Miramax loved the film the way it was, but was having a hard time justifying a 3+ hour movie to exhibitors when Tarantino's last film didn't exactly rake in the proverbial phat lewt. So rather than ask Tarantino to trim the film (which Harv promised him they wouldn't ask him to do) they reached this compromise with the two volumes.

Now my wallet balks at paying twice to see one film in its entirety, but at the same time, I'm looking forward to seeing this film untouched by studio edits. I'm getting kinda tired of waiting for the DVD to see what the director had in mind.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

Exactly how many theatrical films in the last oh, five years have clocked at 90 minutes or less?

That's a good question. 90 minutes is still an unofficial target number for movies that aren't expected to be blockbusters, but the times for Big Summer Blockbusters are getting longer. The average time for the top 10 highest grossing films for 2003 (off of IMDB) is 121.9 minutes. That's pretty long.

Compare that to a year like 1984, to pick one out of a hat. The average length of the top ten for that year was only 108 minutes, with only one film (Karate Kid) cracking the two hour mark.

Even in a recent year like 1999, with a couple approx. 90 minutes family films in the top ten like Toy Story 2 Tarzan, still clocks in at 107 minutes.

Are people's attention spans getting longer? Are studios being more generous with run times? Does the rise of huge suburban multiplexes mean that theaters can turn a loss of profits from showing less screenings per theater for long movies into a gain by showing them in two or three screens? Interesting questions for someone wiser than myself to answer.

 

[Eldorian]

If movies in the midwest were free with complimentary Junior Mints, and Californians had to pay $20 a ticket and the movie didn't come out in theaters until midwesterners already had it on DVD, I STILL wouldn't move to the midwest.

No offense, but the midwest is going to have to offer me a heckuva lot more than cheap movie tickets to give up Cali.

And what is wrong with the midwest? There is a plethera of things wrong with "Cali"

Eldorian Antar

 

[TiQuinn]

And what is wrong with the midwest? There is a plethera of things wrong with "Cali"

Eldorian Antar

Hot and humid in the summer.
Freezing in the winter.
Flat.
Folks think Taco Bell is good Mexican food.

These facts are undisputed.

As for California, governors come, governors go and economies bounce back eventually.

 

[Hand of Evil]

That's a good question. 90 minutes is still an unofficial target number for movies that aren't expected to be blockbusters, but the times for Big Summer Blockbusters are getting longer. The average time for the top 10 highest grossing films for 2003 (off of IMDB) is 121.9 minutes. That's pretty long.

Compare that to a year like 1984, to pick one out of a hat. The average length of the top ten for that year was only 108 minutes, with only one film (Karate Kid) cracking the two hour mark.

Even in a recent year like 1999, with a couple approx. 90 minutes family films in the top ten like Toy Story 2 Tarzan, still clocks in at 107 minutes.

Are people's attention spans getting longer? Are studios being more generous with run times? Does the rise of huge suburban multiplexes mean that theaters can turn a loss of profits from showing less screenings per theater for long movies into a gain by showing them in two or three screens? Interesting questions for someone wiser than myself to answer.

One of the issues was number of screens a movies was shown on, over the years you have seen an increase of those, the 90-105 minutes would allow about 6 showings a day. From the late 70s number of screens started to increased, 4, 8, 10, 12, now 14 in a single theater, which allows an increase number of showing but still allows 6 showing for the 120+ minute movies.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

One of the issues was number of screens a movies was shown on, over the years you have seen an increase of those, the 90-105 minutes would allow about 6 showings a day. From the late 70s number of screens started to increased, 4, 8, 10, 12, now 14 in a single theater, which allows an increase number of showing but still allows 6 showing for the 120+ minute movies.

That's been my experience. Since I've lived in this area (17 years or so) the number of screens I've had available within a fifteen-minute drive has gone from 14 to 54.

It's fashionable for people to blame multiplexes and the corresponding influx of suburban preteen audiences for the dumbing-down of Hollywood. I, for one, beg to differ. While there have been some very bloated movies to come down the pike, there have also been some very thoughtful, entertaining films that just wouldn't have been made under the old "100 Minutes or Else" system. I'm thinking of LotR, the Matrix movies (snicker if you will, but try imagining that first Matrix with a 90 minute runtime), CTHD, etc.

So why split Kill Bill in half? The numbers seem to show that people will go to a 3 hour movie if it's good enough to warrant the long runtime. Do the Brothers Weinstein know something we don't?

 

[Corinth]

The Weinsteins know that 90 minute films gather far more casual moviegoers than longer films precisely because its not such a commitment on their time.

 

[Andrew D. Gable]

Yeah, but Miramax wanted Peter Jackson to cut LotR down to one movie, too.

Really? LOL!