Talk:Kill Bill/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Inspiration?

Hey, why aren't there any references to the inspiration of Kill bill on this page. Kind of missing considering the movie we're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.162.89.18 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 4 November 2004

"Rip-Offs?"

Come on, calling a section of this article "rip-offs" is disgustingly POV. --Feitclub 16:17, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

And speaking of the Rip-Off section, how can they say Tarentino ripped something off of a movie that came out the SAME YEAR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.63.129 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 24 November 2004

The Bride's real name

I removed the Bride's real name from the Cast list, as it's above a spoiler tag. I consider it a spoiler since it's never revealed (and intentionally bleeped out) all through the first movie, and also through the better part of the second.

The article still mentions her real name in its spoiler-marked synopsis for Volume 2. - Chardish 07:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A lot of critics gave her name without warning, including Ebert. It's kind-of a spoiler; nothing that's gonna ruin the experience by knowing it ahead of time, though. --Nqnpipnr 10:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I still don't think it should be mentioned more than it has to be. I would favor referring to her as "The Bride" throughout the article and only mentioning her real name when summarizing the part where it's revealed. It's not a ruining spoiler, but it's a pretty big one, considering that Tarrantino goes out of his way not to reveal it until volume two. MRig 05:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah, but why is it left out? its just a name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.197.105 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 26 April 2007

Fate of Elle

the article tries too hard to sell the death of elle, ranging from "we will see the lives and timely deaths of Budd, Elle, and Bill", to "Elle's ultimate fate is not known, but narrative logic suggests that she was killed by the black mamba", and back to, "As aforementioned, Elle more than likely fell to the actual black mamba". c'mon. i'm going to change all of that unless somebody can defend this inaccurate, grasping attempt to tidy up something that was left untidy by a film master. let the facts speak for themselves. apart from the wishful conjecture, the language is hardly objective. SaltyPig 03:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

never mind. i finally went in to correct the elle fate problems, and was overwhelmed by the vol. 2 segment. seems a little strange to fix part of it and leave the rest. SaltyPig 05:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, one could think that Elle, as a master swordswoman, has a great potential to turn into a Zatoichi like character now that she is blind.

In the original version of the script, Tarantino had Elle die in a Fight with The Bride - the way it happened was very inspired by one of the Baby Cart Movies, before thinking again...

Why, if not because he wanted to save the character for later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.216.38.180 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 13 July 2005

Essentially, it's Tarantino messing with us. Any remote form of logic would suggest that she is going to die: Even if the snake doesn't get her and someone passing by in the middle of nowhere decides to help, who's to say the snake won't get whoever's helping? The question mark in the credits is just a way to mess with us. --Nqnpipnr 12:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If Elle is a "master swordswoman" and trained by Pai Mei, I think she can find her way out of a trailer without her eyes... that's like saying if she closed her eyes she couldn't find the door. Yes, in the movie we see she is obviously frantic about the fact she just lost her other eye, but after X amount of minutes she would surely calm down enough to feel her way to the door. Yes, the snake is in the trailer... but the snake is not likely to "hunt" her throughout the trailor, so I think it's very likely after the snake bites Budd that it slithered off somewhere in the trailor and probably "hiding" somewhere as opposed to slithering around for someone else to bite. When Budd grabs the stack of money that was covering the snake, it would surely send the snake into defensive mode, plus Budd is right there in front of the case... Elle would be walking around feeling for the door and almost certainly would not run into the snake... and if so it would not be a bite to the face. And as Elle points out to Budd as he's dying, the venom would be fatal within 4 hours UNLESS a direct bite to the face or torso, in which case it would be fatal in 20 minutes. So even if she did get bit in the leg as she tried to find her way out, she'd still have a reasonable chance of getting help for the venom before she died. So I think the assumption the snake kills her is a BIG leap to make and Tarantino has already made references to the possible sequel in which case Elle could easily be a blind swordman (at least for the extent this would be possible in the world Tarantino created for the film). And with the Bride leaving Elle alive but just taking her other eye... Tarantino has effectively created an EVEN MORE deep rooted hatred between Elle and the Bride... leaving Elle blind with EVEN MORE reason to want to try to kill the Bride in a sequel. In fact I think if there were a sequel then it would be highly likely to bring Elle back to connect the sequel to the original Vol 1 and Vol 2 seeing as otherwise it would just be the Bride and minor characters like Sophia and Niki who would return for larger roles. Robk6364 06:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Elle also still has her cell phone. She could call a cab. xD Echud123456 10:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

