Wow, I can’t believe someone hasn’t posted this already (am I missing something?), but there’s a reference to Superman in “Kill Bill Vol. 2” which is highly interesting since it basically flies in the face of JB’s interpretation of the character. Essentially, toward the end, David Caradine is comparing Uma Thurman to a superhero. He talks about Superman, and describes Clark Kent as merely a hollow disguise. By putting on glasses and acting all klutzy Clark is, in a sense, Superman’s critique of humanity. Which is, of course, essentially how it was, prior to JB’s revamp. Anyway, just wondering if JB or anyone else here has some thoughts on the whole issue.
BTW, “Vol. 2” is remarkable! I liked “Vol. 1,” but “Vol. 2” is by far the best thing that Quentin’s done since “Pulp Fiction.” The action sequences are smaller in scale but more personally intense, and the whole thing ends up being an amazing character study of Uma’s Bride. During a weekend when I desperately needed something to take my mind off the heartache of losing my girlfriend, this flick really saved my life. Thanks, QT!
So, how anyone here seen “Punisher” yet?
This message has been edited by MattReed on Apr 19, 2004 8:45 PM
Elvis Mitchell's review said this dialogue was a lift from Jules Feiffer's book "The Great Comic Book Heroes" - does anyone know if this is true?
We talked about this Saturday, as Matt mentioned on the LAJBF thread. I didn't agree with the theory and felt the secret identity represented the duality of the characters mentioned. Rather than Clark being inferior to Superman as Tarantino's Bill framed his argument, I feel the Superman and Clark are two halves of a whole that cannot be split. You cannot have one without the other and they are equal and equally important to the myth. I thought it would make sense that a murderer like Bill would misinterpret the hero myth, but if it's a direct lift from Feiffer, maybe I'm wrong.
I was surprised that the movie was so subdued compared to the first, but it has really grown on me and stayed with me since the weekend
(spellink)
This message has been edited by TimONeill on Apr 19, 2004 2:13 PM
My problem with Part 2 is that it is supposed to be more chracter driven, but his use of shifting film genre styles keeps us at a distance from really feeling for the characters. The scenes that show the Bride/Beatrix's training are funny, but her master is too much of a caricature for me to care about him or to believe in Beatrix's training. The upshot of Tarantino's literal visual quoting of different genre's robs us of feeling for teh characters. I didn't feel that about "Resevoir Dogs" and found it amped up teh intensity. But "Pulp Fictiuon" kept me at a distance, too. I still like KB2 and PF, though.
Kill Bill Vol 2 did the same thing that Matrix Reloaded did, it reached a point where it needed a 40 minute conversation to explain things at the end. The ending was a major snooze fest done in Tarantino's typical slow, drawn out dialog. The Superman conversation digusted me because it sounded like typical deconstructionist bullshit and this is probably how Hollywood sees Superman and comics in general.
I saw Kill Bill and Punisher this weekend, and I enjoyed Punisher alot more.
The Superman conversation digusted me because it sounded like typical deconstructionist bullshit and this is probably how Hollywood sees Superman and comics in general.
*********
One could hope that by having the villain deliver this speech, that would, therefore, invalidate it -- but, unfortunately, that's not what will happen.
Kill Bill Vol 2 did the same thing that Matrix Reloaded did, it reached a point where it needed a 40 minute conversation to explain things at the end. The ending was a major snooze fest done in Tarantino's typical slow, drawn out dialog. The Superman conversation digusted me because it sounded like typical deconstructionist bullshit and this is probably how Hollywood sees Superman and comics in general.
I totally disagree. I thought the ending was powerful and loved, loved, loved the dialogue between Bill and the Bride. I wouldn't compare it to MATRIX RELOADED at all as that movie was so horrible as to provoke sleep induced depression. As to the Superman discussion, it's been around much longer than deconstruction has been associated with comic books. Discussions of Superman/Clark Kent were going on in the 60s and 70s, as I remember them from childhood. It all depends on which Superman you associate with; the Curt Swan version or the Man Of Steel version. I didn't get a BS vibe from it at all, nor do I see it as a comment on how Hollywood sees comic books. It certainly wasn't derogatory because it says the ultimate character is Superman, the man in the costume. If it was deriding comic books, they'd say it was Clark.
