Talk:Kill Bill/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

This article should be split

Though it was conceived of as a single movie it was released as two quite separate entities. Additionally, this page is getting rather long and doesn't seem to be getting any shorter. This page really should be split with one page devoted to each film. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Neither volume makes much sense by itself. To provide any encyclopedic value, each article would have to contain voluminous verbage describing the films as a whole, and this text would have to be replicated in both articles. To shorten the article, does it make more sense to spin off the "Influences" section? Or just delete those influences that are just hypothesized but have never been acknowledged? Gaohoyt 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
How does "neither volume make much sense by itself"? They seemed to make perfect sense when I saw them (the plot isn't really that complex), even though I saw the second one first. I also don't see why there needs to be more "voluminous verbiage" than for any other film series on Wikipedia.
As for the influences section, there are a number which seem rather far-fetched and speculative which could probably be removed, such as this one: "After being blinded, Elle Driver shrieks and thrashes about on the floor of the trailer. This is an homage to Blade Runner, in which Darryl Hannah's character, the replicant Pris, exhibits identical behavior after being shot by Rick Deckard."
Just because she thrashes around on the floor means it is an homage to another movie? Sorry, I find that hard to believe. -- Grandpafootsoldier 18:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Disagree: they should be together, there would need to be too much interlinking, to cut down on size, some sections can be given their own articles. For example, "Influences" should be given its own article. AlexOvShaolin 02:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Partial agree i think both films need their own article which the majority of the info should rest, however there should be a 'kill bill' page with brief info about both films. --AlexOvShaolin 00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Disagree: The length of an article isn't inherently a bad thing; an article covering two films would reasonably be expected to be fairly long. Also, I'm generally opposed to increasing the number of articles on very closely-related subjects, as it makes them much harder to maintain. So my opinion is to improve this article as much as possible (which will probably involve an overall decrease in its word count; in my experience that's what usually seems to happen), and only then consider splitting it.
A potential problem with having two articles is that it might not be clear which one should contain details of aspects common to both films. The obvious solution to that would be to use the Kill Bill article to give an overview of the series, with two other articles (Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Kill Bill Vol. 2) describing the specifics of each film. This has happened with other film series articles such as Star Wars and The Matrix series, but such articles are usually for series much longer than two films. And as I said, it would be much harder to maintain because the same content that's in the article at the moment would be split over three very short pages instead of one fairly long (but not unmanagable) article. --Nick RTalk 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, actually, I think I'll retract my previous statement, and agree that it should be split. Although I don't think it's the length of this article that's the problem, I think it should be split to maintain consistency with the other individual Wikipedia entries on other films that belong to longer series. I still think it can be harder to maintain multiple articles than one, but we'll see.
So, I think there should be three articles, entitled:
  1. Kill Bill (film series) (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)), with Kill Bill a redirect. This article would give an overview of the aspects common to the two films, such as a brief outline of the overall plot, the inspiration for the films, their simultaneous production schedule, the decsision to split them into two, etc.
  2. Kill Bill Volume 1 (or Kill Bill Vol. 1, or Kill Bill: Volume 1, or Kill Bill: Vol. 1, or whatever the official punctuation is) for those aspects specific to the first volume.
  3. Kill Bill Volume 2 (or whatever the official title is) for aspects specific to the second volume.
As for the "Music" section, I think the main series article should give a brief overview with {{main}} links to both soundtracks; and then each of the two film articles would have its own more in-depth "Music" section, with {{main}} links to just that film's soundtrack album. That's the way the Lord of the Rings film articles have done it: the main The Lord of the Rings film trilogy#Music has a general music section, but The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film)#Score has a "Score" section specific to that film. (There's also a Music of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy article, which is used instead of giving the various soundtrack albums their own articles, along with additional commentary, but I don't think Kill Bill should get one of those.)
--Nick RTalk 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree. People are getting far too hung up on the fact it's two parts of one story. Yes, yes, it's only one film, which is exactly why there should be one article for the whole, as above Kill Bill (or something similar) and two articles with more detail. - BalthCat 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree: Unprofessional to make exceptions for feature films. Each film should have its own article. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 04:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. It's a single film, released in two parts. It does not need to be split into seperate articles. (Ibaranoff24 12:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC))
Strongly disagree As has been stated above, Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 comprise just one film, with one lengthy story. This is not Harry Potter. As Nick R pointed out, many plot points, and even some specific events, are common to both films, so splitting the article would be difficult in addition to unnecessary. -- Kicking222 02:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree It is indeed one story in two releases, but the same thing can be said about many films and their sequels (For example, The Matrix series of films are arguably one long story, as somebody has pointed out). Also, the article contains spoilers for vol.2. They are tagged, but I only wanted to read about vol.1 (I havent seen vol.2) On these bases, I weakly agree to the article being split.
However, I strongly agree on the basis that the one article is simply too big. Put simply, large articles work badly with computers, readers and editors. Large articles take longer to load and increase bandwidth requirements. They are harder to read when trying to find specific information by scrolling. Large articles are also harder to edit properly for this reason. To say that information is easier to read, process and update when in large chunks is illogical - try asking a filing clerk or a computer scientist. Information broken down into smaller chunks is easier to work with in almost any sense.
My suggestion is to split the article into two, covering each film (or half of the film, depending on your viewpoint). Try to trim down the word counts by removing redundant or 'fan essay'-like information. The character 'biog' and Deadly Viper Assassination Squad articles read mostly as plot synopses from the point of view of the subject and can be trimmed down considerably if we decide we dont want it. The biog pages can be cut down and spliced into one big (ish) article, while the one on the squad can be kept as a small(ish) article. If the main articles are still rather big, why not create a Kill Bill (film series) article and move general and production information onto it?
Any opinions?--ChrisJMoor 06:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree. It should be split. I watched vol 1 tonight and came looking for info on vol 2. Its very confusing trying to work out which details are relevant to which volume in particular. There would be a lot of common info on the pages but i don't see that as a problem. The other advantage to splitting the page is that it would be easier to navigate. The current page is huge. Szzuk 04:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree If Taratino was able to deal with splitting the film, we should survive splitting the article. The individual segments in each volume are basically tributes to different subgenres of midnight movie and I remember Tarantino talking about how different each volume felt himself, so the article is very conducive to being divided. Series, Volume One and Two sounds good. Doctor Sunshine 04:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment How about creating an article called List of Kill Bill characters? Does it sound good? --Gh87 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
If you mean a list with short descriptions (and we lose the individual character articles) - I agree. While we are on it, perhaps we can add information on the Yakuza (as seen in the film, of course) to a separate heading in the deadly Viper Assasination Squad article and rename it List of Fictional Crime Organisations (Kill Bill) (or similar)?--ChrisJMoor 09:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Update. We can also add the Crazy 88 to the above article.--ChrisJMoor 09:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. The two films are not even split chronologically, and it makes little sense to split up interrelated plot points between two articles. Also, what happens if and when Tarentino decides to put out a Kill Bill special edition that contains the combined movie ordered as he originally envisioned? There should be a description of the Vol. 1, Vol. 2, and the chronological ordering, but that is all that is currently needed to deal with this issue. Bill E. Brooks 13:34, 1 February 2007 (CST)
Strongly disagree. Kill Bill is one movie that has been split into two volumes for marketing purposes. It is no more a series of films than is The Ten Commandments or Ben Hur. If volume 1 and volume 2 are edited together this becomes obvious. Taking the trunk scene from the end of volume 1 as the starting point, remove the rest of volume 1 [being the advertisement for volume 2 (which includes the worst spoiler in movie marketing history) and the end credits]. Then excise the beginning of volume 2 until the next chapter heading. This can be achieved with very primitive video editing software. Once done, try showing the movie to people whom have seen neither volumes before. No-one will be able to pick where the movies were split because they run together seamlessly. Within the next few years the probability of a release of Kill Bill as a single volume on a high definition DVD format approaches 1. --MajandraFan 07:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, it's "the fourth film by Quentin Tarantino", not the fourth and the fifth. The opening credits of either Tarantino's section of Grindhouse or his next movie Inglorious Bastards will probably say "the fifth". --MajandraFan 00:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Using those techniques you could splice together just about any movie released in a series, many of them just as seamlessly. Atropos235 16:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. No point in saying what has already been said. This is my vote. --Steinninn 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree. The movies were relased independently, so the movies should have seperate articles. There could/should be a more comprehensive story article, as well as other general trivia to combat the ever-growing article size. (see The Lord of the Rings film trilogy) Atropos235 16:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Disagree The literary version of the Lord of the Rings was intended to be one book, but was sold in three different novels. The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, however, was intended to be released as three separate movies. Comparing Kill Bill Volume One and Volume Two to the Lord of the Rings movies isn't a fair comparison. See an initial script [[1]], which encompassed both releases into a single story.AmberAlert1713 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Upon reading the comment below mine (unsigned) I have to change my vote to Strongly Agree It makes more sense, everyone will have ample opportunity to point out that it is ONE movie, and we can be a little more spoiler friendly. Also, while I'm usually against making tons of extra pages, I think this could be a positive move in helping us take an outside-universe approach to the articles (something my revisions have done only marginally). -AmberAlert1713 06:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Agree. The article currently contains spoilers about two separate movie releases. This is a big problem for people who have seen one part or the other (like me) and come here to get more in-depth information about the movie they have seen. Since I had already seen volume one, I did not expect there to be any spoilers for me. It took a while before I realised that both volumes were in the same article, and by then I had already seen several spoilers for the second movie - the one that I had not yet seen. Yes I know, if I had looked carefully at the title and stopped to think about it, I would have noticed that it just said "Kill Bill", not "Kill Bill vol 1". However, how many of you read every article title carefully and stop to think about what its formulation might imply before reading the article itself? All this is very upsetting to me, I really hate knowing things about movies before I see them! This problem is completely unrelated to any questions regarding the film being one or two different movies. I really can't see how the article could stay a single article without risking spoilers for volume two entering for people only seeking information on volume 1. For example, at the moment there is a Wikipedia blurb about merging the article about "Beatrix Kiddo" into the article. This is an immediate spoiler unless you have seen Kill Bill vol 2. The name is very carefully hidden throughout volume 1.
Strongly Disagree - As has been said this is a two-part film, not two films, one being the sequel to the other. The article should not be split. — BrotherFlounder 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree Two differant films, two differant articles. WestJet 00:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Okay, it's been about two months since this topic was first proposed and so far we have twelve votes for splitting the article and seven against. Should we consider that a consensus or keep going with this discussion? -- Grandpafootsoldier 10:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I would say so, 12 beats 7, and I don't see anymore imput being made. WestJet 18:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. It's just one single movie. (two volumes, but originally conceived as one film) -- HdEATH 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment The key word being "originally". It doesn't matter what a piece of media was "meant" to be, or was "conceived of being", the cold hard truth is Tarantino was forced to make TWO films, therefore there should be a separate page for each film - end of story. Why should this particular cinematic endeavor be given special treatment on Wikipedia (if you even want to call it that) based on what "should" have happened? Every other listing of this franchise on the Internet (Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, etc) has a separate listing for each film, why should this site take a different stance? Furthermore, why should people have to risk reading spoilers for the next film (as has repeatedly happened from what you can see above) because fanboys want to somehow stay "true" to Tarantino's "vision" through the organizational setup of an on-line encyclopedia page? This whole debate (which has already gone on far too long IMO) is looking increasingly silly. I think what should really be talking about at this point is HOW to split them. Does it require a whole other Kill Bill (series) page or just a disambiguation one? -- Grandpafootsoldier 08:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Most commenters that argue for the single article view seem to do that with the motivation "It is a single film", possibly with the addition "It was only split for marketing purposes". Shouldn't these motivations be considered opinions on the part of the article authors? The format of the article is in itself a claim regarding the status of the two parts. That is demonstrated by the motivations in this discussion for keeping it as a single article. However, there is no quote that says something along the lines of "The two parts are actually one movie and should be considered, discussed and researched as such". If the article should stay as a single article, it requires the article to have a quote justifying this treatment. If such a quote can not be found, the article must be split to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Though it is not text, the format of the article in itself attempts to argue a point.
Agree These are two different films. That they continue the same story is a moot point, many films in a series do that and they are separated. That they were originally conceived as a single film is also a moot point. A lot of films, including many sequels, originally started as a single story, intended to be a single film. I don't think it was soley for marketing reasons that it was split (I believe time length concern by the studio was the larger factor), but that is also a moot point. The fact is, it's two separate films, released as such, and seen to this day as such. The articles should be split. Thehedgehog 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with splitting. I think this is one film in 2 "acts." Nothing is gained by splitting.
Disagree It is essentially one film and the current entry is a good solid one with good sub-entries. I can't really see the point of splitting it. (Emperor 21:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC))
Agree At first, I thought it was a stupid idea, but you know what? 'Fellowship of the Ring' is a seperate article for the book 'Fellowship of the Ring', even though EVERYBODY knows that 'Lord of the Rings' was written as one book which Tolkein only split up based on requirements of the publishing companies at the time. There should be one article for "Kill Bill" as the main article that discusses stuff which is applicable to both, as well as the proposed "Whole Bloody Affair" (if it ever gets released), then a seperate article for each movie. The seperate articles do not need to be major; I would say, plot summary and anything spoiler-y that shouldn't be in the main article.
However, that said, the other side has some major points, and one point which nobody has brought up yet is the nature of serials ... For instance, 'Oliver Twist' does not have a seperate section for each three chapters, even though EVERYBODY knows that Dickens books were published initially as monthly serials, usually three chapters a month (a good edition will tell you where the splits were). Comic book storylines do not have individual entries for single issues. There are not seperate listings for different singles (for instance, The Flaming Lips release singles for the same song in different countries with different B-sides). Honestly, I think this might be something which could use a "bigger" ruling, because we want to consistently apply Wikipedia's rules ... I just think a case could be made for consistency in either direction. ThatGuamGuy 19:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)sean
Disagree Precedent: The two part film Ivan the Terrible (film) has only one Wikipedia article. The ten part The Decalogue has only one Wikipedia article. This is consistant. 204.128.192.3 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Strongly agree Yes, yes, Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 comprise the same film with one unified plot. But that doesn't mean this article needs to be a big, incohesive mess for the sake of having it cover both films. I support the notion that this article should actually be split into three articles:
  • A Kill Bill article covering information on the two halves in general.
  • A Kill Bill, Vol. 1 article detailing the release and plot of the film in detail.
  • A Kill Bill, Vol. 2 article detailing the release and plot of the film in detail.
While I agree that the two films are mostly inseperable as they are basically halves of one complete film, they are both large films that deserve to be covered in their own articles. Trying to cram all of the information on both films into one article is simply a poor way to go about organizing it. Pele Merengue 21:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Disagree, normally, the arguements for splitting the article would be valid. But Tarantino's style uses split chronology and other techniques which blurr the timeline. The films are meant as one film, they even cover some of the same periods of time. Tarantino has even expressed that he wishes it to be considered one movie. An article dividing the films would be VERY confusing. The film(s) goes back in forth in time. If an article had focused on ONE volume, therewould be huge chunks of time unaccounted for. So, although I see why someone who has never seen the movie would think that splitting the article would simplify things, it would not. So, I respectfully disagree. The term volume is used to denote a continuation in a different sense than a sequel would. Volume 2 is not a sequel. It's the second half of the movie.--Asderoff 21:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Disagree, It's one film, which was split in two for cinema/time purposes. I think it's a no-brainer. Goldenboy|talk|contribs 18:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment (disagree) People that truly love film like I do, will not wish to split this article. Other than the logical reasons for having one article (one story arc, shot in one project, expression by writer and director for it to be considered on movie, confusion that would come from reading an article on only one volume, the difference between volume and sequel) there is also respect for the film. For instance, the two volumes have one story arc, you can't watch Vol. 1 and say that you've seen a movie, you haven't. Vol. 1 lacks a climax and denoument. The time at which the films were released means nothing.--Asderoff 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. While I understand your justification, the films hold one strong and linear story line, unlike many other sequels, trilogies, etc. I do not believe the article is too long to necessarily warrant a split. Because of this, I think the article works just fine the way it is. No need to make the change if the change is needed. Also, KB2 has credits of characters in the first film, further demonstrating that the two movies are intertwined enough to work well as one article.--oac (old american century) | Talk 03:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Agree. The two volumes together make up one film, but they're still separate volumes. They were released at different times, and they were subject to separate response. Certain information, and trivia apply to one volume alone. Having information specifically about Vol. 1 in an article that also covers Vol. 2 is too confusing. Critical response can be recorded more deeply if the article is split into Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 as well. Keeping it combined seems like an attempt to reaffirm that Kill Bill is indeed one film in two volumes. However, simply stating that the volumes are, in fact, one film is affirmation, enough. Also, as stated in above statements, splitting the article makes the article far more accessible to readers. Say, for example, someone were to watch Vol. 1, but did not have Vol. 2 handy. That person might come to Wikipedia to get an idea of the rest of the story. It's a lot easier to understand where Vol. 1 ends and Vol. 2 begins if they are their own articles. We have to remember as well that Quentin Tarantino split the film. He chose the specific moment to end Vol. 1 and begin Vol. 2. We have to respect, and state the time of the split. Finally, this debate has been going on for too long, if the majority as of now (I believe the Agrees have it) is not enough to decide the matter, then perhaps help from superior Wikipedia administrators can be employed.--DarshaAssant 03:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Disagree. It is basically one story split into two movies. Think of 10 chapters split into two scenes. That's basically it. I just added the cast and roles for both movies, in one table, and I think it works.--RobNS 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. After watching the movie(s) back-to-back, my opinion/vote is that it's one movie in two parts. It wouldn't be a fatal flaw to split the Wikipedia coverage into two articles, but I think it would be a disservice to the film. Mikek999 22:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Disagree. Splitting the articles would lead to redundancy and a lot of repeated information; both movies can be presented accurately and more succinctly in one article. If that makes this article long... then this article is a little long. Oh no. SnowFire 00:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)