Talk:Kill Bill: Volume 1/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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.<!--this needs to be verified/fixed-->

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)

What is the titlt of that song??

Does anybody know the name of that song that is playing just after the bride cuts off Sofie's arm and is Walking up to Oren.(KIll Bill Vol.1)

This is really annoying me any help would be really helpful.

Thanks P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul mkatana (talk • contribs) 00:24, 14 May 2006

"The Lonely Shepard" by Zamfir. It's on the soundtrack. Tommyt 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Lonely Shepherd" was played when Beatrix accepted the katana from Hanzo. The tune that P is talking about is not listed on the soundtrack. It's a catchy tune amd I was dissapointed when I found it wasn't on the CD. 82.37.114.89 22:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's called Death rides a horse - Ennio Morricone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.241.186 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 14 July 2006

Eaten Alive Trivia

Please stop reverting the trivia about "My name is Buck" from Kill Bill. Just because it is crude doesn't stop it from being an accurate piece of trivia for the film. Thank you.--CyberGhostface 21:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Two pages

I say we split the damned thing into two different pages: One for Vol. 1 and one for Vol. 2. I think it's the best thing to do and will make the most sense. Anybody else agree? I'm thinking of doing it soon. --[[User:Nqnpipnr|Nqnpipnr] 22:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've re-organized the entire thing. What does everybody think? --Nqnpipnr 22:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think it was possible but you've made it even worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.114.89 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 11 June 2006

How so? And please sign your name next time. --Nqnpipnr 12:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see now

1. "The Bride is bloody and bruised, having just been betrayed by her own colleagues (The DIVAS have just killed all her friends and fiancée)". Why?
2. “Bill, it’s your baby.” So she's pregnant then?
3. "verbally jab". Don't you mean talk?
4. "impale her with a kitchen knife" It was the Brides own knife, didn't you see her wipe the blood off and put it back in the scabbard?
5. "The two men are Buck, a male nurse, and a visitor". Buck is an orderly and the "visitor" is a rapist.

I know you're trying to improve the article but you've left out a lot of information. The telling of the story was already OK, it's the trivia and allusions sections that need cleaning. 82.37.114.89

Okay, I updated the summary with those five points. --Nqnpipnr 00:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you at the end of the film?

While we're at it, who the hell thinks she's saying thank you to Bill at the end of the film(s)? God, maybe, but prolly more like the Fates who specialize in vengence. Bill's dead, and a jerk, and not the person Kiddo would be thanking. Duh. Frou Bear Phoenix frou 04:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree with Phoenix. Thanking Bill is an interesting theory but would need some support. I changed it to be ambiguous, as it is in the film. Gaohoyt 16:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding: D'oh, I meant the Furies, not the Fates. Peace out, and (imagine me mouthing this) thank you, thank you! Phoenix frou 22:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite: Redux

I'm thinking that the synopses of the 2 vols are, once again, getting bloated & overdone, such as:

They all suffer grisly death or mutilation at the edge of her sword in a sequence of sustained, graphic violence. The Blue Leaves sequence employs a variety of visual styles including color, black-and-white, a kabuki-like blue-background silhouette, and an overexposed, flashing black-and-white style which seems to suggest an old martial arts movie. The accompanying soundtrack is an eclectic collection of musical styles.

This would fit better into a section about style or themes, but it doesn't belong in the synopsis. Also, the phrase "at the edge of her sword" is just way too dramatic. And later:

Throughout these scenes, the director exploits the creepy tension between Bill's pleasant demeanor and the violence that we know will occur next.

Again, style or themes section, but not in the synopsis. Or, better yet, in the separate character profile on Bill. Tommyt 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Awful article

This article is terrible. Flat-out awful. There are run-on sentences and portions of the description are just wrong. A lot of the description puts in information that is not given to the viewer until later, therefore making it incorrect to place it early in the description. From the jump, this is clear in the description of the opening scene. We had no idea of what The Bride and Bill's connection was at that point. We only saw her breathing hard on the floor and having bill talking before he shoots her. As well, to call the o-ren sequence anime is questionable and subjective. It would be more appropriate to call it an animated sequence. Also, note: when making a first reference to a character, please use the actor's full name. Sonny Chiba should not be treated like a dog. As well, all of the people in Kill Bill can be linked to another wikipedia page. Also, please no style talk in the summary. Describe the plot and that's all. This does not need superfluous details. As well, we do not know what The Bride's name is until late in the film. I found it confusing that she is referred to be her real name from the beginning. In the description of Volume Two, this section is problematic:

Bill warns him that Beatrix will come for him next, but Budd, now overweight and alcoholic, his assassin days apparently behind him, seems either to not take him very seriously or blatantly not care much for his life.

Budd distinctly says after what they did to her, she has the complete right to kill them all. It is not a portrayal of him being nonplussed about his eventual demise at the hands of The Bride. Please, be accurate in this regard and do not confuse the words and intentions of the characters.

However, as aforementioned, Black Mamba is her codename...therefore, she killed him after a fashion. what the hell does this mean? After a fashion is not an acceptable way of saying "in a way," as was intended here.

Although he appears to gain the advantage by disarming her, she disables Bill using the fatal Five-Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique, taught to her without Bill's knowledge by Pai Mei. factually incorrect. The Bride, who is now known as Beatrix, did not tell Bill that she knew it. The implication of that sentence, due to its poor structure, is that Pai Mei illegally taught the move to The Bride, which he did not as he is the old-school master and does whatever he feels. The Bride was his student and this is what he taught her. Case closed.

The summary is riddled with errors. The only way to solve the problems that exist in the two summaries is to completely re-write them. I implore an editor or an impassioned fan with a better grasp on the complexities of summary to re-write them.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.92.4 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 31 July 2006

Trivia

The Trivia section has the following line:

The ending of the film is an homage to the ending of Oliver Stone's 1994 film Natural Born Killers based on a screenplay by Tarantino.

Didn't Tarantino disown the film because he disagreed with the way Stone rewrote his screenplay? (Ibaranoff24 00:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

Restructuring suggestion: How 'bout we move the plot down?

A suggestion: How 'bout we restructure the sections, so as to not place the plot spoilers front and center in the focus of the article?

I suggest moving the "Volume 1" and "Volume 2 plots" down behind "Acclaim and Criticism"; Maybe "Structure" too since it also spoils the plot. "Influences" should also be moved up above the plots. And the many bullet points contained in the section "Specific allusions to other works" should be moved to the "Trivia" section. Hence my suggested article structure:

   * 3 Budget & Box Office
   * 5 Acclaim and Criticism
         o 5.1 A movie in two volumes
         o 5.2 Violence
         o 5.3 Style and substance
         o 5.4 Technical objections
   * 7 Influences
         o 7.1 General
         o 7.2 Lady Snowblood
    * 4 Structure
   * 1 Volume 1 Plot
   * 2 Volume 2 Plot
   * 6 Releases
         o 6.1 DVD release
         o 6.2 Sequels
         o 6.3 Prequels
   * 8 Music
         o 8.1 Volume 1
         o 8.2 Volume 2
   * 9 Trivia
        o 7.3 Specific allusions to other works
   * 10 Cast
   * 11 References
   * 12 External links

(Note that the heading numbers are left intact, to ease the interpretation of my suggested restructuring). I volunteer to do this restructuring myself soon; barring any objections. One little stubble that I see is, how about the individual movie infoboxes? An idea that just came to mind is that there would be two infoboxes for each of the two volumes, both placed at the top of this article right along the lede. Here too I am open to suggestions, of course.

I suggest this restructuring to emphasize my opinion that there are encyclopedic information in this article. Such information being mainly the influence of this film upon popular culture, both in the US and internationally; and the decision to split what was originally intended to be a single two-hour screenplay into two volumes, as opposed to trimming the film down. --Lemi4 08:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My #1 gripe right now is that the article does not have a picture at the top. Moving the info boxes up would help, but it would look even better with a nice photo (not a screen shot or DVD cover). I like this one [1], but I have no idea if it's allowable.

As for the proposed re-org, heck, give it a try. I'm not sure it will solve the problem of the spoiler warnings though, as people will slap those on even silly things like revealing The Bride's real name. Also, it would constrain the Criticism section (including any future additions to it) to things that don't reveal any plot elements, and I'm not sure that's a good idea. Thanks for caring! Gaohoyt 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I recently discovered this article body style guideline at Wikiproject Films. After looking at the guide I think it would be better to keep the structure, and instead attempt to pare down the spoiler to its essence. IMHO this article's main problem is that the spoiler is more a retelling of the movies instead of a concise review of the plot (which would be preferred being more "encyclopedic"). Those guys have gone so far as to create a template: {{Plotnote}}

I haven't decided on what to do exactly, but more and more I'm more inclined to shorten the spoiler section. --Lemi4 23:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I presume you mean the "plot" sections? Gaohoyt 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference clean up

I've fixed the bibliographic style of the first six references. I'm simply too exhausted to finish them. Could anyone with the time or interest do so?

This film is amazing not to mention one of the iconic film of the decade. This article should be cleaned up and turned into an FA. The potential is there but unfortunately so is the flab! Reduce and improve.

This page will help in the cleanup: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines

Jaw101ie 15:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

ANOTHER MUSIC QUESTION! I DONT KNOW!

Wat is the name of the music when the bride and O-ren start to fight, its kind of a spanish influenced tune...??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam531 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 September 2006

It's a Spanish version of "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood." Performed by a group called Santa Esmerelda.

'bold'ed boarding pass

I wasn't sure whether or not you other Wikipedians would know what I was doing, so:

I made the words "boarding pass" bold so that someone like myself, who, at seeing a really long article, skims through (sometimes looking at the pictures) would understand the relevance of the picture of The Bride's boarding pass.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.194.157 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 18 October 2006

Adding {{toolong}} on top of article

I added this template into the top of the article because it was too long that sections need its own spinoff. Otherwise, sections would be trimmed down before having their own spinoff. What do you think? --Gh87 17:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

no way, the length is perfect for two films worth of material. AlexOvShaolin 03:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Added {{split-apart}}

I added this tag in the article because some sections takes away main topic's attention in the article that they needs its own independence from it. --Gh87 07:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not much different from your rationale to add the {{toolong}} template. It doesn't seem like there is any one section that is so long that it merits its own article. Also, Kill Bill is essentially one movie (it is almost implied by the tag that it be split according to volume), and so it should remain as one article. --Stux 17:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment noted, but I am moving the tag to the talk page as it detracts from the article. I would be interested in what sections you think could be "broken off". I agree with Stux that a Volume 1/Volume 2 split is a bad idea. Gaohoyt 17:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

synopses

After reading the WikiFilms guidelines, I added {{Plot}} tags to the two volume synopes. Seriously, they're 2800 words long. It's extremely easy to write this kind of thing, but I'd be interested to hear thoughts on who, exactly, they meant for, and what encyclopedic purpose describing in detail every single event of the films serves. --24.81.13.220 17:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong cosign. Why even see these films, when one need only read the entire story on wikipedia? 74.134.255.99 01:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Allusions to Other Taratino Films section

I removed the following text:

In Vol 2, the church pianist (played by Samuel L. Jackson) says he had been in a gang, and also spent time as a drifter. In Pulp Fiction, Jackson's character intended to give up his life of crime and "walk the earth."

This is incorrect. Jackson's character is talking about bands he's played with in the past; he wasn't "in a gang," he was in "The Gang," as in "Kool and." Likewise, he establishes here that he played with The Drifters. He mentions the Coasters and others as well.

Lwschurtz 16:09, 21 December 2006 (CST)

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 R^Talk 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 R^Talk 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 [[2]], 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)

Snake Choker

Changed the poor-taste edit Snake Choker back to Snake Charmer. ... Now if someone put a reference to Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique on the late Mr. Carradine's page - that would be comedy. 24.251.117.209 (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wedding Dress

Does anyone know whether the wedding dress was a commercially available design, or specially made for the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.175.15 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Pussy Waggon

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?

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 [[3]] 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 [[4]], 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)

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)

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)

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)

answered (partially) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beatrix_Kiddo#Why_hide_the_name.3F 89.134.159.152 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Pirates of the Carribean trilogy also filmed at the "same exact time"? — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 10:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Time of filming is irrelevant. It is however, widely known that this is one movie that was split to avoid a near 4 hour running time; not for any artistic or plot driven reason. It is not a movie and a sequel, it is one movie, admitted by the director himself, to have been divided for time reasons only. As such, it should remain as it is. Edwardsesq (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)