Honestly, what are your thoughts on Kill Bill?

[Prison Mike]

I haven't seen the Kill Bill movies but after watching Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained, I'm definitely interested.

 

[Project862006]

was'nt Chloe Moretz rumored to play Beatrix's daughter for Vol.3?

 

[Lord]

I haven't seen the Kill Bill movies but after watching Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained, I'm definitely interested.

Quentin Tarantino is the kind of guy that wants every one of his film to be good, i remember in an interview that he said he wanted people to watch one of his film and want to get more. Even his weakest films are worth watching, but he's definitelly not for everybody, i have a friend that can't sit through Pulp Fiction and found Django Unchained boring.

 

[James]

^He actually has stated that the film probably won't get made.

Sucks cause I was looking forward to learning more about Vernita she was the only character that the audience didn't really get a back story for.

That doesn't surprise me, he's never been one for sequels. Even Kill Bill was originally one film, I believe.

 

[Lord]

That doesn't surprise me, he's never been one for sequels. Even Kill Bill was originally one film, I believe.

I wouldn't mind it, the problem is he promised and hyped me too much for that film

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

I'd rather he do something other than KB3 since Tarantino himself said his career is coming to a end soon. He wants to make ten good movies or quit by the time he is 60.

 

[Teelie]

That doesn't surprise me, he's never been one for sequels. Even Kill Bill was originally one film, I believe.

It was supposed to be one very long movie with an intermission but the studio and theaters felt that was not a good idea and scrapped it which meant two movies instead. Probably for the better since that means instead of trying to sit through one four hour movie you can watch it in two parts and not worry about missing anything. Also makes watching it at home easier.

What I wish we had was the "Whole Bloody Affair" DVD release we did not get in North America.

 

[Heretic]

I can't even think about Kill Billl rationally. That Superman speech near the end...it got the character so wrong...poisoned so many people's minds about what Superman is...altered the general, non-Superman reading public's view of the character...and in some ways possibly even led to the idea of a dark, grim, immoral reboot of the character...that I not only can't enjoy Kill Bill, I can't enjoy anything that Tarantino touches.

 

[Lord]

I can't even think about Kill Billl rationally. That Superman speech near the end...it got the character so wrong...poisoned so many people's minds about what Superman is...altered the general, non-Superman reading public's view of the character...and in some ways possibly even led to the idea of a dark, grim, immoral reboot of the character...that I not only can't enjoy Kill Bill, I can't enjoy anything that Tarantino touches.

Uhm, not really. I know it varies from reader to reader, but in my opinion Bill's analysis of Superman was spot on, Clark Kent is the disguise, Superman is the real deal, the character free to do what he wants to do with his powers without restraints.

It started in the Golden age this way, and is still mostly written this way

 

[Tanin]

What I wish we had was the "Whole Bloody Affair" DVD release we did not get in North America.

This cut has never been released on DVD or Blu Ray anywhere. Or I would own it regardless of region.

 

[Teelie]

I don't remember the speech but I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with the existing "dark, gritty" interpetation which has been making the rounds of most superhero movies for years. Particularly D.C. material since Batman is the primary reason for it. And I really doubt that it had anything to do with altering the public perception of Superman either.

Kill Bill came out years ago and it was such a small part of the movie it is irrelevant to the overall mythos of Superman.

This cut has never been released on DVD or Blu Ray anywhere. Or I would own it regardless of region.

I have seen this for sale in other regions, although it may be a bootleg/unofficial version of the two movies, I was certain it was legit though.

 

[Heretic]

Uhm, not really. I know it varies from reader to reader, but in my opinion Bill's analysis of Superman was spot on, Clark Kent is the disguise, Superman is the real deal, the character free to do what he wants to do with his powers without restraints.

It started in the Golden age this way, and is still mostly written this way

Ah yes...the Golden Age Superman that tortures people etc...the version that was retconned out and everyone was glad to see disappear into the past...until they needed it to defend Man of Steel.

Superman was truly defined with the relaunch...that is where we got the Big Blue Boy Scout stuff. That Superman is most certainly Clark Kent, with Superman as the disguise. In fact...it is important to keep that intact, as it shows a difference with Batman. Batman IS Batman...he thinks about being Batman all day while he has to pretend to care about being Bruce Wayne. Superman is supposed to differ from him in important ways...one of which is that Superman is really just a simple, kind, moral farmboy. He doesn't see himself as a super man. You know...kind of like how Superman shouldn't kill, because Wonder Woman kills...and she thinks that Superman is naive and not truly able to handle the important situations because he can't make the difficult choices. If Superman kills, it makes him no different from Wonder Woman and therefore really makes her presence useless (or, as in the comics...it leads to him being emotionally destroyed, exiling himself from earth and leading to depression...which none of us should want in a Superman story).

Basically what DC is trying to do...what the Man of Steel defenders want...is for the definitive Superman (an 80's creation...that pro-America, capitalist, probably Christian Conservative idealist with super-morality) to be wiped away...and to be replaced by someone "cooler" and more like Batman. DC has a Trinity for a reason...because these characters play off of each other in important ways. DC has a HUGE problem with duplicating characters...so it is VITAL that they keep their main character's traits from blending into each other,

 

[Tanin]

Golden Age... Silver Age... he is even written that way in stories now. Get over the fact the character can be viewed in more then one way.

 

[Teelie]

Basically what DC is trying to do...what the Man of Steel defenders want...is for the definitive Superman (an 80's creation...that pro-America, capitalist, probably Christian Conservative idealist with super-morality) to be wiped away...and to be replaced by someone "cooler" and more like Batman.

Actually you have it backwards there. They openly and actively promoted Man of Steel as a Jesus allegory in churches to get the Conservative Christian audience. One that also goes for all the pro-America, super moral and Republican line of thinking. And if my inlaws are anything to judge by (the exact target they aimed for) they hit the bullseye square in the center. They even said he was like Jesus in metaphor.

Sure. this Superman is darker, he's responsible for death but the ideal he upholds trumped that, at least to the majority of their audience seeing as the movie has done well.

 

[Heretic]

Actually you have it backwards there. They openly and actively promoted Man of Steel as a Jesus allegory in churches to get the Conservative Christian audience. One that also goes for all the pro-America, super moral and Republican line of thinking. And if my inlaws are anything to judge by (the exact target they aimed for) they hit the bullseye square in the center. They even said he was like Jesus in metaphor.

Sure. this Superman is darker, he's responsible for death but the ideal he upholds trumped that, at least to the majority of their audience seeing as the movie has done well.

Where is the Jesus allegory in Man of Steel? IT ISNT THERE. People think they see it there because of what we all know about Superman from the past few decades of character building. Where is he really Super in the film aside from powers? Superman would allow himself to get beat down while saving innocents...and in this movie Superman was more concerned about fighting than saving (unless Lois Lane was falling from the sky again).

In Man of Steel, he is a morally conflicted character, being taught by his parents that maybe you should let people die to protect yourself. Steal if it makes things easier...be petty and destroy people's lives and public and private property if it helps you get across a petty grudge against someone you don't know.

Oh sure...make no mistake...they showed Clark in a few Jesus poses...and made sure to place him in a church to show an image of Jesus had Clark in the same shot...but this was a lazy way of saying "you all know Superman is Christ-like...we don't have to actually show him being Christ-like." They rely on the REAL version of Superman as a cheap gimmick, while not actually giving us that Superman.

Superman is supposed to be inspiring...he is the Man of Tomorrow that we all strive to be. I should be able to watch Man of Steel and say "this makes me want to be a better person because I CAN overcome from weaknesses and succeed in ways I never thought I could." Instead...I actually already am a better person than the guy in Man of Steel! I am MORE self-sacrificing than he is! In fact...it taught me the complete wrong message. Superman was stronger than his opponent...but his opponent was a better strategist, probably much smarter. How did Superman win? Did he overcome his weaknesses to succeed? No...he used his one advantage...his strength...to snap his opponents neck. The lesson there is...when you have a problem...make sure you have dominating power over that problem...otherwise, you're screwed. Well...what if I'm NOT more powerful than my next problem? Does that mean it'll break my neck??? Does that mean it SHOULD???? I should not walk out of a Superman movie knowing for a FACT that I am a better man than Superman who makes more moral choices in my life.

 

[Teelie]

Don't ask me where the allegory is, I'm not the one who sold it as that. All of your complaints may be valid, I have not watched the movie myself yet and I am in no way justifiying any of the claims, merely reporting the way and results of it's marketing.

All that said, there are a lot of people who also believe Superman is an impossible character to make into a movie because of a list of reasons ranging from the way he must handle conflict to the extent of his powers and the way he must hold back to prevent killing people or not do so and lose his "do no harm" style of protecting.

 

[Warhammer]

When I entered this thread, I could have sworn it was about Kill Bill.

 

[Warhammer]

Where is the Jesus allegory in Man of Steel? IT ISNT THERE. People think they see it there because of what we all know about Superman from the past few decades of character building. Where is he really Super in the film aside from powers? Superman would allow himself to get beat down while saving innocents...and in this movie Superman was more concerned about fighting than saving (unless Lois Lane was falling from the sky again).

In Man of Steel, he is a morally conflicted character, being taught by his parents that maybe you should let people die to protect yourself. Steal if it makes things easier...be petty and destroy people's lives and public and private property if it helps you get across a petty grudge against someone you don't know.

Oh sure...make no mistake...they showed Clark in a few Jesus poses...and made sure to place him in a church to show an image of Jesus had Clark in the same shot...but this was a lazy way of saying "you all know Superman is Christ-like...we don't have to actually show him being Christ-like." They rely on the REAL version of Superman as a cheap gimmick, while not actually giving us that Superman.

Superman is supposed to be inspiring...he is the Man of Tomorrow that we all strive to be. I should be able to watch Man of Steel and say "this makes me want to be a better person because I CAN overcome from weaknesses and succeed in ways I never thought I could." Instead...I actually already am a better person than the guy in Man of Steel! I am MORE self-sacrificing than he is! In fact...it taught me the complete wrong message. Superman was stronger than his opponent...but his opponent was a better strategist, probably much smarter. How did Superman win? Did he overcome his weaknesses to succeed? No...he used his one advantage...his strength...to snap his opponents neck. The lesson there is...when you have a problem...make sure you have dominating power over that problem...otherwise, you're screwed. Well...what if I'm NOT more powerful than my next problem? Does that mean it'll break my neck??? Does that mean it SHOULD???? I should not walk out of a Superman movie knowing for a FACT that I am a better man than Superman who makes more moral choices in my life.

Alright man, I'm just gonna tell it to you how it is. You're not wrong of your perception of Superman. However, your perception, while passionate, isn't the universal or absolute view that all Superman fans share. You need to calm down.

 

[CB Fan]

I wouldn't mind it, the problem is he promised and hyped me too much for that film

Yeah from 2004 to 2011 he hyped the film up saying he wanted a release in 2014 then once Django was released and reporters started asking him if he was gearing up for the Kill Bill sequel he said it wasn't happening, not cool T not cool...

 

[Lord]

Ah yes...the Golden Age Superman that tortures people etc...the version that was retconned out and everyone was glad to see disappear into the past...until they needed it to defend Man of Steel.

Superman was truly defined with the relaunch...that is where we got the Big Blue Boy Scout stuff. That Superman is most certainly Clark Kent, with Superman as the disguise. In fact...it is important to keep that intact, as it shows a difference with Batman. Batman IS Batman...he thinks about being Batman all day while he has to pretend to care about being Bruce Wayne. Superman is supposed to differ from him in important ways...one of which is that Superman is really just a simple, kind, moral farmboy. He doesn't see himself as a super man. You know...kind of like how Superman shouldn't kill, because Wonder Woman kills...and she thinks that Superman is naive and not truly able to handle the important situations because he can't make the difficult choices. If Superman kills, it makes him no different from Wonder Woman and therefore really makes her presence useless (or, as in the comics...it leads to him being emotionally destroyed, exiling himself from earth and leading to depression...which none of us should want in a Superman story).

Basically what DC is trying to do...what the Man of Steel defenders want...is for the definitive Superman (an 80's creation...that pro-America, capitalist, probably Christian Conservative idealist with super-morality) to be wiped away...and to be replaced by someone "cooler" and more like Batman. DC has a Trinity for a reason...because these characters play off of each other in important ways. DC has a HUGE problem with duplicating characters...so it is VITAL that they keep their main character's traits from blending into each other,

Huh? While i found The Man of Steel entertaining i found it a bad film and disliked their portrayal of Superman. Let me tell you i liked Grant Morrison's reboot of Action Comics, why? Because i loved the Golden Age Superman, and he paid tribute to it, i like Superman's powers progressing, instead of the character being overpowered since the begining. I like Superman defending ideals and dealing with more real issues, issues that were prevalent in the 30s and still matter today.

Superman didn't torture in the golden age, he forced people into facing the problems they started, but he was still a defender of the ideals of Truth and Justice (and the Amercian way, but whatever but those ideals Basically exist in the whole world, not just America). He was still a voice of reason and experience, he's the pillar from which the Superman you know was built so you should pay more respect.

As i said the way he's portrayed varies from writer to writer, but most of the times Clark Kent is indeed the disguise. For me Batman isn't the real deal, i allways interpreted that Bruce Wayne and Batman were both parts of the same person, this has been more and more shown with Bruce not drinking alcohol, using his wealth to help the city, etc.

 

[Teelie]

When I entered this thread, I could have sworn it was about Kill Bill.

It became Kill Superman somewhere along the way. I've noticed threads will temporarily morph into another discussion before veering back on track sometimes.

To bring myself back on track, the Superman bit I'd have to rewatch in Kill Bill near the end to see it but I still stand by my belief it did nothing to alter the previous Man of Steel changes to Superman's mythos.

 

[Heretic]

When I entered this thread, I could have sworn it was about Kill Bill.

It is about Kill Bill. Tarantino forced a new view of Superman onto the world...a view that suggests that Superman thinks that we are dimwitted and clumsy...and the way he acts as Clark is how he views the entirety of humanity....with almost a disgusting lack of respect.

My point is that this alone was enough to keep me from enjoying Kill Bill.

 

[BlackFox]

Kill Bill part 1 was stunning but could never really get into part 2.

 

[Warhammer]

It is about Kill Bill. Tarantino forced a new view of Superman onto the world...a view that suggests that Superman thinks that we are dimwitted and clumsy...and the way he acts as Clark is how he views the entirety of humanity....with almost a disgusting lack of respect.

My point is that this alone was enough to keep me from enjoying Kill Bill.

Are you serious? I honestly can't tell if you are being a troll or being serious because if it's the latter, that is the biggest overreaction I've seen in a hot minute.

Kill Bill part 1 was stunning but could never really get into part 2.

Surprisingly, for as action packed as Part 1 is, I much preferred the more plot driven Part 2. Tarantino's talent shined more in that one.

 

[Heretic]

Huh? While i found The Man of Steel entertaining i found it a bad film and disliked their portrayal of Superman. Let me tell you i liked Grant Morrison's reboot of Action Comics, why? Because i loved the Golden Age Superman, and he paid tribute to it, i like Superman's powers progressing, instead of the character being overpowered since the begining. I like Superman defending ideals and dealing with more real issues, issues that were prevalent in the 30s and still matter today.

Superman didn't torture in the golden age, he forced people into facing the problems they started, but he was still a defender of the ideals of Truth and Justice (and the Amercian way, but whatever but those ideals Basically exist in the whole world, not just America). He was still a voice of reason and experience, he's the pillar from which the Superman you know was built so you should pay more respect.

As i said the way he's portrayed varies from writer to writer, but most of the times Clark Kent is indeed the disguise. For me Batman isn't the real deal, i allways interpreted that Bruce Wayne and Batman were both parts of the same person, this has been more and more shown with Bruce not drinking alcohol, using his wealth to help the city, etc.

So...you think that Bruce Wayne has found a healthy balance between billionaire playboy and vigilante? THAT is how you view Batman...as a guy who wakes up, puts on a suit and thinks about being Bruce Wayne, and then when the sun goes down he puts on another suit? See, that isn't the Batman I know. To me, Bruce is OBSESSED with fighting crime. The murder of his parents permanently broke his psyche...and he has spent his entire life obsessed...training himself to ridiculous levels...paranoid even of his "friends"...because he feels that he must somehow "fix" what broke him. By saying that Bruce has balanced being a hero with being a normal guy, it changes a vital aspect of the character.

In my mind, Superman is not Superman because of chance of birth. Yeah, he has powers because of chance of birth...but that doesn't make him Superman. It is the Kent part of him that makes him Superman. Had he been raised by any different family, in any different part of the world, he would not be the Man of Tomorrow, the Big Blue Boy Scout. He might be a communist, or a petty, selfish man. By changing it so that he is Superman, and the kind, moral farm boy is a disguise, you are radically changing the character...giving an excuse to make him morally conflicted, as imperfect as we are...clearly a Man of Today, with all of the flaws that we deal with.