Talk:Kill Bill: Volume 1/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 , 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 .--Da Vynci 23:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

Pussy Wagon / Party Wagon censorship

I think that adding the line "(this was edited to "Party Wagon" by censors for versions of the film shown on television)" after "Pussy Wagon" may settle some controversy of the name that has arisen as of late. Hurricane Floyd (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no controversy. The changes to "Party Wagon" are done by editors who have only seen the TV version, or who feel that Wikipedia should be censored, which is against Wikipedia policy. The article is about the film as created by Tarantino, not the chopped down TV version. Other articles on films don't note the editing done by censors. It's irrelevant. Ward3001 (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Pussy Wagon" is just a reference to Grease. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 22:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Could this page be updated with info...

Could this page be updated with info about the alleged eventual release of an English-language version of Kill Bill v1 in with House of Leaves in color? There are rumors all over the place about such a thing, and it's listed on Amazon, but it says it's discontinued by the manufacturer, and some think this is Tarantino's ploy to drum up interest and get some money now that Grindhouse flopped. There's so much back and forth on this, I think it warrants a section on it. I would add such a section, but I'm not qualified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Alleged" & "rumors": Does not belong on Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Godfather parallel

The discussion of whether this film should become conjoined and whether this article should become split is a parallel to discussions about the Godfather films. I saw The Godfather Part II at the London press showing before I had seen Part I. It still held together perfectly well as a film. Similarly, I saw Kill Bill 2 before Kill Bill 1, and that held up too. The Godfather trilogy (as it eventually became) was later recut into a six-part television series. Marlon Brando was conspicuous by his absence from the later Godfather films, but the production worked around it acceptably; similarly the references to Kill Bill 1 that occur during Kill Bill 2. Another parallel is the Star Wars films. If a producer/director comes up with a concept which will require several parts to realise, it is a sign of their artistic ability if the parts stand alone. This was true of Wagner's Ring cycle, to say nothing of Shakespeare's history cycle, the Kings Henry IV, V and VI.

My penn'orth is that this article should stay in the format that it is in currently. If indeed an "all in one" version of the film is made commercially available, or another multi-part version, then that is the time to reconsider. I still think that this is a good and relevant article and that the availability of a different version should lead to a second article on that subject, while retaining this article. Guy (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The Bride Wore Black

Now, seriously, how is it there is a reference to a move "The Bride Wore Black" under "Influences" which then goes on to say that Tarantino never saw the movie. By what stretch of the imagination is this an "influence"?Ekwos (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Gross Revenue

Gross revenue the same for both films? Chances of that must be pretty slim? Any idea where such info could be sourced? Uksam88 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. I fixed both, per the sources cited. Ward3001 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Two directors?

I love the animated sequence, but no way does that justify listing Mamoru Oshii as co-director in thr info box. Gaohoyt (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Plot Synopsis: Chronological versus Narrative

I don't know if this has been discussed before (I did a quick check of the archives and couldn't find anything):

Contrary to what is stated in the opening of the synopsis, the section is not presented fully chronologically. A quick read should make this obvious. Significant and extensive sections (the Pai Mei section and the O-Ren animation are just two examples) are mentioned as "flashbacks", and as such are not found in their proper chronological position. Some other sections, however (such as the Vernita Green scene) are indeed in their proper chronological position.

I myself am opposed to a chronological synopsis. I think that the synopsis should be restructured to follow the original narrative structure of the film. My reasons for this are as follows:

- Many sections of the film only make sense when placed in their proper context: learning about the history of O-Ren before knowing who O-Ren is and what her relation is to the main character is sure to confuse any readers not already familiar with the plot.

- A truly chronological synopsis would require placing two scenes somewhat detached from the overall plot right at the beginning: "The Origin of O-Ren" followed by "The Cruel Tutelage of Pai Mei". This would be confusing and, in a certain sense, misleading to anybody not already familiar with the plot, as these scenes are in a certain sense supplementary and not necessarily integral to the plot.

- Having separate synopses for each volume makes a chronological synopsis even more fraught. For example, the wedding scene at the start of Volume 2 occurs before any of the events of Volume 1 (except for The Origin of O-Ren). The same applies to the Pai Mei sections. This means that a volume-separate, chronological synopsis is in fact logically impossible.

I propose a restructuring of the "Plot" section in such a way as to follow the original narrative structure of the film, rather than the chronological sequence of events. This change would not need to be too radical, since most of the sections are already in their correct positions. The currently erroneous claim in the opening (that the synopsis is presented chronologically) would then of course be removed. The section might require some modest expansion (not more than a few sentences), in order to make it clear to the reader when each section occurs chronologically.

I'd be more than happy to make these changes, having myself quite a thorough knowledge of the film, but I want to try and establish some sort of consensus before going ahead. So, everyone, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks.Naviduk (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Gaohoyt (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Cast" section

I'm about to do a clean up of the "Cast" section, and wanted to run this by everyone to make sure there aren't any objections:

I think that the current table, showing which volume(s) a character appears in, should be removed and replaced with a standard cast list. Reasons for this are as follows:

- First, there is the obvious problem of what constitutes an "appearance". For instance, ALL the characters from both volumes appear in the credits at the end of volume 2, even though the "appearances" of exclusively first volume characters are simply copies of clips from volume 1.

- Is pinpointing which characters appear in which volumes really that useful? I won't deny that it could be useful in some situations, but I think that it's actually more likely to mislead people. Many of the characters which appear in both volumes appear a lot more in one than in the other (Bill, Budd, Elle are all prominent examples). So although it's completely correct to state that Bill appears in both volumes, it is likely to mislead someone who isn't already familiar with the films (while someone who IS familiar with the films will already know that Bill appears in both).

- Continuing in the vein of the above: since the narrative is nonlinear, knowing which volume(s) a character appears in doesn't necessarily give much description concerning which part of the timeline that character features in. Here again, the table is not particularly useful, and possibly even misleading.

I'll leave this up for a few days and, if there are no strong objections, I'll make the changes.Naviduk (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing Conflict: Volume 2

I have been accused of engaging in an "edit war" on the Volume 2 section of this article. My editing itself has been called "vandalism" and my individual edits have been called "incorrect and irrelevant." Firstly, editing an article with truthful information is not vandalism. Secondly, I am going to explain why my edits are relevant, point by point.

1)The events of Kill Bill: Volume 2 pick up after The Bride, aka Black Mamba, has killed Vernita Green in the beginning of Volume 1, not O-Ren Ishii. Kill Bill is not told in chronological order. O-Ren Ishii was first on Black Mamba's death list, Vernita Green was second, and Budd was third. Relevance: This is the truth, pure and simple.

• Related side note: When you see The Bride stalking Budd outside of his trailer, you see that she is wearing the same tan leather jacket that she was wearing when she confronted Vernita Green.

2)The snake that Elle Driver planted in the suitcase was MORE SPECIFICALLY a black mamba. Relevance: The Bride's codename is Black Mamba. Right before Budd died, Elle told him that her biggest regret was that he killed The Bride. Those two reasons are exactly why she chose to put a black mamba in the suitcase out of all the other venomous snakes in the world. Imagine that!

3)After Budd died, Bill called Elle as she was gathering up the money. She told him a boldfaced lie: The Bride put a black mamba in his camper, but not to worry, because she killed her. Relevance: Elle wanted to give a false explanation for how Budd and The Bride were both dead. Remember, Elle did not know that The Bride was still alive.

4)After The Bride pulls out Elle's remaining eye, she leaves Elle alone in the trailer with the black mamba that killed Budd. Relevance: Once again, The Bride's codename is Black Mamba. Before she picks up her sword and steps outside of the trailer, you see the black mamba hissing at her. This is a hint to the audience that although Elle's fate is ambiguous, she possibly fell to the black mamba and that The Bride possibly left her blinded and alive in the trailer for that reason.

• Related side note: After Budd drugged the Bride into unconsciousness, he kicked her sword aside and pulled the knife off of her that she used to kill Vernita Green. Later in the movie, The Bride visits Esteban Vihaio after leaving Elle in the trailer. She is wearing the knife that Budd pulled off of her. This shows the audience that she didn't just get her sword after pulling out Elle's eye; she stuck around Budd's trailer long enough to find her knife. Whatever else happened during this time is ambiguous, in addition to Elle's fate.

If anyone sees that I am right, please let me know. If I were wrong, I would have gladly admitted it and you would not have read this. Thank you for your time. 79times (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This may be the "truth" about chronology, but it is not necessarily the "truth" about writing style or ownership of the article. More than one editor has reverted 79times use of chronology rather than sequence in the film as the basis for his statement. That makes this a matter of disputed content, not the "truth". And on Wikipedia, content disputes are decided by consensus, not 79times' version of the "truth". 79times decided to repeatedly revert rather than discuss here until he was finally confronted on his talk page. Now that he finally has decided to bring the matter here after repeatedly being told to do so, maybe the consensus process can begin. But unless or until there is a consensus to support his edits, 79times' version of the "truth" does not prevail. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone was smart enough to merge these two sections, so I'll put my responses to the points 79times made here:

- Changing "O-Ren Ishii at the end of the first volume" to "Vernita Green at the beginning of the first volume". It is not made clear that the exchange between Bill and Budd occurs after the killing of Vernita. We certainly know that it occurs after the killing of O-Ren, but Vernita is not mentioned at all in their conversation (which, if anything, might even lead us to believe that she is still alive at that point). In either case, all we know is that the exchange occurs some point after the killing of O-Ren, and so the original sentence is the correct one.

- Changing "snake" to "Black Mamba". I guess what I would really ask here is: is this detail integral to the plot? Does knowing that the snake is a reference to The Bride's codename really help the reader in understanding the plot? There are many interesting details which we could include in the plot summary (the fact that the battle at the end of the first volume takes place in "The House of Blue Leaves", the fact that the headstone under which The Bride is buried bears the name "Paula Schultz", etc.) but these don't really help the summary; in fact they usually tend to slow it down. (I admit that there are many other non-essential details contained in the current plot summary, and I plan to sort this out when I get the time.) But in any case we don't need anymore.

- Mentioning the fact that Elle tells Bill that she killed The Bride. I'd say that this detail is just as noteworthy as the fact that Elle tells Bill that The Bride killed Budd (which is included in the current plot summary), and so I'd certainly agree that if we are to include the latter detail we should include the former as well.

Thanks.Naviduk (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Naviduk. I agree that there is some uncertainty about the exact chronology, making 79times' edit potentially misleading. There also is an issue of writing style; Wikipedia is written for the convenience of the reader, not for the entertainment of one editor's preferences. As just one example (and there are others), some readers go to a plot summary before watching and read a paragraph or two if they have not seen part of a film. This is even more of an issue given that the film is in two parts. An editor who has seen only end of Part I (the film's sequence, not real time chronology) and wishes to read a little before beginning Part II could be utterly confused by 79times's change. This should be a matter that is decided by consensus. I also agree that there needs to be a limit to the length of a plot summary, and endless addition of unnecessary details is problematic. In any event, that needs to be decided here by consensus rather than unilaterally by 79times. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OK...this is not about me and my "version of the truth"...this is about truth, and truth alone. With all due respect, you can argue about this all day long, but that is all I am trying to accomplish here. I am not trying to be disrespectful, and I do not mean to appear dogmatic. There is no confusion about exact chronology...the chapters have all been put in chronological order in numerous places across the Intenet. In the original script, Elle calls Bill and tells him that The Bride has killed Vernita Green. This is why he goes to visit Budd. Bill knows that Budd is next. Therefore, the original sentence is not correct. Why does it bother you so much that I want to explain what the snake is and why it is that specific snake? YES, that is integral to the plot. The plot is about The Bride and HER revenge. In her own sick way, Elle planted that black mamba on behalf of her enemy, whom she hates, but respects. Also, Elle MIGHT have been killed by that same black mamba that she planted in the suitcase. This would mean that all 5 of them died at the hands of the black mamba, whether it be the snake itself or the human named after it.79times (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

79times, that's your perspective of "truth, and truth alone". And it's fine for you to express it, but quite obviously others disagree. Wikipedia's policies are quite clear in situations like this. Wait for others to express their opinions and for consensus to emerge. You can debate your version of "the truth" all you want, but don't change the article on this matter again unless a consensus supports your position. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with 71.77.20.119, and adding my own responses to the arguments 79times has made above.

Using "In the original script" is not valid. This plot summary is about the FINISHED FILM, and nothing else. We know that the exchange happens after the death of O-Ren. We know that the exchange MIGHT happen after the death of Vernita. In either case, it occurs after the death of O-Ren, and this is the most specific we can be with respect to timing. (I myself have no personal view on the matter: I accept that the exchange is just as likely - perhaps more likely - to have happened after the death of Vernita than before. But this is not about what is likely or unlikely; it is about what is certain.)

With regards to the snake/black mamba issue: I reiterate that the inclusion of that detail in no way helps the reader to understand the plot; it is a peripheral detail. Now, I fully understand and appreciate the beauty in the fact that all of the Deadly Vipers (with the possible exception of Elle) were killed by a "black mamba" of some sort, HOWEVER - I quote the third paragraph of WP:PLOTSUMNOT: "Do not attempt to recreate the emotional impact of the work through the plot summary. Wikipedia is not a substitute for the original." Naviduk (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Common sense tells most people that the exchange occurred after Vernita was killed, FINISHED FILM OR NOT. The chapters are out of order, but there is a chronological order. The fact that the snake is a black mamba is more than just a "peripheral detail"...it was this snake for a very specific reason and with that logic, there is no reason to state how any of them were killed. These are not my perspectives of the truth, they are the truth...there is only one truth. The sun is a star, not a planet. The sun being a star is not a perspective of the truth. Bill warned Budd after Vernita was killed, not just O-Ren, The snake IS a black mamba, and Elle did say that to Bill. As for 71.77.20.119, do not tell me what to do. I have just as much right as you to edit what I want and I will do whatever I want. I will go to an administrator if I have to. You're basically telling me to find others who agree with the truth of the film, which I will do. Finally, what makes your falsities and half-truths more important than my supposed "version of the truth"? 79times (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's your common sense, 79times. It's not everyone's common sense. Go to an admin? You are fond of making meaningless threats as if it will make everyone cower ("I will report you"; "I will go to an administrator"). Have you read any of the policies that have been linked for you. Let me clue you in on a fundamental fact on Wikipedia: administrators have no more authority or power than any other user in matters of content dispute. That is determined by consensus, not an admin. And there is no consensus supporting your position. In fact, so far, you are the only one supporting your position. No admin in his right mind would go against consensus. An admin's job is to deal with blatant policy violations, which does not exist here. 79times, read the policies. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That is more than MY common sense. My threats are not meaningless. I know the power of an administrator and I am talking about reporting you for threatening to block me when I have done nothing wrong. I have not broken 3RR and you should read this about what Wikipedia says is NOT vandalism:

"Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see the dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. See also: Tendentious editing"

How about that? Finally, as for no one supporting my position...there are many, and I am sending them to the article. For the millionth time: I AM NOT PUTTING FALSE INFORMATION ON THERE!!! The conversation occurred after Vernita was killed, the snake IS a black mamba, and Elle did tell that to Bill. It seems to me that you are arguing with me about why you think those facts don't belong, when you know they're correct.79times (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay guys, can we please all stop with the threats and personal attacks; keep things civil and remember to focus on the content - that's the only way we'll be able to find a solution to this dispute.

79times, I'm afraid that the arguments I provided in my previous post have not been countered satisfactorily. Invoking "Common sense" does not really constitute a refutation; please explain exactly what is flawed about the argument I made above concerning the O-Ren/Vernita issue.

You say: "I AM NOT PUTTING FALSE INFORMATION ON THERE!!!" - with respect to the snake/Black Mamba issue, I completely agree with you. If you read my previous arguments again, you will see that I did not once accuse you of supplying false information. All I am saying is that the information provided is not relevant. Remember: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That something is true does not automatically qualify it for inclusion on a page. I reiterate once again that the fact that the snake is a black mamba is not integral to the plot. Your comment that "with that logic, there is no reason to state how any of them were killed" is not representational of my position - we do state how Budd was killed; he was killed by a snake. That is enough for a brief plot summary. (If we include any finer details into the summary, the prose will become too laden and difficult to read, and thus the quality of the summary will degrade.)

Please respond to the arguments that I have provided here, and let's all remember that we're not in a rush; Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, so let's just take our time and sort this situation out in a civil manner. Naviduk (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Naviduk, thank you for allowing me the floor and giving me yet another opportunity to explain the O-Ren/Vernita issue and the black mamba issue. Bill knows that Budd is next because O-Ren and Vernita were killed. Although the small part where Elle calls Bill to tell him that Vernita was dead was not included in the film, everything else about that scene follows the original script. Likewise, there is a chronological order to the chapters and you will notice that chapter 7 does not begin with a black screen; it just picks up immediately after Bill speaks with Budd...the end scene of chapter 6 with Bill and Budd is immediately before chapter 7. With all due respect, I have tried and tried to explain why the snake being a black mamba is integral to the plot. The plot is about The Bride, codename Black Mamba, and her revenge. Elle planted a black mamba, not a cottonmouth, copperhead, sidewinder, western diamondback rattlesnake, eastern diamondback rattlesnake, rock rattlesnake, timber rattlesnake, bushmaster, or any other venomous snake because even though she hates her enemy, she respects her. By planting THIS SPECIFIC snake, The Bride, aka Black Mamba, gets her revenge figuratively. As aforementioned, the plot is about HER revenge period. Thank you for your time. 79times (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for putting forward your arguments. It seems that there are two issues here which we are in dispute over: the O-Ren/Vernita issue and the snake/black mamba issue. With regards to the former, we are arguing over whether the fact that the conversation occurs after Vernita's death is certain or not. However, with regards to the latter, we both agree that the fact that the snake is a black mamba is certain, and are instead arguing over its relevance in the plot summary.

(There is also a third change which you have advanced: the inclusion of the fact that Elle tells Bill that Beatrix killed Budd (gosh that's a lot of names in one sentence! XD); on this point I think we both agree that the detail should certainly be included. However, to allow others to have their say, I think we should hold this off until the whole dispute is settled.)

I'll first tackle the O-Ren/Vernita issue. First allow me to respond to your argument above, before putting forward one of my own. If the Bill/Budd exchange is indeed intended as part of chapter 7, then why did they not put a black screen before the scene, rather than introducing the titles after, in the next scene? Stylistic reasons, perhaps - however, all this is nothing more than speculation and interpretation on our part, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (remember, no original research). I will also quote WP:FILMPLOT here: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." However, all of the above is really peripheral: I just didn't want you to think that I was ignoring the argument that you presented above. Please read below, where I explain what I think constitutes the flesh of this debate.

You might have noticed that the plot summary does not contain any inline citations. This is because the film itself is considered the sole source of the summary. As such, everything described in the plot summary must be verifiable from watching the film. In our case, from watching the film there are two possibilities concerning the timing of the Bill/Budd exchange: 1) It happens after the death of O-Ren but before the death of Vernita, and 2) It happens after the death of Vernita. We cannot be certain, from watching the film, which of these two possibilities are correct (we can of course have our own interpretations, but these are not certainties and definitely not appropriate for Wikipedia). To say that the exchange occurs "after the death of Vernita" is to endorse possibility 2) and to reject possibility 1). However, to say that the exchange occurs "after the death of O-Ren" does not endorse or reject either possibility; it leaves the situation open, as it is left open in the film.

I have a suggestion here which might help us to reach a compromise. I think that the sentence could be reworded so that it reads something along the lines of: "... over four years later, sometime after the killing of O-Ren Ishii..." The addition of "sometime" emphasises further the ambiguity of timing which is found in the film. Please consider this proposition.

I'll now move on to the snake/black mamba issue. Above you state that "By planting THIS SPECIFIC snake, The Bride, aka Black Mamba, gets her revenge figuratively." As obvious as this may seem to you, this constitutes an interpretation of the primary source. You are of course perfectly welcome to include interpretations in the article (as long as they are properly sourced), but not in the plot section (refer to WP:FILMPLOT, quoted above, as well as other policy guidelines). This article doesn't actually have a dedicated interpretation section; perhaps this is something you might like to work on? In any case, a plot summary should be nothing more than a "basic description of [the] plot" (WP:FILMPLOT).

Now let me quickly clarify something: I am not accusing you of trying to include your interpretation itself in the plot summary. What I am trying to say is this: over-emphasising certain details of the plot in order to fit a particular interpretation of the film is not kosher, especially when that interpretation constitutes original research.

Thank you for your time. Naviduk (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Without belaboring these matters, let me express complete agreement with Naviduk's excellent explanations of his points and of Wikipedia policy and style guidelines. Plot summary should be restricted to indisputable description of what is seen in the film, not what might have happened. Any film analysis, whether directly stated or implied, must adhere to two major guidelines: It must be sourced with a reliable source (no original research or speculation), and it does not go in the plot summary. Thanks Naviduk. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Naviduk, I actually considered that proposition of saying something along the lines of: "... over four years later, sometime after the killing of O-Ren Ishii..." I agree that that may fit well here. I want to bring up one more point before completely agreeing with that, however: Budd's hair is exactly the same and he is wearing the same undershirt when he goes to work. This shows that his conversation with Bill occurred the same day. This shows that it is the same day, in addition to what I have already said about the black screen. However, I don't know why they didn't make Chapter 7 start with a black screen before Bill and Budd's conversation, either. I cannot budge on the snake/black mamba issue. It belongs in the plot summary for the reasons that I have stated. This is not my "interpretation", it is made painfully obvious in the film not only by Elle planting the Bride's codename itself, but by her entire lecture to Budd about the black mamba and her regret while he lies dying on the floor. Also, stating what the snake is is not interpreting anything or saying why she planted it. I really do not know why you cannot see the relevance; are you trying not to spoil that integral detail? Besides WP:FILMPLOT, what other policy guidelines are you suggesting? I am glad that we agree on the issue of Elle telling Bill that Beatrix planted the black mamba that killed Budd. That is a lot of names in one sentence. I agree that we should wait on others before including that. Where would you suggest I put an interpretation section? That is an excellent suggestion. Please let me know what you think.

71.77.20.119, I am not trying to include what might have happened in the film. Therefore, I agree with Naviduk's suggestion about the O-Ren/Vernita issue. I will wait to see what he thinks about my final point on that issue, however. As for the snake/black mamba issue, like he said, the snake IS a black mamba, as verified in the film itself. We may have to agree to disagree on why it should be included, as the film makes a point with Elle planting that specific snake and her lecture to Budd. Finally, the issue of Elle telling Bill that Beatrix planted the black mamba that killed Budd should wait on others to comment, even though that was stated in the film.

I look forward to hearing back from you both. 79times (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Your impression that Budd's hair is the same and he's wearing the same shirt illustrates only one fact: that you think it's the same day. It doesn't clearly indicate it's the same day. If I have the same hairstyle and wear the same shirt two different days, all that means is that I have the same hairstyle and wore the same shirt; it doesn't make it the same day. And yes, in fact, it is your interpretation about the significance of the snake being a black mamba, an interpetation that requires a source and belongs somewhere except in the plot summary. If you spent about ten minutes looking, you might actually find a source. If it's an important interpretation, surely you are not the only person in the world to make the interpretation. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You are making this more complicated than it has to be, 71.77.20.119. Why would it not be the same day, especially with the chapter transitioning the way that it does? I would like to see what Naviduk says. Besides that, someone put that The Bride arrived that night, when there is no mention of Budd going to work first. It appears as if someone else realizes that it is the same day. Hmmm... NO, THAT IS NOT MY INTERPRETATION ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SNAKE BEING A BLACK MAMBA. Can you not see how painfully obvious the movie has made it? Like I said, STATING WHAT THE SNAKE IS DOES NOT INTERPRET ANYTHING OR SAY WHY SHE PLANTED IT. The movie itself is the source and interprets that for you. The Bride's codename is Black Mamba. Elle planted a black mamba. I cannot believe you cannot see that. This is ludicrous. Why don't you spend ten minutes explaining why it isn't significant and doesn't belong in the plot summary? So far, you have done no such thing, whereas I have spent more than ten minutes explaining the contrary, which the movie (once again) has made obvious. 79times (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't plan to argue endlessly about this. Please stop yelling (ALL CAPITALS); it accomplishes nothing. Consensus is not determined by how loud you can yell or how many times you can repeat the same argument. Please read WP:CON, WP:FILMPLOT, and any other blue links that have been provided for you. It's your interpretation that the Budd situation is the same day. And I know the snake is a black mamba. The significance of it being a black mamba, however, is a matter of interpretation and does not belong in the plot summary. So wait for consensus to restore it as you had it, or find a source and put it somewhere besides the plot summary. I will respect a clear consensus, but I don't have any more respect for your individual opinion than I do of my opinion or Naviduk's opinion or anyone else's opinion. Now, if you have something new to say, that's fine. But I'm not going back and forth with you again and again about the shirt Budd wore or whether the significance of the black mamba is a matter of interpretation. Thank you. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone able to state the issue involved in 25 words or less, so that editors could vote on it? Gaohoyt (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

25 words or less would be quite a challenge because the film is not shown in chronological order. Trying to summarize in 25 words inevitably will lead to a repeat of most of what's above after the 25 words. But one issue is whether the article should state that O-Ren is killed at the end of Volume 1 (as is shown in the film's sequence), and whether it is clear or ambiguous that Vernita Green was killed at the end of the actual chronological sequence of Volume 1 (and thus it should be stated that Vernita Green died at the end of Volume 1). A related concern is that the article is written in the sequence presented by the film, so is stating that Vernita Green is killed at the end of Volume 1 (if she is, which is a point of debate here) confusing to the reader since the film's sequence shows O-Ren killed at the end of Volume 1? A second issue: It is stated early in the article that The Bride's codename is Black Mamba; later in the article, Budd is killed by a black mamba. Is linking those two facts a matter of interpretation (and thus should not be in the plot summary), or does it belong in the plot summary? That's as few words as I can get it. The nonlinear aspect of the film makes this a rather intricate discussion, so it may be best to read the entire discussion above, which I feel confident will now be repeated. Thanks for your inquiry Gaohoyt. BTW, you probably know this, but consensus is not determined by a majority vote, although straw polls can be useful in helping determine the weight of opinions. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 71’, that saved me some effort. Yes, I’ve been through these things before, including one on this article that proposed splitting it in two, one for each volume. My experience is that once a consensus is apparent, most people will follow it without having to count votes.

In this case the issues are fairly minor. I will give my opinion and maybe that will encourage others to chime in. At one time there was a subsection in tabular form that sequenced the film’s chapters chronologically. I’m not sure what happened to it, I thought it was a good idea. The sequence is pretty apparent from the film, but it is a burden to the reader of the Wikipedia article to have to continually have pointed out what follows what. I don’t think there is any question that the killing of Vernita, Bill’s visit to the hospital to console Sophie, and Bill’s warning to Budd all happen (chronologically) before Beatrix goes to Budd’s trailer. But the relative sequence of those three events is never given in the film, and the article should avoid speculating. In any case, the words “at the end of the first volume” can be eliminated just to tighten things up.

I don’t think the linking of the two black mamba references is only a matter of interpretation. I think the film intends it to establish that Elle’s attempt to frame Beatrix for Budd’s killing was thoroughly planned. But I don’t think it is necessary for the article to point that out. If the reader is told that the snake is a black mamba and (elsewhere) that Beatrix’s code name is Black Mamba, he should make the connection easily enough.

I hope this helps. If you do want a more formal solicitation of opinion, you should start a new section with the issue clearly stated, then people can preface their comments with agree or disagree. You probably know the routine. Gaohoyt (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Gaohoyt. I agree it does not need to be stated that Vernita Green is killed at the end of volume one. I also agree that it does not need to be restated in the context of Budd's death that The Bride's codename is Black Mamba. Let readers draw whatever conclusions about the relationship that might be there. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Okie doke. A lot's gone on here since I last checked,so I'm gonna try and cover this as comprehensively (and quickly) as I can.

Let me start with a quick note of clarification: 71.77.20.119, I think you may have gotten the wrong end of the stick with regards to the O-Ren/Vernita issue. I didn't quite understand the explanation you gave for Gaohoyt. My conception of the issue (and I'm pretty sure that 79times will second this) is as follows:

It primarily concerns the conversation between Bill and Budd that takes place at the beginning of the second volume. The question is whether or not we can be absolutely certain that this conversation occurs after the killing of Vernita Green. I certainly agree that removing "at the end of the first volume" tightens up the text, but it doesn't really have much to do with what we've been debating here. If you skim my previous post (of the 18th June) you should get an idea of where I'm coming from. (In any case, I think we have almost reached a consensus on this issue.)

79times, let me address your response concerning the O-Ren/Vernita issue. I'm glad that you took well to my suggestion. With regards to the last little points you've brought up, my thoughts, for the most part, echo those of 71.77.20.119. The fact that somebody has the same hair and the same undershirt certainly does not prove that it happens on the same day. (In fact, if we consider the character of Budd - an alcoholic slob by this point in this life - it doesn't sound all that unlikely that he would wear the same shirt on different days. In fact, now that I'm skipping through the scenes quickly, the undershirt he's wearing when he meets Elle looks an awful lot like the undershirt he's wearing the night before, when he buries Beatrix.) This certainly damages the same shirt/same day hypothesis. In any case, and as I said before, all of this is just speculation on our part - when all's said and done, we simply do not know whether the Bill/Budd conversation and Beatrix's attack occur on the same day or not.

(You later say: "Besides that, someone put that The Bride arrived that night, when there is no mention of Budd going to work first." When I was restructuring the plot section a few months back, I rearranged the wording to how it currently is. The "that night" is meant to refer to the preceding statement, i.e. that of Budd being "treated poorly by the manager". In retrospect I'll admit that the wording isn't particularly good, and anyone who wants to improve it of course perfectly welcome.)

Now onto the snake/black mamba issue. Let me clarify, once again, that we are not arguing over whether the snake is a black mamba; the film makes this fact perfectly clear, and everyone is in agreement on this point. We are arguing over whether this detail is appropriate for the plot summary. Let me rephrase my previous argument and clarify a few things.

Remember that this plot summary is not meant to be a substitute for the actual film. We are not here to document every single detail in the film, but to make a brief, readable summary of the main elements of the plot. As such, there is a certain level of detail - a level of magnification, if you like - that has been adopted throughout this plot summary. As a result, only reasonably large details are included. If we consider simply the amount of time spent and emphasis placed in the film on the fact that the snake is a black mamba, we will see that it is on par, roughly, with the fact that Buck's truck is called the Pussy Wagon. The latter detail is definitely not included in this plot summary. (There are several other details which also haven't been included.) Therefore, to justify the inclusion of the black mamba detail, you must demonstrate that it is vital to he plot, in a way in which the Pussy Wagon detail is not.

You in fact provided such an explanation a while back: "By planting THIS SPECIFIC snake, The Bride, aka Black Mamba, gets her revenge figuratively." Any way you slice it, this constitutes an interpretation. The fact that your justification for the inclusion of the black mamba detail hinges upon an unsourced interpretation makes it unsatisfactory.

Previously, both myself and 71.77.20.119 have explained why interpretations are not suitable for the plot summary. 71.77.20.119 put it very well: "Any film analysis, whether directly stated or implied ... does not go in the plot summary."

(With regards to this point, you asked what other guidelines I was suggesting: WP:PLOTSUM and, in particular, WP:PLOTSUMNOT are two that immediately spring to mind.)

Peace out. :).Naviduk (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

71.77.20.119, I do not intend to continue arguing about this, either. I am not the one who started this. Please do not misinterpret my all caps for yelling...they are there for emphasis only.

It appears as if Gaohoyt sees where I am coming from with the snake/black mamba issue with this: "I don’t think the linking of the two black mamba references is only a matter of interpretation. I think the film intends it to establish that Elle’s attempt to frame Beatrix for Budd’s killing was thoroughly planned. But I don’t think it is necessary for the article to point that out. If the reader is told that the snake is a black mamba and (elsewhere) that Beatrix’s code name is Black Mamba, he should make the connection easily enough."

Someone else sees that this is not a matter of interpretation, Naviduk. I agree that Elle planted that specific snake on purpose not just to frame Beatrix, but because of her lecture about the black mamba, her respect for her enemy, as well. The snake should be called what it is, but we do not need to reinstate that it is her codename. The Pussy Wagon detail is much less important because the plot is about Black Mamba's revenge. We all agree that Vernita Green was killed second just by watching the film. The exact point in time of Budd and Bill's conversation is obviously uncertain to some, therefore, I agree with you. I am glad that you realize that it was merely a hypothesis for you to consider regarding the same shirt/same day issue. I am not going to continue to tell you, 71.77.20.119, that the source is the movie itself. As I said before, it is ludicrous to argue over that. 79times (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

79times, the consensus clearly is now against your edits, and your continued changes to your version is now clearly edit warring against consensus. Note closely that three editors have taken a position contrary to your edits, and that an editor besides Naviduk and I reverted you. This is not a personal matter between you and me, despite your efforts to make it such. It is simply the way consensus works. I have issued you a final warning, and I have no intention of continuing here with your edit warring. My next step is WP:ANI and WP:AIV. No more warnings on your talk page. No more discussion here. I go straight to those admin pages, and whether you believe it or not, you will be blocked. And then if you continue the same behavior, you can get an indefinite block. The choice is yours. And, in fact, excessive use of caps is generally considered yelling on Wikipedia. Please stop yelling. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

79times, your previous post does not really counter any of the arguments I have set out. The fact that someone else agrees (although only partially) with you doesn't automatically make your position correct. I have explained in meticulous detail why your position employs a large and unsourced interpretation of the film. (Any exploration of the subtext or metaphorical content of a film by definition constitutes an interpretation.)

I'm heading off travelling in a few days, and won't be back for six weeks. In all honesty, I think that I've already said all that I can say on these issues. Continuing the debate would only lead to me repeating myself. For these reasons I won't be contributing any more to this debate.

I'm glad that we've at least come to an agreement on two of the three points. I hope you can all eventually find some reasonable resolution to this final issue. Adios. Naviduk (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

All right, I have created a page called Kill Bill Chronology. 79times, this would be the place to describe the sequencing of minor scenes, not in the main article. Actually, I would appreciate any contributions to it, it is a little incomplete. Gaohoyt (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

volume 2 poorly written

Didn't know I stepped into edit war h*ll. Just thought that volume two was pretty poorly written, with a lot of pivotal stuff, like Kiddo using Budd's supposedly pawned sword to battle Elle, etc, was left out. Tried to spiff it up a bit but got reversed. Not realizing that I was reversed (thought I made a dumb mistake) I edited it again and got reversed again on the grounds that I had made it to lengthy. Maybe explaining the scene in which the Five Point Exploding Heart technique was introduced within the sequence in which it appeared in the movie, rather that in parenthesis after the fact, made it a little longer, but it made it better to read. If you want it to keep on sucking, it is okay with me, but I think that it is strange that most of the scenes you want minimized are the one with Bill in them.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks for your efforts to improve the article. There were some aspects of your summary that I liked, although I wouldn't say the current version "sucks". I'd suggest condensing yours to about the length of the current summary, then post it in your sandbox and let us know. Then we can see what everyone thinks. BTW, there really wasn't an edit war; just a request that you open the issue up for discussion. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that, since this is just a B-rated article, the thing you could have done was keep the edits you liked, and rationalize the ones you thought needed to be deleted, rather than reverse the entire re-write (especially while I was still doing the edit). I'm not planning to take any more time here. You have the changes I would make, if you like them, keep them, if you don't, oh, well, (I think the abundant use of parenthesis is enough to demonstrate that the article truly does suck). When I referred to this as an edit war, I wasn't talking about your reversals, I was referring to the fact that I just scrolled through three miles of discussion to get to this section. You would think that the article was about something important. Anyway, you might want to consider the kind of information that someone reading the article might want. In one discussion here, for example, someone asks what kind of car Bill drives. There is an answer, but it is not in the article. So do you think someone who just saw the flick on TNT thought that maybe Wikipedia might know what kind of car that was? And, btw, my edits brought the printed content of the section from 1.5 pages to 2 pages. I don't think two pages is too much summary for such a long, convoluted movie. Take Care, --Ishtar456 (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

parenthesis and inferences

I think that there are multiple problems with this article with much of the the plot summary put into parenthesis. I think that in an attempt to keep the plot summary short, too much has been left out causing editors to have to back pedal to add pertinent information. For example, if the scene in which Bill first tells Kiddo about the five point exploding heart tech., had been accurately depicted there would be no reason to add the fact as an out of sequenced after thought. also, a lot of inferences are included in the current version. For example, the article says that Kiddo is horrified to discover that she is no longer pregnant. That is an inference, not a plot summary. I inference at that point in the movie that she was horrified by the fact that she was about to be raped. These movies are fairly long, and convoluted. There are a lot of flashbacks and it is entirely out of sequence, so why not do it justice and include the pertinent detail in the plot summary and not water it down? Just a suggestion. Forgive my spelling, I have a new browser and I don't know what happened to my spell checker. --Ishtar456 (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Beyond Movie Violence

I have removed this unsourced information:

One incident reported about three men watching Kill bill movies when one of them grabbed a samurai sword and killed two men without noticing. News 12 had some people talk and they said that"They didn't know this was going to happen to these men who were watching a film and pretending like a "Ninja sneaked up on them" without even calling 9-1-1".The film company apologized to the police about it and was fined beyond $100,000.The man was arrested later that night while people who loved them were in full tears for their loved ones to be buried.

Feel free to put it back with a source, and some serious copyediting. TremorMilo (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)