To Tim's comments; The different film stock and visual style used during the training scenes differentiated that portion of the movie enough for me to justify the over-the-top acting style of the mentor. That part of the film is the real throw back to 70s Hong Kong Kung-Fu films so, taken in that vein, I associated with the character and felt bad when his ultimate end was revealed.
>> I associated with the character and felt bad when his ultimate end was revealed.<<
Having not seen the film yet, can I assume that his fate is that he's the long lost Shaw Brother?
Funny story - when I got the airport, my flight was overbooked, and they were offering $200 to take a flight the next day - I almost took the cash, with a plan to run back to the theatre to meet you guys - but, you know, the missus demanded I come home. Ah, Home.
I was sufficiently disappointed with "Vol. 1" that I plan to give "Vol. 2" a miss. This threadbare story is not worth 4 hours of my life.
**************************************************************
A rare moment of JB and I agreeing absolutely on a movie. I thought KB1 sucked and I won't be there for 2.
____________________________________________
You are a god among insects. Never let anyone tell you different.
It's a good feeling, Melissa - when I first popped up on the JBF, lo, those two years ago, I was sad to find that JB was not receptive to my plan of increasing everyone's taxes... and then it all went downhill from there - but I quickly found that JB and I had stunningly similar taste in film - well... except for his tragic character flaw of not understanding that Star Wars sucks, and Empire Strikes Back is the BEST!
It's just that Star Wars is a MOVIE. You need to see it on the big screen to fully appreciate it. Empire works just as well on TV.
Plus while I think Empire's "deeper", it's simply not a continuation of Star Wars. From an artistic standpoint, Lucas would've been far better off using the ideas in that story in a completely new setting, not the galaxy far, far away.
EDIT to seperate the union of "not" and "the".
This message has been edited by GreggAllinson on Apr 19, 2004 6:50 PM
Precisely right. STAR WARS, in the hands of a single guiding creator, has suffered the same fate suffered by STAR TREK while passing thru many hands. The beginning and the end fit together, but only if we leave out the middle.
"Enterprise" segues neatly into the ST of the first movie, but it does not serve as a proper precursor to TOS.
"Attack of the Clones" belongs to the same chain as "Empire Strikes Back" -- but not if "A New Hope" (which will always be STAR WARS to me) is to be a link.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever! You guys are all excited about a Kurosawa remake!
(And before I have to hear that's it's supposed to be a new Flash Gordon, might I add that Lucas was dropping Kurosawa's name around the same time he was waxing about Flash Gordon! It's a mix of the two.)
But! Since we're talking about putting different stories into a "galaxy far, far away..." ... have any of you seen the latest issue of Star Wars Tales from Dark Horse??
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
It's got the best little story in it, and if I were George Lucas, I'd JUMP on it and film it, while the next Indy Jones film in in production - it would be a ten min short, that would restore Lucas' fallen reputation in the eyes of many bitter gen-x'ers, and would make a NIFTY short to show before Indy Jones IV, or added onto the DVD -
Anyway - here's the story - Han and Chewie, getting up there in years, are in some sort of space fight - and they're way outnumbered, the falcon is on it's last legs, and they're in TROUBLE! They need to escape, but QUICK! So they jump to lightspeed, desperately hoping they won't crash into a star, or planet or even a piece of space junk, and ... somehow... they make it...
Still "A long time ago...", according to the caption. They're in an unfamiliar solar system, and there's no signs of technology, and only one planet with life readings - they crash the falcon hard into the planet, which Han notes, looks like Endor, and they get out to explore...
And are ambushed by Native Americans - it's a short fight - Chewie brutally murders all the NA's, but Han took a few too many arrows, and is mortally wounded. Chewie takes Han back to what's left of the Falcon, and lays his body in the Captian's seat, mournfully, as the Natives outside the ship call Chewie "Sasquatch".
Cut to: 170 (I think?) years later... Indiana Jones is searching for Sasquatch, led by a NA guide, and stumbles upon what's left of the Falcon, and finds the skeleton of Han Solo, but Chewie (Sasquatch) stays just of sight, hiding in the background.
And are ambushed by Native Americans - it's a short fight - Chewie brutally murders all the NA's, but Han took a few too many arrows, and is mortally wounded. Chewie takes Han back to what's left of the Falcon, and lays his body in the Captian's seat, mournfully, as the Natives outside the ship call Chewie "Sasquatch".
Cut to: 170 (I think?) years later... Indiana Jones is searching for Sasquatch, led by a NA guide, and stumbles upon what's left of the Falcon, and finds the skeleton of Han Solo, but Chewie (Sasquatch) stays just of sight, hiding in the background.
No. Cute gag for a comic, but no way would I want to see it become a movie.
And yeah, Star Wars was a mix of a bunch of things, not just Flash Gordon and Akira Kurosawa, but also much of Jack Kirby's work. Lucas himself pitched it as "James Bond meets 2001" (check out the outstanding Starkiller site for more info) and the Tatooine/Anchorhead bits are obviously autobiographical (do you think it's a coincidence that the lead character is a young man named "Luke S." hotrodding around and trying to escape his humdrum existence in a sunny atmosphere?). Besides, what the heck's wrong with Kurosawa? Even his remakes (like Throne of Blood) are pretty darn good too!
No, no, I have no problem with Kurosawa - in fact, I love the stuff (being a MacBeth obsessive, I love "Throne Of Blood") but all too often, as a justification for liking Star Wars and not the sequels, I hear the same mantra about how Star Wars is Lucas's take on Flash Gordon and Saturday Morning Sci-Fi serials, and so on, and speaking as someone who doesn't care that much for Sci-Fi (eep! Can I say that here?) - I like to constantly remind people that, yes, those are two acknowledged inspirations for Star Wars, but that it has so many other - the autobiographical aspect, the fact that it's the same story as Akira Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress (a samuri film), and so on...
And I guess that's where I differ on it - it has been suggested that perhaps I wasn't alive to see Star Wars in the theatre, and there was surprize when I noted that in fact, I had - surely, it has been said, I would revere the original, and poo-poo the sequals, no?
No. I loved the original. C'mon, how could I not, I was 5. Back then, I still thought Spielberg was watchable. But deep down inside, I'm not a big Sci-Fi guy, and THAT is what I don't have an attachment to - the Flash Gordon, the Saturday Morning Sci-Fi serials, etc. I don't dislike Sci-Fi, in fact, when done by someone I enjoy, say, John Byrne, for example, I think it's great, but it's not my literary or cinematic genre of choice.
Which would be crime fiction, and considering that Empire was co-written by Leigh Bracket - well, one can see where how I shape my affections.
And it's true, Star Wars is a different film from the other 5 films (let's be real here - Ep III ain't going to be any different from the last 4!) - but that's not a bone of contention with me - in fact, I like Star Wars the least of the bunch. I prefer the generational saga of good, evil and redemption. I prefer the grim nihilistic messages of Empire, as opposed to the mockable over-played melodrama of Star Wars (how can anyone look at the ham-fistededness of the film after seeing Ernie Fossilus's Hardware Wars?)
As much as I loved Star Wars as a kid - and it was because it was this great space fantasy, not because it was a great piece of cinema - recall, I was, what, 4? - as much as I loved it, Empire blew me away. And changed the way I look at the world, much less cinema. Honestly? The world is an ugly place filled with bad people and you will never win. And that's the message that was pounded home to me in Empire, and it gave me, at what was I, 6, maybe? It gave me the first taste of stability in life - before seeing that, I wondered why life seemed so unfair - and then it dawned on me that the whole kit and caboodle was an unfair game that was rigged against you, and you just had to make the best of it, till the end, when you meet your demise.
And I've been doing A-OK ever since!
What's more - I disagree about seeing Empire on the Big Screen - I can STILL recall, perfectly, the feeling in my stomache that I got, when I first saw the film at the Northpoint Theatre in San Francisco (Empire was the only SW film to not play the Coronet - Which is OK - the Northpoint was Lucas's other fave theatre, and was where American Graphitti played.) - when the snow-speeder is flying over the hills of snow. The giant shots of the Cloud City, on the big screen? I'm getting chills just thinking of them.
But I guess putting aside Star Wars, I think all films are meant to be seen projected onto the wall, 50 feet high, in a dark room. The fact that the rest of humanity has to screw up the experience by talking, eating loudly, stinking, etc... well, that's that "life sucks" message of Empire again for you.
And, finally, I do think it would be a good charming thing to film that short story - because it doesn't hurt anything - it's just a short - and the story, as written, only has Han and Chewie, so, if you have Harrison Ford playing Indy anyway, it's easy enough to get him in another costume, and what's Peter Mayhew doing these days? (I know, conventions.) And it would be - get this, this is the important clincher - fun. And one of the legitimate complaints about the new SW films is that they lack the fun of having Ford's Han Solo - well... here he is. Let's face facts, we're not going to get an Episode VII. Even if Lucas wanted to do it, he's too old. But this could be put together for peanuts, and would look great, and would be a fun final adventure. A good little dessert, if you will.
"Star Wars is total fantasy for today's kids who don't have the opportunity to grow up watching Flash Gordon and have to sit through movies of insecurity instead (like Earthquake or Towering Inferno)."
-George Lucas, 1976
That about says it all for me- both why I love Star Wars and why Empire (cast and setting notwithstanding) is not a sequel to Star Wars.
Re: Superman & “Kill Bill” (minor spoilers) Thread drift to Star Wars films
April 20 2004, 10:09 AM
Why would an archeologist be looking for Sasquatch?
Damn. Beat me to it.
Please tell me they had the esteemed Dr. Jones examining Native American archeology, and just happened to stumble across the Falcon's remains?
The main motivation of Indiana Jones is to find things that "belong in a museum", not "witchcraft and folklore". That ending (as it was described) betrays a terrible lack of knowledge about the character.
The main motivation of Indiana Jones is to find things that "belong in a museum", not "witchcraft and folklore". That ending (as it was described) betrays a terrible lack of knowledge about the character.
**********************
Or the typical fanboy's "Wouldn't It Be Cool If. . . " approach to plotting. That rarely needs to consider such niceties as accurate characterization.
Re: Superman & “Kill Bill” (minor spoilers) Thread drift to Star Wars films
April 20 2004, 4:17 PM
ah, true, that was my short-hand version - yes, yes, Indy Jones was there looking for whatever NA artifacts, and was taken to the Falcon by some random NA, who was telling him about Sasquatch.
And the art is that lousy style - but I didn't buy it for the art.
The Fourth World is a pretty big influence on Star Wars. To my mind (and many others' minds), Darth Vader is Darkseid in Dr. Doom's armour, Luke is Orion (especially the Luke of ROTJ), Chewie is Big Bear, Obi-Wan is Highfather, The Death Star is Apokolips, Yavin 4 is New Genesis, and of course the Force is the Source. I also think the bit in Attack of the Clones where one of the little kid Jedi finds the planet for Obi-Wan is very similiar to a scene in Forever People where Esak locates the time-lost Forever People.
I was finally ready to rent Vol. 1 and it was typical Tarantino fare but I gotta say, they lost me during the waaaaay too long sword fight with the crazy 88. I'm not a big fan of blood anyway but I was mostly disappointed with the fight choreography. Many can appreciate the whole "chopsocky" homage that Tarantino was going for here but after seeing this, it's clear that, as always, his specialty is interesting dialogue and there is none in this flick. There was some fantastic converstion in Reservior dogs and the best was PF. Here, not so much. I'll probably get around to seeing Vol. 2 when it comes out on DVD, hoping that Quentin re-establishes some clever dialogue. -Rick
Current Topic - Superman & “Kill Bill” (minor spoilers) Thread drift to Star Wars films
