That is interesting. If that is true then my opinion is pretty damn silly and on reflection I can see how some of the story elements of KB2 could have been intended for KB1. And to answer your earlier question it would have been better to have one cohesive story thread, no matter how long, rather than the product we paid to see (twice).
Economics dictate film length to some degree. Shorter films = more showings per day at the gigaplex = more money generated for all involved.
Also, may filmgoers are scared off by a very long film, as they may have either a short attention span (damn you, television) or a hard time getting away from their real lives to take in a film.
As for myself, I wouold happily sit through a showing of Gone With the Wind that included the overtures and the intermission and took damn near half a day, but that’s just me.
I liked both films in the two-film format. I already own them both so I probably won’t buy a super-secret special edition unless it really says something new!
Here’s what Quentin says about the decision to split the movies up:
Now, people shoot too much for movies all the time. People have to cut out stuff that works for the sake of the whole all the time. Just watch the special editions of the Lord of the Rings movies to see an example of this. Quentin was unwilling to do this, and, because he had the clout and Weinstein saw dollar signs, he split it into two movies. It was undisciplied, indulgent moviemaking, but it turned out OK. I would just love to see how it looked as one movie, with the fat cut out. But I guess Harvey had a boat payment due, and Quentin hadn’t made a movie in a while, and all those drugs aren’t going to pay for themselves…
But, looking at it another way, it’s an experiement in structure as two movies. Instead of your usual three-act play, it’s a five or six act play. So, it’s interesting, but I still don’t find it completely satisfying.
I disagree that making relatively lengthier works (such as Kill Bill vol 1 & 2 or The Lord of the Rings extended versions, or any other unusually extended film) is undisciplined and indulgent. I actually see it as a sign of respect to the viewer, the ability of a director and house to provide more than the standard fare expected by the average moviegoer. In that sense, I actually feel (if anything) that the LOTR cinematic releases were indulgent and undisciplined, because they pandered to the dollar signs and approval ratings of the average cinema viewer who expected an act-based product of a specific length, rather than a product that stayed true to the story and world of the written works.
I also disagree with any convention that says a narrative must be split into formulaic acts. As far as I was concerned, KB worked just fine as two movies, but I do agree that it may have been a bit too long to hold attention had it been unified[sup]*[/sup]. I didn’t really notice too many scenes that could have been cut either – and, having met some of the Hong Kong experts that worked on the films, I know they left materials on the editing floor, it’s not like they included everything they were able to just to make two films instead of one.
[sup]*[/sup] = on the other hand, I feel that the extended LOTR movies could have been played in cinemas and the abridged versions ditched entirely, instead of squeezing for every last DVD sales dollar as is the present case. We’re talking about one of the greatest narrative works of the 20th century here; KB, though fun and entertaining, is not in the same narrative league and may not have been able to hold attention for too long in spite of its dashing visual style and musical selection.