Talk:Kill Bill: Volume 1/Archive 2

message: I've seriously carved this down. Still not happy with the way it's laid out, but this is an experiment above anything else. Chris Cunningham 11:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looked so much better before, where has all the lovely detail gone? :( Celebrity-Benji 17:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Back to the script, where it belongs? WP:PLOT. Wikipedia is not a substitute for watching the movies. Chris Cunningham 09:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I completely disagree, there is nothing wrong with the Wiki article giving you a good overview of a movie. I've used Wiki in the past for just that purpose. It is needless pruning like this that drives me nuts. 75.191.186.105 (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon user 75.191.186.105, the argument in this section is 14 months old. I don't think we are in any immediate danger that the contributors to this section are going to slash most of the plot out. Ward3001 (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot reduction 

message: theres a porno called drill bill its cover art is a complete parody of the movie with yellow and black cover and a guy looking like hes up for revenge. someone removed it but i think its a notable little piece of trivia. it has a good reference.T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 23:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides rhyming titles and the colors on the cover, please tell us what makes it a "complete parody" of Kill Bill. Or is it just a bunch of porn that has no similarities to Kill Bill besides rhyming titles and colors? Ward3001 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  its trivia that is enough, the rules for trivia are purposefully vague. this is a notable pop culture reference.T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 22:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly disagree that "its trivia that is enough." Using that standard, the length of Uma Thurman's fingernails is trivia, and thus should be listed in the Trivia section. The strongest Wikipedia guideline for trivia is that trivia items should be avoided and remain in the article only as a temporary step toward integrating them into the article's main text. If the item cannot be reasonably integrated into the main text, it should be deleted. I can't see how a porn movie that only has a rhyming title and cover colors in common can possibly be reasonably integrated into the Kill Bill article. If Drill Bill is notable enough for inclusion, then just about anything is notable enough, which would result in an unending trivia section. As stated in Wikipedia:Trivia: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so some degree of selectivity should always be used. Leave it out. Ward3001 22:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  drill bill 

message: It is NOT a 'discontinued cereal brand' Perhaps not near as popular as it was during the 70s, but as per its own wikipedia article: Kaboom! (breakfast cereal), it is still in circulation, as a matter of fact I bought some last week from the grocery store. I think the editor is confusing it with Fruit Brute which was used in both Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs and actually has been discontinued. Also the 'Citation needed' thing is a bit much. Unless we can cite the movies themselves?
: Slightly off-topic, I loved the idea of a gun shooting through a cereal box labeled "Kaboom." It was a nice little gag. --Fightingirish 01:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaboom Cereal 

message: i know it isn't a plot yet but, can't spoiler tags be put up before the whole Nikki will get revenge thing.
:This section seems to be more of sarcasm from Tarantino's especially knowing his personality. 24.144.177.92 04:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler warning for future sequals 

message: Could one of the regulars here give thought to adding a link to the DiVAs. I think it would add some missing context/texture but I don't know where to fit it in. ~ hydnjo talk   04:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing link? 

message: I just added the cast and roles for both movies, in one table, and I think it works. I've also added in the table an area showing with movies the actors were in. This should also make it easier to be on one page, as opposed to two. See my note about that in the 'Two Pages' talk above. Cheers. --RobNS 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast and Role 

message: Kill Bill Films Template, think there should be one? Here's the Nightmare On Elm Street Template as an example. Evolutionselene 06:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the template for the films. Evolutionselene 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Kill Bill 

message: I was just wondering who determined and how they did that Elle became Bill's lover.  First off I think the closest thing that I remember from the film is that she became his new number one, which is far from a lover.  Also isn't she Bud and Bill's sister?  I think when Bud calls her and when she calls Bill after the snake attack on Bud, there is references to her being a sister. Gloern 01:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elle Driver's relationship 

message: I edited the character Bios colors in the statistics templates to match the template I made earlier. Evolutionselene 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Bios 

message: Why is François Truffaut's 1968 film "The Bride Wore Black" not mentioned as an influence? The main idea is the same.
Perhaps the Japanese film (and Manga) mentioned in the article is the direct influence, but "The Bride Wore Black" is an earlier film - I'll bet that's where the idea originally came from. Furthermore, it's based directly on a novel, as stated in the Wikipedia article on The Bride wore Black, which I copy/paste here:
----
The Bride Wore Black (French: La Mariée était en noir) is a 1968 French film directed by François Truffaut and based on the novel of the same name by William Irish. It stars Jeanne Moreau, Charles Denner, Michel Bouquet, Michael Lonsdale, Claude Rich, and Jean-Claude Brialy.
It is a revenge film in which five men make a young bride a widow on her wedding day. She takes her revenge, methodically killing each of the five men using various methods.''
----
I cannot believe that Tarantino had never seen at least Truffaut's film. I think this should be added to the article.
....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.143.41.195 (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  INFLUENCES-François Truffaut: "The Bride Wore Black" - 1968! 

