Talk:Kill Bill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kill Bill article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Archives

/Archive 1: Nov 2004 - May 2006 /Archive 2: May 2006 - Dec 2006 /Archive 3: Dec 2006 split discussion

Contents 1 The Pussy Waggon 2 The Bride Vs Beatrix Kiddo 3 Cantonese/Mandarin/English 4 Give influences its own article? 5 Volume 2 6 Removing track list from music section 7 The move 8 Vol. 1 and 2 in one article? 9 box thing-y 10 What make and model is Bills car?? 11 Merge from Beatrix Kiddo 12 Editing the Plot 13 The only survivor of a group of trained assassins 14 DONT SPLIT 15 Why hide the name of Beatrix Kiddo? 16 Why is there even any discussion whether or not this should be split into two articles? 17 Movie Rating??? 18 No splitting 19 Plot reduction 20 drill bill 21 Kaboom Cereal 22 Spoiler warning for future sequals 23 Missing link? 24 Cast and Role 25 acclaim and criticism??? 26 To split or not to split 27 Five-Point-Palm Exploding Heart Technique 28 Template:Kill Bill 29 Elle Driver's relationship 30 Character Bios 31 INFLUENCES-François Truffaut: "The Bride Wore Black" - 1968! 32 New Template:Kill Bill character 33 November Release 34 The Volume thing 35 Detailed chronology 36 Music section 37 Influences

[edit] The Pussy Waggon

The link just redirects to the original page. 76.118.30.59 (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Bride Vs Beatrix Kiddo

I'm wondering why there has to be a note about the Bride being referred to as Beatrix Kiddo at the beginning of the synopsis for Vol 2? seems totally unnecessary & reveals too much too soon.

I think we should remove that & all refs in the plot to BK up until the moment where Elle reveals her true name to the audience. It was a calculated move by Tarantino to keep her real name secret (aside from the plane ticket in Vol 1) up to that point. We should do the same here. Any takers? Tommyt 16:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. You wouldn't reveal that Neo dies in the beginning of the synopsis of The Matrix Revolutions of that Vader is Luke's father in the first paragraph about Empire's plot, and you shouldn't reveal The Bride's name until it's revealed in the film. -- Kicking222 02:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cantonese/Mandarin/English

I think the Trivia item about the languages spoken between Pai Mei and Beatrix should remain deleted because: (1) the article and Trivia section are too long; (2) it is clear from the subtitles that he wants her to speak Cantonese and that she speaks some Mandarin; (3) it is obvious that she mixes English and a language spoken in China that he prefers less than Cantonese; and (4) the entire issue is too trivial even for a Trivia section in an over bloated article. Ward3001 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO #2 and #3 are both incorrect. The reason he wants her to speak Cantonese is not because she's speaking Mandarin. It's because he's assuming she's American and only speaks English. I think this is made clear from the subtitles: and to the best of my recollection, she begins to respond to him in Mandarin only after he makes his Cantonese demand. And English-speaking moviegoer is left with the impression that she speaks a little of the same language that Pai Mei speaks. But she's not. For example, instead of saying "mh haih" for "no", she says "bu" (short for "bu shih"). Let me put it this way. Let's say you only speak English, and you're watching the movie. Pai Mei insists, in Russian, that Beatrix speak Russian to him. Beatrix responds in a mix of English and Swahili. Which, incredibly, satisfies Pai Mei! As an English-speaker, you don't realize this. But Russian and Swahili speakers are absolutely mystified. As I was.