article needs total rewrite

much of the article reads like a high school book review. there are convoluted sentences and pointless peacock phrases. worse, there are inaccuracies added regularly, building on an already flimsy base. if somebody's not going to rewrite entirely, please slash through what you can when making single edits. the article needs help. example:

Kill Bill is a story that stands alone, but it relies heavily on influences that Tarantino wished to pay tribute to.

what does that mean? how does the second part of the sentence relate to the first? it's bleh. stilted bleh.

kill bill is a complex story. if it's to be retold in detail, the writers should admit that out of the gate. sentences like this try too hard to tell it quickly. the result is confusion and slop:

Uma Thurman plays a character known as 'The Bride' who seeks bloody revenge against 'Bill' (David Carradine) and his squad for attempting to murder her, successfully murdering her fiance and friends, and her unborn child during the rehearsal.

should be broken up, or the details should be left for the real summary.

Hattori Hanzo was Bill's teacher, and feeling an obligation for having trained him, he agrees to break the oath he swore to never create 'something that kills people' again.

that run-on, breathless style is the entire article.

The audience learns that the Bride was not ambushed at her wedding, but at her wedding dress rehearsal.

hello!

When Beatrix quite stealthily attempts to kill Budd (aka Sidewinder, played by Michael Madsen) at his trailer, he is ready, via Bill's warning, and fires a bag of non-lethal rock salt into her chest immediately after the door is opened.

another single sentence crying out for distribution/deletion, but it's a better example of assumption and inaccuracy in the article. "bag" of rock salt? says who? what evidence is there that the rock salt was in a bag? what bag? if it's not true, it shouldn't be put in the article. period. i just removed 3 slops in one edit, and there are plenty more.

After a nostalgic moment, Beatrix unceasingly drives a fist into her coffin...

high school. tabloid, at best. this is an encyclopedia.

In the ensuing fight between the two women, Elle is in possession of Beatrix's sword.

she has beatrix's sword. peacock.

It seems disappointing that Beatrix did not actually kill Budd herself.

POV anyone? the entire paragraph is a fan gone wild, playing movie critic. not appropriate for the article.

As aforementioned, Elle more than likely fell to the actual black mamba as well.

ha!

i'm not going to rewrite this. i think it's hopeless. but if somebody doesn't start striking/rewriting, i'll simply remove the blatant POV and unencylopedic parts, disjoints be damned.

SaltyPig 11:57, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

took a spin through the whole article, hacking and slashing. serious editors, please review and improve. thanks. SaltyPig 08:58, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

tweaked more -- mostly the vol 2 section. barring objection, i will remove the cleanup template from the article, ideally after somebody reviews and tightens the current version. SaltyPig 20:09, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

I agree too. I've always hated reading Wikip articles like this, full of modern euphemisms. The synopses of films should be more concise & SHOULD NOT INCLUDE QUOTES TO MAKE THEM MORE DRAMATIC. If anything, quotations should be in a separate section.Tommyt 16:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Link of Beatrix kiddo

Is it normal that the link of "beatrix kiddo" is to the word "beep"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.135.16 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 22 May 2005

Influence of other films

are all of the examples in this section attributed to tarantino claims/admissions? the existence of a similarity to another film doesn't necessarily mean it influenced him. if these are mere similarities, the section should be renamed appropriately. SaltyPig 12:21, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

I changed the section title to "Cinematic allusions and influences", which is a bit broader than the specific implication of sourced influences. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rick Sands's comments

Hi. A section of the article is dedicated to a comment by Sands, and it closes by saying that he was heavily criticized for it. But what was that criticism exactly? I assume it would be because Sands implied that the industry never releases the best possible version, or pack on DVD right away, sort of "holding out" on the fans in order to multiply its business. Am I right? I mean, it couldn't be because the industry expects people to buy multiple versions of the same movie, they would never get a significant number of people to do that. We should expand this section, so that the reader can know exactly how Sands's remarks were attacked. I sure would like to know. Regards, Redux 02:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Japanese version

Has anybody an idea how/where to include information about the uncut Japanese version of Kill Bill Volume 1 in the article? --Fritz S. 14:00, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'd either put in a specific entry for the differences between the US/Japanese releases or fit into the existing DVD release subject somehow. There's already a good mention of a special edition Kill Bill released in Japan, you could plausibly use that as an intro or a bridge to your entry. Gibson Cowboy 06:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey i found the crazy 88 sequence in color on youtube so... mabye you could add something in the article about that. (someone to lazy to type all that crap about who they are) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.133.142 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 September 2006

Heavy copyedit/restructure

I just did a thorough copyedit and restructure of the article. I've separated the volumes into "plot" and "details" sections and moved/removed some redundant material. I've moved the soundtracks off this article to their own, as per Pulp Fiction/Pulp Fiction (soundtrack) and other film releases that have a significant soundtrack element (e.g., FLCL). A lot can be written about these two soundtracks, but it won't fit in the Kill Bill article nicely. Some of the images and the two infoboxes still need to be aligned, which I'm trying to do right now. —Tarnas 08:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

anime shite

Many felt it resembled an anime (which, to most people, is considered to be a good thing).

weird, p.o.v.-ish sentence, I'm thinking of removing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.145.39 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 September 2005

I agree, I've never read anything saying that about the movie and no source was cited. I've removed it. —Tarnas 00:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's more in line with an analysis of influences on Quentin Tarantino and his use of them in his films. For the purposes of an encyclopedia, arguing a highly speculative subject like this is best left to the fanboys. Gibson Cowboy 05:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Entrophy, Atrophy?

In the scene where she's trying to walk again in the back of Buck's truck... she says "...trying to will my legs back from entrophy..." wouldn't the correct word to use there have been "atrophy?" Or, was the word chosen on purpose for some reason I can't figure? -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 18:04, 25 September 2005(UTC)

Is entrophy even a word? I know what entropy means but I've never heard of entrophy.207.157.121.50 01:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

I think she actually says "entropy", as in her leg muscles, etc. have deteriorated into an unworkable, random mess. The screenplay copy on the website http://sfy.ru/ uses the word entropy also. Quoting them:

As I lay in the back of Buck's pickup truck, trying to will my limbs out of entropy, I could see the faces of the cunts who did this to me, and the dick responsible.

Ryanhupka 09:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard "entropy," and assumed that either the author (Tarantino), the actress (Thurman), or the narrator (the Bride) was using the word in an improper fashion. I wouldn't call an atrophied leg a random mess, so I think "entropy" is a bit of a stretch. Maybe it's supposed to show us that as talented as the Bride is and as pretty as her words may be, she's a bit pretentious (and Tarantino realizes it). Calbaer 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

vol. 2 main article

Kill Bill Volume 2 (soundtrack) gets its own article while the movie doesn't, why? Shawnc 22:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ther's nothing stopping you creating one.-Gillean666 22:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

chronology

how come u r so sure she kills Vernita after O-ren? she comes in pussy wagon, and shs' not using HH sword. Maybe she kills Vernita first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.47.23.163 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 January 2006

Suzuki Seijun References?

