Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Chris Farmer, Oct 13, 2003.
From FoxNews' report on this weekend's box office:
I don't like the trend, but I see it happening more in the future. It's a good way for studios to cram more showtimes in the day & make twice as much on a movie.
Personally I hope it bodes very well for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and Order of the Phoenix movies, as Warners has recently been making nervouse noises about cramming both into a single 2.5 hour movie. Hopefully this and Matrix revolutions will convince to do otherwise. Adam
I agree. If it means we get a 4 hour Goblet of Fire, I'm all for it.
If people enjoy this as a two parter and, come February, feel they've gotten their money's worth, I'm not sure I'd see it as a "dangerous precedent", more as a gamble that worked. Sure, some later studios may wind up taking a picture that is not particularly suited to this treatment as Kill Bill and cutting it into two, but they'll probably take a bath on it.
I wouldn't mind a situation wherein we see shorter, serialized installments of a large feature, like the serials of old. Shooting these with small budgets and charging matinee prices for all shows would be great. Not gonna happen, though.
Jason's right. It works because most of the audience felt KB was worth it. It won't work on all movies, and some studios trying this tactic are going to lose money big time. It's a gamble. It's like saying that having the house win ALL THE TIME means more profit for the casino. People will stop coming when there is no payoff. Take care, Chuck
Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions are *TWO* films that were written and performed as two films, edited as two films, that were intended to be two connected yet separate stories from the git-go. Kill Bill was a money grab. 90mins is barely enough time for a movie to be a movie, and very rarely is a 90min movie a 'real' movie with character development and actual plot that isn't paper-thin. Kill Bill, further, was a 3 hour movie, written and performed as a three hour movie, edited as a three hour movie, intended to BE a three hour movie . . . when it was chopped (badly from the reports I've seen) into a pair of 90min quick jobs designed to double the money. It's a sleazy and slimey trick. I'm especially surprised as QT, who claims to be a film buff who loves film; why would he go along with this? Oh, that's right, he gets part of the loot for the double up. It is a bad signal to give to Hollywood that they can treat customers, and their own material, in such a shoddy fashion. When there is *ENOUGH* story to warant a pair of 2 or 2.5 hour movies, please release them that way. I like material. I don't like tricks and games; it's weak, cheap, and wrong. Matrix II and III need and needed to be two films; and they're long enough to be so. There's material there for two. Same with Harry Potter IV, probably should be a 4 to 4.5 hour cinematic length to do the story properly. Kill Bill was a 3 hour story. Selling it as two 90min stories is a crime. A very serious crime.
I think it sucks. Let me repeat that in case I wasnt clear the first time - it sucks sucks sucks!!! To use the example I used awhile back - I dont want to see Oliver Stones Alexander The Great parts 1 & 2. I want to see it as a 3 hour epic. Its a bad idea and I dont want to see it spread.
What exactly is everybody afraid of here? Are you afraid that movies like Platoon, Mulholland Drive, or Casablanca are now going to be split directly in the middle? Do you really think that McG's next Charlie's Angels will be a two-parter? That Scorsese will add a cliff-hanger to The Aviator and split it into two volumes? Do you think Peter Jackson is thinking about splitting RoTK into three movies? How many people here have seen the movie and feel like they were ripped off? Is it any different than feeling ripped off from a 2+ hour Matrix Reloaded?
whatever the market will bare. if people want more detailed movies split in two, paying twice the price, then so be it. but the studios ARE taking a chance: what if the first movie tanks? then they'd have made a second movie they know will tank too. what if the first movie tanks BECAUSE it was split in 2? then the studio loses ALOT of revenue. i for one am not going to see Kill Bill no matter how good the reviews have been (to which i'm slightly surprised). Kill Bill is a slightly different issue because the thinking is they split the movie in 2 after initally wanting to make it 1 big picture. i have no problem with studios setting out to make 2 movies at once; it gives for a more consistent look to a trilogy or 2 parter. what if Coppola had made Godfathers 2 and 3 together? in the end, you should judge the movies on their own, not knowing about production schedules or whatever. Kill Bill Vol.1, even if it is half a movie, is probably alot better than say Underworld, which was made by itself (i'm still not going to see KB1 at theaters though). what i don't like too much are cliffhanger endings, but what can you do...
FWIW, KILL BILL: VOLUME ONE worked beautifully as a 90-odd minute movie. I felt I got my money's worth and was left salivating for Part II. It didn't end on a "false cliffhanger", didn't feel incomplete, and, knowing that the second part is coming in February, felt completely satisfied with the entire ordeal. As long as this practice isn't abused, I see nothing wrong with it.
Have to agree with those who felt the split worked. Totally satisfied with the first volume, and now I have another movie that I'm really looking forward to. How is that a bad thing? I applaud Miramax and QT for taking this risk and not going for what would have been easier - not splitting it up and instead hacking it down to 2 hours or so, because this certainly isn't the type of movie that audiences could sit through for 3+ hours.
If the studios can split up movies and charge full dollar for each segment then you know it is going to become more prevalent in the future. Certainly for high budget, risky movies it's a great way for studios to recoup their costs. If splitting up a movie is done for artistic reasons one could accept such a move. Unfortunately I believe economic reasons will be the real push behind such moves.
I haven't gotten a chance to see "Kill Bill" but won't plan to until it comes out on dvd. I DO NOT agree of this movie being split into two parts. Unlike Back to the Future and Matrix trilogies are intended to be in two parts and moviegoers was aware of it. But with KB, the studio and QT wanted to split the film b/c they can.. I don't mind sitting for over 3 hours, if the movie is good such as, Green Mile, Titanic, Lord of the Rings, etc... Some movies seemed longer b/c they sucked with the running time under 2 hours like Batman and Robin... I'm glad Lord of the Rings didn't get split into six parts. That's all I have to say about this! -bruce
Actually, Kill Bill is *110* beautiful, mesmerizing, action filled blood soaked minutes long. I didn't feel ripped off in the least. Worth every bloody penny! I would suggest seeing the film before trashing it though. Also, this should probably be in the discussion thread.