Tarantino Speaks Out About Splitting Kill Bill
In the August 3rd issue of Cinescape magazine, Tarantino talks about the decision to split Kill Bill into 2 movies. Here’s an excerpt:
CINESCAPE: How are you going to split the movie into two parts and how did that happen?
TARANTINO: It’s been speculated for a long time, and we hadn’t known for sure if we were going to do it or not until recently. I screened it for [Miramax President] Harvey [Weinstein] and said, “This is the first half of the movie; we’re not done with the second one.” After screening it to Harvey, he said, “That’s it. That’s the first movie. Great ending. Fantastic. I love it. That’s the first movie.” We didn’t split it up because of time either. The movie is not going to be that long. It would be a long movie if I put it all together. As it is, the first one is about 94 minutes and the next one is about 94 minutes.
CINESCAPE: When will the second one come out?
TARANTINO: The first one will come out at the beginning of October and we’re looking at the schedule [to determine] exactly when to bring out the next one. The idea is at a certain point both movies will be playing in theaters.
CINESCAPE: You also run the risk of, “What if the movie fails? You have Volume 2 and no one wants to see it.” Have you worried about that?
TARANTINO: Not really. It’s not like it’s this four-hour movie. There was an aspect of it where I was like, “This is a grindhouse movie; it can’t be three hours. That’s just too pretentious. Instead it’s two 90-minute movies. That’s the deal.” It also became less and less an issue of length and more and more an issue of intensity. I don’t know if the average moviegoer could handle it from beginning to end in one sitting. At the end of the first one, you want to go home, have a drink and go and eat pie and talk about it.
No offense intended, but I don’t think your average moviegoer very much likes being told they can’t handle a 3 hour movie. What a crappy reason to split up the movie – the audience can’t handle it. Ugh, have a little more faith in the masses than that Quentin.
UPDATE: Jay Tierney also has some sour thoughts on the splitting of Kill Bill.
| Print article | This entry was posted by schlyer on July 17, 2003 at 11:34 pm, and is filed under Kill Bill. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 8 years ago
i just watched bad boys 2, and it was close to 3 hours, had no trouble sitting through the whole thing either
about 8 years ago
Most films are now over an hour and a half and a lot of the most recent critically rated films are approximating three hours in length. I can see no way (and have read nothing to prove otherwise) that this split was anything more than money-based. I would like to believe Quentin had the artistic integrity to produce a coherent film of his own, but everything I have read or seen or heard regarding ‘Kill bill’has suggested the opposite. I would like to hear what he honestly has to say in regards to this specific matter, rather than just harping on about his producers, Miramax (Harvey Weinstein), and their opinion that three hours is too long for the average Tarantino audience. For a lover of the complex narrative that is ‘Pulp Fiction’ this view is simply insulting. ‘Gangs of New York’ which was supposed to be a marvelous film with marvelous acting by a marvelous director was almost three hours long with fifty percent of the film being unecessary and no one said anything about it being too long let alone it being better being divided into two parts. ‘Kill Bill Vol. 1′ ends on a note of high tension when a three month wait for the continuation is aesthetically very unsatisfying and although the the first volume of this film is itself highly enjoyable the split makes me question Tarantino as a director, a question which should never be raised by a film of this apparent calibre. I think he has let himself and his fans down, as ‘Kill Bill’ would be a fantastic three hour plus movie – and surely one of the best films that has ever been.