message: I've created a Template for the characters and applied it to each of them. I hope you enjoy them.Evolutionselene 13:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Template:Kill Bill character 

message: I don't know why "The Whole Bloody Affair" is listed as having a November release with no source, I'm sorry but I didn't think this important enough to register so i rather bring it to your attention since it still hasn't been change and it's clearly not going to be out in November. Take a look at bestbuy.com they would have changed the date by now if the dvd was going to be out in a few days.
76.98.160.31 16:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  November Release 

message: Don't you think Quentin Made Kill Bill in volumes and chapters to make it look like a manga?
I'm surprised no one else has mentioned it.. 
User:NekoRobin  —Preceding comment was added at 14:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Volume thing 

message: Like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, this article having a detailed chronology would help to clarify plot points. [[user:Creator 22]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creator22 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed chronology 

message: Should RZA be mentionned in the music section? I understand that he did a lot for the music of the movie, but I don't know if it's only with the soundtrack or if it includes sound production of the movie.M.nelson (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music section 

message: I think that adding the line "(this was edited to "Party Wagon" by censors for versions of the film shown on television)" after "Pussy Wagon" may settle some controversy of the name that has arisen as of late. Hurricane Floyd (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no controversy. The changes to "Party Wagon" are done by editors who have only seen the TV version, or who feel that Wikipedia should be censored, which is against Wikipedia policy. The article is about the film as created by Tarantino, not the chopped down TV version. Other articles on films don't note the editing done by censors. It's irrelevant. Ward3001 (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Pussy Wagon" is just a reference to Grease. —MJBurrage(T•C) 22:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pussy Wagon / Party Wagon censorship 

message: Could this page be updated with info about the alleged eventual release of an English-language version of Kill Bill v1 in with House of Leaves in color? There are rumors all over the place about such a thing, and it's listed on Amazon, but it says it's discontinued by the manufacturer, and some think this is Tarantino's ploy to drum up interest and get some money now that Grindhouse flopped. There's so much back and forth on this, I think it warrants a section on it. I would add such a section, but I'm not qualified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Alleged" & "rumors": Does not belong on Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could this page be updated with info... 

message: The discussion of whether this film should become conjoined and whether this article should become split is a parallel to discussions about the Godfather films.  I saw The Godfather Part II at the London press showing before I had seen Part I.  It still held together perfectly well as a film.  Similarly, I saw Kill Bill 2 before Kill Bill 1, and that held up too.  The Godfather trilogy (as it eventually became) was later recut into a six-part television series.  Marlon Brando was conspicuous by his absence from the later Godfather films, but the production worked around it acceptably; similarly the references to Kill Bill 1 that occur during Kill Bill 2.  Another parallel is the Star Wars films.  If a producer/director comes up with a concept which will require several parts to realise, it is a sign of their artistic ability if the parts stand alone.  This was true of Wagner's Ring cycle, to say nothing of Shakespeare's history cycle, the Kings Henry IV, V and VI.
My penn'orth is that this article should stay in the format that it is in currently.  If indeed an "all in one" version of the film is made commercially available, or another multi-part version, then that is the time to reconsider.  I still think that this is a good and relevant article and that the availability of a different version should lead to a second article on that subject, while retaining this article.    Guy (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godfather parallel 

message: Now, seriously, how is it there is a reference to a move "The Bride Wore Black" under "Influences" which then goes on to say that Tarantino never saw the movie.  By what stretch of the imagination is this an "influence"?Ekwos (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bride Wore Black 

message: Gross revenue the same for both films? Chances of that must be pretty slim? Any idea where such info could be sourced? Uksam88 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that. I fixed both, per the sources cited. Ward3001 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross Revenue 

message: I love the animated sequence, but no way does that justify listing Mamoru Oshii as co-director in thr info box.  Gaohoyt (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Two directors?