I recently held a sort of Films Noirs Festival, and Suzuki Seijun was one of the directors on my list. I watched Tokyo Drifter and saw scenes that I thought I had seen in modified form in Kill Bill. For instance, there is a scene in where the background colours change during the scene where Kurata's clerk was shot. Reminded me of the Beatrix-Pai Mei choreographed formation training scene. The scene in the club where people were dancing on a glass floor in Tokyo Drifter reminds me of the scene at the House of Blue Leaves in Kill Bill. Also, both films have very catchy/upbeat/ironic songs playing during/before very violent scenes. Am I just seeing things? --Trtskh 04:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

1st image

Why is the first image the trunk shot? --DrBat 05:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There are too many pictures altogether. I think we could happily rid of the trunk shot, the plane ticket and the picture of bud. --Cammoore 03:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

the first image should be the DVD cover. The Trunk shot is pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satchfan (talk • contribs) 09:39, 23 April 2006

Done80.195.241.238

The trunk scene pwns —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.133.142 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 22 September 2006

music question -- this is a hard one!!!

Ok, Vol.1: there's music in the scene where the sheriff rolls up to the chapel where everyone's been shot. It's really short but a cool catchy tune -- I can't seem to find out what that song is... does anyone out there know??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.110.140 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 15 March 2006

It is called That Certain Female - Charlie Feathers. PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul mkatana (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 May 2006

i dont remeber any music then —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2006 65.60.133.142 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 September

What's that stuff in the "References"?

I mean the text which starts "The colonies were also extremely sceptical about the congruence of the varying economies and the possible dominance of NSW in a Federation." and ends "But, however it did occur, whether by charismatic leadership or even divine intervention, the Federations success against such great odds was a miraculous event that as John Hirst said is 'the greatest political achievement in Australian history'." Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.197.237.196 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 20 March 2006

Does this article need to be split into several articles?

I read the whole article, and it seems that it needs to be divided because each section, esp. ones about volumes, needs independence; so others deserve to know a lot more of information. what do you think? 69.227.173.21 22:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be taken out and shot. Most of it's just a re-telling of the plot, in too much detail and horrible prose. The character articles, on the other hand, do need expansion. Henry ^Flower 22:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Original research?

User:Gillean666 removed the following text from the article, stating "Deleted personal assumption and original research.":

*The name "Beatrix Kiddo" is also hinted at in what one would assume is an inside joke between old friends. In an exchange between O-Ren and The Bride we have them citing the long-running Trix (cereal) slogan "Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids!" It plays on The Bride's real name, Beatrix Kiddo (rab-BIT TRIX...KIDS). In addition to this, it is possible that it plays off of the author of Peter Rabbit, Beatrix Potter.

This interpretation has also been put forward in Jim Smith's book Tarantino. Not the best film book in the world, but nevertheless, it's been published, so it's not original research.

pp. 212:

"For example, we discover in Vol. 2 that the Bride's name is Beatrix. Now, when towards the end of Kill Bill - Vol. 1 O-Ren asks The Bride, 'You didn't think it was going to be that easy, did you?' and The Bride replies in the affirmative, O-Ren says, 'Silly Rabbit, Trix are for kids.' This isn't just a slogan for some cereal and an allusion to The Bride's as yet unknown name, it's also a marrying of Beatrix and Rabbit — which should remind most people of an author who wrote animal stories.

I'll remove the bit about it being "an inside joke between old friends", but restore the rest of it. OK? --Nick R^Talk 13:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Restore it if you like but this article has an over abundance of useless information and needs to be cut drastically.Gillean666 22:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. People need to realise that adding stuff (particularly bullet-pointed trivia) to articles doesn't necessarily make them better. But since I could provide a reference for that particular bit, I decided to restore it for now, even if it's eventually removed when the article gets peer reviewed or otherwise gets a big improvement drive... --Nick R^Talk 14:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

cleanup

I added a cleaup tag to the article. As it stands now, it's just an embarassment. What little encyclopedic information it contains is buried under an excruciating reproduction of the entire plot of both movies and what seem like hundreds of useless bullet points. --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 16:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Boarding pass

This was on the first "details" section of the article just before I added the boarding pass image (emphasis added):

During this first half of Kill Bill, The Bride's real name is bleeped out when characters say it. However, The Bride's real name is present on her boarding pass for her flights to Okinawa and Tokyo.

The image was uploaded as a verification. If it goes away, then this paragraph has to go too. --Fibonacci 07:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives