• neidu3@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    I did not know that, but it does explain a lot. I woulda thunk Tarantino was the kind of creator where the studios knew that the best approach was to just unleash him and let him do his magic free of any interference.

    I mean, some people (should have) earned this status, and any studio who wants the product to succeed knows to stay away. Cameron got away with Titanic being much longer than contemporary movies. Nolan gets to fuck up the audio the way they want to. Hitchcock gets to force lead actresses through abuse of the avian variety.

    • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 days ago

      FWIW, the linked article has the quote from Tarantino about this:

      “I wrote and directed it as one movie — and I’m so glad to give the fans the chance to see it as one movie,” Tarantino said in a statement.

      In an article from 2003, they basically say the quiet part out loud. Either Tarantino would have to cut it down to 90 minutes or make it as 2 releases and get double the ticket sales.

      In the past, Weinstein has earned a reputation for urging filmmakers to cut the running time of their pictures. Cutting “Kill Bill” into two seems to be an elegant solution since Tarantino gets to release all of his three-hour pic, while Weinstein gets a 90-minute movie (albeit two of them).

      The two-part plan, though, raises the stakes for “Kill Bill” and Tarantino, whose last release was “Jackie Brown” in 1995. Miramax is, in effect, asking Tarantino fans to pay twice to see his new release.