message: I don't know if this has been discussed before (I did a quick check of the archives and couldn't find anything):
Contrary to what is stated in the opening of the synopsis, the section is not presented fully chronologically. A quick read should make this obvious. Significant and extensive sections (the Pai Mei section and the O-Ren animation are just two examples) are mentioned as "flashbacks", and as such are not found in their proper chronological position. Some other sections, however (such as the Vernita Green scene) are indeed in their proper chronological position.
I myself am opposed to a chronological synopsis. I think that the synopsis should be restructured to follow the original narrative structure of the film. My reasons for this are as follows:
- Many sections of the film only make sense when placed in their proper context: learning about the history of O-Ren before knowing who O-Ren is and what her relation is to the main character is sure to confuse any readers not already familiar with the plot.
- A truly chronological synopsis would require placing two scenes somewhat detached from the overall plot right at the beginning: "The Origin of O-Ren" followed by "The Cruel Tutelage of Pai Mei". This would be confusing and, in a certain sense, misleading to anybody not already familiar with the plot, as these scenes are in a certain sense supplementary and not necessarily integral to the plot.
- Having separate synopses for each volume makes a chronological synopsis even more fraught. For example, the wedding scene at the start of Volume 2 occurs before any of the events of Volume 1 (except for The Origin of O-Ren). The same applies to the Pai Mei sections. This means that a volume-separate, chronological synopsis is in fact logically impossible.
I propose a restructuring of the "Plot" section in such a way as to follow the original narrative structure of the film, rather than the chronological sequence of events. This change would not need to be too radical, since most of the sections are already in their correct positions. The currently erroneous claim in the opening (that the synopsis is presented chronologically) would then of course be removed. The section might require some modest expansion (not more than a few sentences), in order to make it clear to the reader when each section occurs chronologically.
I'd be more than happy to make these changes, having myself quite a thorough knowledge of the film, but I want to try and establish some sort of consensus before going ahead. So, everyone, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks.Naviduk (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Gaohoyt (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Synopsis: Chronological versus Narrative 

message: I'm about to do a clean up of the "Cast" section, and wanted to run this by everyone to make sure there aren't any objections:
I think that the current table, showing which volume(s) a character appears in, should be removed and replaced with a standard cast list. Reasons for this are as follows:
- First, there is the obvious problem of what constitutes an "appearance". For instance, ALL the characters from both volumes appear in the credits at the end of volume 2, even though the "appearances" of exclusively first volume characters are simply copies of clips from volume 1.
- Is pinpointing which characters appear in which volumes really that useful? I won't deny that it could be useful in some situations, but I think that it's actually more likely to mislead people. Many of the characters which appear in both volumes appear a lot more in one than in the other (Bill, Budd, Elle are all prominent examples). So although it's completely correct to state that Bill appears in both volumes, it is likely to mislead someone who isn't already familiar with the films (while someone who IS familiar with the films will already know that Bill appears in both).
- Continuing in the vein of the above: since the narrative is nonlinear, knowing which volume(s) a character appears in doesn't necessarily give much description concerning which part of the timeline that character features in. Here again, the table is not particularly useful, and possibly even misleading.
I'll leave this up for a few days and, if there are no strong objections, I'll make the changes.Naviduk (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cast" section 

message: Didn't know I stepped into edit war h*ll. Just thought that volume two was pretty poorly written, with a lot of pivotal stuff, like Kiddo using Budd's supposedly pawned sword to battle Elle, etc, was left out.  Tried to spiff it up a bit but got reversed.  Not realizing that I was reversed (thought I made a dumb mistake) I edited it again and got reversed again on the grounds that I had made it to lengthy.  Maybe explaining the scene in which the Five Point Exploding Heart technique was introduced within the sequence in which it appeared in the movie, rather that in parenthesis after the fact, made it a little longer, but it made it better to read.  If you want it to keep on sucking, it is okay with me, but I think that it is strange that most of the scenes you want minimized are the one with Bill in them.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, thanks for your efforts to improve the article. There were some aspects of your summary that I liked, although I wouldn't say the current version "sucks". I'd suggest condensing yours to about the length of the current summary, then post it in your sandbox and let us know. Then we can see what everyone thinks. BTW, there really wasn't an edit war; just a request that you open the issue up for discussion. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  volume 2 poorly written 

message: I think that there are multiple problems with this article with much of the the plot summary put into parenthesis.  I think that in an attempt to keep the plot summary short, too much has been left out causing editors to have to back pedal to add pertinent information.  For example, if the scene in which Bill first tells Kiddo about the five point exploding heart tech., had been accurately depicted there would be no reason to add the fact as an out of sequenced after thought. also, a lot of inferences are included in the current version.  For example, the article says that Kiddo is horrified to discover that she is no longer pregnant.  That is an inference, not a plot summary.  I inference at that point in the movie that she was horrified by the fact that she was about to be raped.  These movies are fairly long, and convoluted.  There are a lot of flashbacks and it is entirely out of sequence, so why not do it justice and include the pertinent detail in the plot summary and not water it down? Just a suggestion.  Forgive my spelling, I have a new browser and I don't know what happened to my spell checker. --Ishtar456 (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  parenthesis and inferences 

message: I have removed this unsourced information:
One incident reported about three men watching Kill bill movies when one of them grabbed a samurai sword and killed two men without noticing. News 12 had some people talk and they said that"They didn't know this was going to happen to these men who were watching a film and pretending like a "Ninja sneaked up on them" without even calling 9-1-1".The film company apologized to the police about it and was fined beyond $100,000.The man was arrested later that night while people who loved them were in full tears for their loved ones to be buried.
Feel free to put it back with a source, and some serious copyediting. TremorMilo (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beyond Movie Violence