As to #1 and #4 (basically the same critique), may I respectfully submit that the reason you find this trivial may be because you may not be an Asian language speaker. It's brutally obvious to anyone west of Hawaii that something really weird is going on. What's showing here is major flub Tarantino has made in a genre piece that he is anal-retentive about doing precisely right. Either that or he or his language coaches intentionally introduced a third language into an English-Cantonese dialog knowing that most of his audience couldn't tell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.203.18 (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Although I certainly can't speak from the perspective of a Cantonese or Mandarin speaker (and I would like to hear what others with Cantonese and/or Mandarin skills have to say), I do think that I'm a typical movie-goer who speaks English and can read captions. I think your arguments have two basic flaws, at least as I see it. You stated, "English-speaking moviegoer is left with the impression that she speaks a little of the same language that Pai Mei speaks." I'm an English-speaking moviegoer and, after reading the captions, I certainly did not have the impression that she could speak a little Cantonese. I doubt that I'm very different than other English speakers. Secondly, your statement that her response "incredibly, satisfies Pai Mei" puts you inside his head hearing his unspoken thoughts, which is very POV. I think it's quite possible he simply decided to move on to another issue rather than belabor the language issue. Ward3001 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

she begins to respond to him in Mandarin only after he makes his Cantonese demand -> Not true. She starts the dialogue calling Pai Mei "Master" in Mandarin, and only after Pai Mei scorns her accent she begins to speak to him in English.

Pai Mei insists, in Russian, that Beatrix speak Russian to him. Beatrix responds in a mix of English and Swahili. Which, incredibly, satisfies Pai Mei! -> There's nothing incredible about that, since Pai Mei didn't ask Kiddo to speak Cantonese, but, instead, questioned if she understood it -- which she obviously did, although she couldn't quite well speak the language.189.12.105.99 04:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Give influences its own article?

as i mentioned before this would cut down on size tremendously and the information is really neat (I've added to it myself), however I'm assuming it isn't primary to the average reader. 'music' can probably be given its own article as well, thats usually standard with long articles with soundtracks. --AlexOvShaolin 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volume 2

Why isn't there any discussion about volume two sucking hard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.55.36 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing track list from music section

I've just added a {{main}} template to the "Music" section, similar to those in other film articles such as Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope#Soundtrack. However, despite the full track listings being provided in the two soundtrack album articles, the song listing is also repeated in this one. That's one of the things that can be trimmed from this page - better to do what that Star Wars article did (and others such as The_Matrix#Music and Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater#Audio) and use the section for a more general summary style overview of the films' music, leaving the the in-depth track listings to the soundtrack album articles.

In fact, I'm going to change that now. :) Won't go into much detail on the section's text just yet, though. --Nick R^Talk 15:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, done that now. The overview is only a very brief outline at the moment, but I think the article's much better without repeating the full track listings. --Nick R^Talk 15:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The move

You know that link to the crazy 88's battle? Well go to 2:30. She uses a move, that I SWEAR I've seen somewhere before. Trunksamurai 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vol. 1 and 2 in one article?

Sorry lads but I seriously don't see any logic whatsoever in putting the two volumes into one article. It will just confuse people and cause inaccuracy. Someone might consider splitting them. thanks Igorndhaswog 12:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a source at the moment, but Quentin T explained in an interview that it is one movie, put into two volumes for ease of watching (would be too long as one). If you look at the plot of the films, you can easily see how Volume II is just a continuation of the first. Greengiraffe 03:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There's already a current discussion on this elsewhere in this talk page. Look upwards to see some of the differing views on the matter! --Nick R^Talk 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] box thing-y

kill bill could probably use one of those box thing-ies like the tarantino one at the bottom of this page. --AlexOvShaolin 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What make and model is Bills car??

What is the make and model of the car over Bills left shoulder in the scene at Budd's trailer where Bill is warning Budd about the Bride coming for revenge?? I assume it's Bill's car because Budd drives a truck and the car does not appear in any other scene at the trailer without Bill. Docktergonzo 23:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill's car is a DeTomaso Mangusta, a rare, limited-run European supercar from the late sixties. This is not to be confused with the Qvale Mangusta, which is a completely different car. There's no Wikipedia entry, but e2 has some information here: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1539146 (disclaimer: I wrote that e2 node). 128.226.230.88 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Beatrix Kiddo

Oppose. While the nom. says the Kill Bill article contains all the same information as Beatrix Kiddo, I suspect that the movie summaries in this article are overly detailed, and should be pruned. Besides, if this article is split into v1 and v2, then you'll just have to split her off again. Do you forward her to V1 or V2? Her article, cleaned up, would stand fine on its own, and one shouldn't have to read a plot synopsis of two entire movies to get a basic explanation of the character of Beatrix Kiddo. - 156.34.221.147 02:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC) (User:BalthCat)

Oppose Is it really worth even putting that suggestion on the main page? Many of the other fictional characters in the movie have their own page, and keeping her page on its own allows it to be categorized with many, many other fictional characters. If you want to pick a battle for having fictional people on wikipedia, I'd suggest starting elsewhere. Finally, consider the average person searching wikipedia for beatrix kiddo. Are they trying to find info about a movie she was in, or are they trying to find out more about the character?

[edit] Editing the Plot

I'm making some pretty heavy changes to the synopses of the two volumes, trying to keep in mind that *plot* is NOT a scene-by-scene description, but rather a way to focus on the events of the story as they contribute to the work as a whole. The previous descriptions were far too in depth and (by consensus of many users on this talk page) a headache to read. If you prefer the scene by scene approach, I would recommend linking this page to an online copy of the script, or a scene-by-scene spoiler site, rather than immediately reverting the changes. Also, I'm a tiny bit new to wiki, so feel free to be brutal with the new changes; criticism is appreciated and, if you see me make any major mistakes, feel free to point them out on my talk page: it helps me learn. Cheers, -AmberAlert1713 04:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you ask, my impression is that you are spending a lot of effort just substituting your own stylistic preferences for someone else's, without making the article significantly better. In particular, I object to substituting the more ambiguous word "development" for "history" in the Criticism section. It sounds like you don't believe that this was originally planned as one movie. If you don't, you could determine this with a little research. At least we are in agreement that the detailed plot sections are too long. Gaohoyt 08:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Constructive criticism always helped. If you think the word history to be a better fit please feel free to edit it. I used "development" because I find "history" to be more ambiguous-- history could refer to anything in the movie's past (and is firmly rooted in the past), whereas "development" refers to the guiding creative process that resulted in the one movie. I therefore firmly believe that it was planned as one movie; a working script, here [[1]] confirms that one movie was always Tarantino's goal. Finally, I tried my best to make sure the "writing style" of my own matched as closely as possible to wikipedia's definition of plot [[2]], especially attempting to pay attention to moral and artistic effects rather than the previous version's scene by scene description (which, if too detailed, could be considered copyright violation). If you have specific ideas of how my update strayed from the ideal description of plot (and there are certainly a few failures here-- I'd like to work next on it following the 7-point plot structure) please feel free to point them out. Cheers AmberAlert1713 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The only survivor of a group of trained assassins

Guys, I don't know if this is a UK / US English thing so I'm discussing here (UK perspective). The phrase which I edited, and has now been returned to it's original form "that the comatose Bride is the only survivor of a group of trained assassins" is, to UK / European-English readers a suggestion that she is the only member of the group of assassins who is still alive. A UK reader will not take this to mean that the Bride is the only survivor of an ATTACK BY the group of assassins. I'm not bothered how we word it, but it needs clarity, even for those familiar with the plot.

Thanks BlueEvo2 19:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I'm the one who changed it. While she was a part of the group of assassins, the cop has no knowledge of this; he only knows she was a victim of them. Good call. AmberAlert1713 19:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem - thanks for editing and for responding so quickly: much appreciated. BlueEvo2 19:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DONT SPLIT

watch special features of volume 2, Quentin says that it is ONE movie, only in two volumes for practical reasons (ie 5hr movie not appealing). 124.189.224.26 05:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It would make more sense to put this in the actual argument section now wouldn't it? Toxic Ninja 05:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why hide the name of Beatrix Kiddo?

Does anyone have a reference to the motivation for obscuring the name of Beatrix Kiddo throughout part one? There are probably a quite a few people who would like to know why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.235.34.47 (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

i concur^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 07:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there even any discussion whether or not this should be split into two articles?

Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Kill Bill Vol. 2 are two separate movies. They should be treated as such and have their own articles just as any separate movies do, say like the Star Wars trilogy articles.

But the star wars movies are separate, self-contained stories that create one large arc, whereas kill bill is two movies with one single story continuing throughout both of them.

Truthfully, it is one complete story with two different movies. They need to be in the same article because, they were filmed at the same exact time.Craven 23:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)FilmMaster_13 May 23, 2007

[edit] Movie Rating???

What's the movie rating of volume one and volume two? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aceboy222 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Rated R, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.175.189 (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No splitting

Kill Bill should NOT be split. Even though they are 2 movies, is just one story. Is like if you write an article of Encyclopedia Britannica, you are not going to right an article for each "VOLUME". Is the same story divided in two, Kill Bill Volume 2 begins with Chapter 6. Tarantino explained that he did it this way because he didn't want to cut the story to much... besides, there is an economic interest here, if you make two movies, you'll make people go twice to the movie theater, buy two DVDs, etc... everything times 2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yogagye (talk • contribs) 16:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

FOR THE LAST TIME people! If you want to argue this point use the EXISTING thread above! P.S. it is frankly ridiculous to compare a movie franchise to the Encyclopedia Britannica. -- Grandpafootsoldier 06:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the vote has been going on long enough. Dose anyone know the score? --Steinninn 19:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot reduction

I've seriously carved this down. Still not happy with the way it's laid out, but this is an experiment above anything else. Chris Cunningham 11:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Looked so much better before, where has all the lovely detail gone? :( Celebrity-Benji 17:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to the script, where it belongs? WP:PLOT. Wikipedia is not a substitute for watching the movies. Chris Cunningham 09:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree, there is nothing wrong with the Wiki article giving you a good overview of a movie. I've used Wiki in the past for just that purpose. It is needless pruning like this that drives me nuts. 75.191.186.105 (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon user 75.191.186.105, the argument in this section is 14 months old. I don't think we are in any immediate danger that the contributors to this section are going to slash most of the plot out. Ward3001 (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] drill bill

theres a porno called drill bill its cover art is a complete parody of the movie with yellow and black cover and a guy looking like hes up for revenge. someone removed it but i think its a notable little piece of trivia. it has a good reference.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 23:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides rhyming titles and the colors on the cover, please tell us what makes it a "complete parody" of Kill Bill. Or is it just a bunch of porn that has no similarities to Kill Bill besides rhyming titles and colors? Ward3001 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

its trivia that is enough, the rules for trivia are purposefully vague. this is a notable pop culture reference.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 22:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that "its trivia that is enough." Using that standard, the length of Uma Thurman's fingernails is trivia, and thus should be listed in the Trivia section. The strongest Wikipedia guideline for trivia is that trivia items should be avoided and remain in the article only as a temporary step toward integrating them into the article's main text. If the item cannot be reasonably integrated into the main text, it should be deleted. I can't see how a porn movie that only has a rhyming title and cover colors in common can possibly be reasonably integrated into the Kill Bill article. If Drill Bill is notable enough for inclusion, then just about anything is notable enough, which would result in an unending trivia section. As stated in Wikipedia:Trivia: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so some degree of selectivity should always be used. Leave it out. Ward3001 22:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaboom Cereal

It is NOT a 'discontinued cereal brand' Perhaps not near as popular as it was during the 70s, but as per its own wikipedia article: Kaboom! (breakfast cereal), it is still in circulation, as a matter of fact I bought some last week from the grocery store. I think the editor is confusing it with Fruit Brute which was used in both Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs and actually has been discontinued. Also the 'Citation needed' thing is a bit much. Unless we can cite the movies themselves?

Slightly off-topic, I loved the idea of a gun shooting through a cereal box labeled "Kaboom." It was a nice little gag. --Fightingirish 01:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warning for future sequals

i know it isn't a plot yet but, can't spoiler tags be put up before the whole Nikki will get revenge thing.

This section seems to be more of sarcasm from Tarantino's especially knowing his personality. 24.144.177.92 04:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing link?

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

[edit] Cast and Role

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

[edit] acclaim and criticism???

im sorry, but, where exactly is there criticism in that section?, its nothing but acclaim of the movie or things that shamelessly advertise kill bill. This article here is nothing but pure fan cruft, it even starts off with the tag line used to advertise kill bill!: "Quentin tarantinos fourth movie...". (and i thought the light saber combat article was obscene)

[edit] To split or not to split

No source but QT supposedly now regrets splitting the movies. Kill Bill Vo1. 1 & 2 where to be one film but Miramax convinced QT to split it in two because of running time and that more money could be made with two films then one. Keep one article for Kill Bill and split the article in two. Vol.1 on top and Vol.2 under Vol.1. It should be okay to mention the brides name, just add a spoiler warning before hand. Anything that would be considered a spoiler should have a warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.93.246 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 27 June 2007

[edit] Five-Point-Palm Exploding Heart Technique

I linked Five-Point-Palm Exploding Heart Technique to Dim Mak, an umbrella term that describes a range of Chinese martial arts techniques that cause opponent to be incapacitated or killed by attacking specific pressure points and meridians typically using finger tip(s).

Five-Point-Palm Exploding Heart Technique is a Chinese martial art technique, and in Chinese popular culture especially Wuxia, basically any martial art techniques that involve attacking people’s pressure point which cause death or incapacitation is classified as Dim Mak (diǎnmò點脈 or diǎnxuè點穴).

To: Ward3001 : While probably unknown to western audience, this classification is generally considered as common sense in the Chinese community. The word diǎnxuè (點穴 or Dim Mak ) is mentioned in most Kill Bill’s film reviews written in Chinese language when referring to Bill’s death at the end of the movie. Check out the reference at the footnote section. --Da Vynci 20:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Common sense or not, it needs a citation before it is clear that FPPEHT in Kill Bill refers to Dim Mak. It may be common sense to you, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that requires credible sources. Find such a source (in English since this is English Wikipedia) that explains that FPPEHT in Kill Bill is Dim Mak, cite it, and I'll leave the edit alone. Otherwise, don't add Dim Mak again. Thank you. Ward3001 21:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, Ward3001, I did provide source, but you removed it. With all due respect, it is narrow-minded to think that English Wikipedia can/should only accept source written in English language nowadays. In case you do not aware, English Wikipedia now covers wide range of topics that involve many different cultures. According to Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline, when English source is not available, a source from other language could be cited where appropriate.

Since it is a Chinese martial art technique in question here, and given the situation that this film has strong influences from Hong Kong Chinese wuxia action movies, (evidenced by the Shaw_Studio's logo at the beginning of the film, with Hong Kong martial artist Yuen Woo-ping as the choreographer and numerous other elements in the film) it is appropriate to cite reference from source written in Chinese language, in this case, film reviews by Chinese critics.

Furthermore, there are plenty of multilingual people around ^[1], hence my edits as well as my translation of the citation will, sooner or later, be reviewed by those who can understand the language. In any case, you don’t have to worry and I suggest you to sit back, relax and perhaps learn more languages ^[2].--Da Vynci 23:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kill Bill

Kill Bill Films Template, think there should be one? Here's the Nightmare On Elm Street Template as an example. Evolutionselene 06:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I created the template for the films. Evolutionselene 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elle Driver's relationship

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

Bud used the word "sister" but it didn't seem at all to refer to a blood relationship. Since Bill and Bud's father had so many children it is possile, but that is pure speculation. :Anonymous, October 2o, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.91.129.129 (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character Bios

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

[edit] INFLUENCES-François Truffaut: "The Bride Wore Black" - 1968!

Why is François Truffaut's 1968 film "The Bride Wore Black" not mentioned as an influence? The main idea is the same.

Perhaps the Japanese film (and Manga) mentioned in the article is the direct influence, but "The Bride Wore Black" is an earlier film - I'll bet that's where the idea originally came from. Furthermore, it's based directly on a novel, as stated in the Wikipedia article on The Bride wore Black, which I copy/paste here:

---

The Bride Wore Black (French: La Mariée était en noir) is a 1968 French film directed by François Truffaut and based on the novel of the same name by William Irish. It stars Jeanne Moreau, Charles Denner, Michel Bouquet, Michael Lonsdale, Claude Rich, and Jean-Claude Brialy. It is a revenge film in which five men make a young bride a widow on her wedding day. She takes her revenge, methodically killing each of the five men using various methods.

---

I cannot believe that Tarantino had never seen at least Truffaut's film. I think this should be added to the article. .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.143.41.195 (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Template:Kill Bill character

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

[edit] November Release

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

[edit] The Volume thing

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

[edit] Detailed chronology

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

[edit] Music section

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

[edit] Influences

The 'Influences' section as it stands is woeful - lots of unsubstantiated conjecture about films with similar plots, when in fact there is a lot of information about Tarantino's influences openly available in the films which has not even been mentioned here.

I've done what I can, but it was several months ago that I watched the movies, so I hope that somebody who has the DVD, or any more info, can build on the following, as I think these are important additions:

1. Kill Bill is adapted from a Japanese manga (I think, but it might have been a Chinese comic) entitled "The Bride". I think the author's name was "O" but I'm not sure. Somebody please watch the movies & correct this - I'm sure it says at the end "based on the book by . . ." But I haven't been able to find any info about this on the internet.

2. End credits (of Kill Bill 2) have a list of dead guys who influenced the movies under the title "R.I.P.". This included some Spaghetti Western actors & directors (I've added those I can remember to the article), plus a load of Chinese & Japanese names, presumably wuxia, kung fu & samurai film directors. Again, somebody who has got the DVD, PLEASE look at the credits & copy the full list to this article. Thanks.

(79.72.161.116 (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Your edits had some problems. Some of it needs citations. Some of it was redundant with other information in the article. And some of it was POV ("those who shaped Tarantino's vision"). Ward3001 (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that citations & more info are required - that's why I am asking somebody who has access to the movie to please add more. What was redundant??

That's fine to seek help. But don't add the information again without proper citations. Ward3001 (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As for POV, if Tarantino chose to include in his closing credits a list a of individuals who were obviously not involved in this film in any way, do you not think he is acknowledging them as influences on these specific films?

Not unless he says they are influences, either in the credits or in another source. Ward3001 (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say there is a lot more POV in the rest of this section. E.g. The comparison with Lone Wolf & Cub is highly tenuous. There might be some vague similarity if you look for it, but nothing to indicate that Tarantino was influenced by this series. Whereas he does specifically name a book that he adapted the films from, & several people who influenced the films. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE INCLUDED. (Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Other POV does not justify your POV. With that kind of reasoning the quality of articles would never improve, but sink to the lowest common denominator. Ward3001 (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not my logic & I do not want an article full of POV! What I am saying is that there is far too much POV in this section. Most of it either a conjecture by whomever wrote it (e.g. the Lone Wolf & Cub comparison) or a citation of conjecture by film journalists, etc. Compare this to the fact that THE FILM ITSELF contains a list acknowledging influential directors & performers. This information needs to be included in the article. As for citation, it appears within the credits of the movie itself, so no further citation should be required. Otherwise the plot synopsis would be full of citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weasel Fetlocks (talk • contribs) 22:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"there is far too much POV in this section": Clean it up, but don't add more.

"THE FILM ITSELF contains a list acknowledging influential directors & performers": Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've seen the films many times, and I don't believe the word "influential" is included in the list, or that Tarantino wrote in the credits "These directors & performers influenced me". "Acknowlege" does not mean "influential". Please read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Ward3001 (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What function do you think this list serves then? Clearly Sergio Leone, for example, was not involved in the production of Kill Bill. & Yet his name appears in the credits. I feel that this information should be made available within the Wikipedia article. Readers can draw their own conclusions about whether Tarantino was acknowledging these people as influences. The fact that Tarantino mentions these people by name is significant. (Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

Neither you nor I know that unless the film or Tarantino explicitly state it. Yes, readers can draw any inferences they wish, but your inferences don't belong in the article without proper sourcing. Please read WP:OR. Ward3001 (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hence I have restored mention of the "R.I.P." list, free of any POV statements. (Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC))