Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Somebody Explain Kill Bill, please...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="two" data-source="post: 3490540" data-attributes="member: 9002"><p>I finally saw this movie.</p><p></p><p>It was schlocky, granted, conceived as schlock and produced as schlock. The trouble was, I found it BORING. That is death to all schlock.</p><p></p><p>After talking to my friends, who generally liked the movie, and reading the critics, who generally liked it, a "defense" of the movie goes something like this.</p><p></p><p>1) The plot was linear and repetitive because the kung-fu sources have linear and repetitive plots (revenge -> kill everyone, etc.). </p><p></p><p>2) The dialogue was intentionally stilted and "bad" because the kung-fu precursors featured really bad dialogue.</p><p></p><p>3) The sets and color scheme were from the 60's and 70's because that's the time frame of a lot of the kung-fu precurors.</p><p></p><p>4) The sound track was great.</p><p></p><p>5) The blood and guts and violence was over the top and cheesy, because that is how it was for the kung-fu precusors.</p><p></p><p>6) The "character development" and emotional involvement in the characters is nill, because that is how it was for the kung-fu precursors.</p><p></p><p>7) There are some stylish actions scenes.</p><p></p><p>In other words, except for 4) and 7), if something is self-knowingly "bad" or "cheesy" because it "wink winks" at a typically bad genre (sock'em kung fu), it is magically... not "bad" or "cheesy" somehow?</p><p></p><p>Explain this?</p><p></p><p>This is the self-referential laziness that I have never found digestible, in movies, or literature, or art of any kind.</p><p></p><p>If you create something that is self-knowingly bad, how it that different from the "bad" original? (except that you KNOW it is bad when you are creating it, thus opening yourself up to the sensible criticism that, if you KNOW it is bad, why not...make it good instead?).</p><p></p><p>At most you generate a short laugh - "yeah, that old kung-fu movie dialogue really was bad." Which is fine, if you hear a line or two. Good joke. But 4 hours of it? </p><p></p><p>What if, instead of stilted and lame dialogue, the movie had not just regurgitated stilted and lame dialogue, but instead... substituted some reasonably good dialogue? At least once in a while?</p><p></p><p>Ditto character development, ditto plot, ditto rather disgusting over-the-top violence, ditto time period (really, the 70's are pretty de riguer these days in movies).</p><p></p><p>I just don't see how the movie is anything but self-indulgent and ultimately a bore.</p><p></p><p>If you don't buy into the "making fun of bad stuff by being bad is cool somehow" trope, what does this movie have to offer?</p><p></p><p>(besides a good sound track and some decent but not top-of-the-line action sequences? - which is a feeble payoff for the investment of time)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="two, post: 3490540, member: 9002"] I finally saw this movie. It was schlocky, granted, conceived as schlock and produced as schlock. The trouble was, I found it BORING. That is death to all schlock. After talking to my friends, who generally liked the movie, and reading the critics, who generally liked it, a "defense" of the movie goes something like this. 1) The plot was linear and repetitive because the kung-fu sources have linear and repetitive plots (revenge -> kill everyone, etc.). 2) The dialogue was intentionally stilted and "bad" because the kung-fu precursors featured really bad dialogue. 3) The sets and color scheme were from the 60's and 70's because that's the time frame of a lot of the kung-fu precurors. 4) The sound track was great. 5) The blood and guts and violence was over the top and cheesy, because that is how it was for the kung-fu precusors. 6) The "character development" and emotional involvement in the characters is nill, because that is how it was for the kung-fu precursors. 7) There are some stylish actions scenes. In other words, except for 4) and 7), if something is self-knowingly "bad" or "cheesy" because it "wink winks" at a typically bad genre (sock'em kung fu), it is magically... not "bad" or "cheesy" somehow? Explain this? This is the self-referential laziness that I have never found digestible, in movies, or literature, or art of any kind. If you create something that is self-knowingly bad, how it that different from the "bad" original? (except that you KNOW it is bad when you are creating it, thus opening yourself up to the sensible criticism that, if you KNOW it is bad, why not...make it good instead?). At most you generate a short laugh - "yeah, that old kung-fu movie dialogue really was bad." Which is fine, if you hear a line or two. Good joke. But 4 hours of it? What if, instead of stilted and lame dialogue, the movie had not just regurgitated stilted and lame dialogue, but instead... substituted some reasonably good dialogue? At least once in a while? Ditto character development, ditto plot, ditto rather disgusting over-the-top violence, ditto time period (really, the 70's are pretty de riguer these days in movies). I just don't see how the movie is anything but self-indulgent and ultimately a bore. If you don't buy into the "making fun of bad stuff by being bad is cool somehow" trope, what does this movie have to offer? (besides a good sound track and some decent but not top-of-the-line action sequences? - which is a feeble payoff for the investment of time) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Somebody Explain Kill Bill, please...
Top