QT On Kill Bill DVD Color Sequences

[Squid Lips]

Pulled this off an interview with QT. Guess we may get both the color and black and white versions available...

F&V: How did you work with Bob on the look and visual style of the film?

QT: We didn’t really change the film stocks that much in Vol. 1. We did that in Vol. 2, big time, where the whole opening sequence is in high-contrast black-and-white. The black-and-white that’s in Vol. 1, I wanted to do it on color stock so we could take the color out, as it stays in color for the Asian market and goes to black-and-white for Europe and America. I thought that’d be fun for the DVD later.

[larphillips]

That's cool... thanks for the info!

I prefer the B&W as I felt it gave the proper homage to the samurai flicks of the time, but curiosity makes me want to see the color version as well. Hopefully the color sequence will be placed in context and not as a stand-alone feature.

[3DMan]

Good information, but dammit I still don't know what is the "proper" version for QT. I thought the B/W didn't look very good there, what with all the great colors in the place and the costumes. I want Uma bloody red.

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by 3DMan

Good information, but dammit I still don't know what is the "proper" version for QT. I thought the B/W didn't look very good there, what with all the great colors in the place and the costumes. I want Uma bloody red.

My assumption from the quote is that the color is the 'proper' version as it was shot on color stock and then converted to monochrome.

When the Coens shot THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE in color, they said their intention was B&W, but the color version was for the marketability of the film overseas. It sounds like QT went B&W domestically only to hit his 'R' rating without having to make cuts.

[3DMan]

Originally Posted by larphillips

My assumption from the quote is that the color is the 'proper' version as it was shot on color stock and then converted to monochrome.

When the Coens shot THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE in color, they said their intention was B&W, but the color version was for the marketability of the film overseas. It sounds like QT went B&W domestically only to hit his 'R' rating without having to make cuts.

Those were my thoughts initially, despite the "It's in the script" stuff that was posted. Wierd that the Coens would cave in to "marketability" of their films, definately sounds out of place for the stuff they do.

[Master Gandhi]

Originally Posted by 3DMan

...Wierd that the Coens would cave in to "marketability" of their films, definately sounds out of place for the stuff they do.

Not of late. Intolerable Cruelty, anyone?

[Riedenschneider]

Originally Posted by larphillips

When the Coens shot THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE in color, they said their intention was B&W, but the color version was for the marketability of the film overseas.

*ahem*

That's not quite the truth. They contractually had to deliver a color master for their French and Japanese distributors/co-financiers. Though they reserved the rights, neither contry released the color version in theaters (but both released the color version, along with the B&W version, on DVD).

The Coens and Deakins wanted to shoot on color stock and master-print it in B&W anyway, since B&W stock hasn't been updated in quality in some time. Kodak and others are putting no or next to no effort in enhancing B&W stock, 'cause next to no one uses it in cinematic photography anymore. That's also the reason why shooting in B&W is more expensive today than color, as professional printing commodities for B&W are few and elaborate.

[MrTony]

Originally Posted by larphillips

Hopefully the color sequence will be placed in context and not as a stand-alone feature.

I agree. So assuming we'll get to see the color sequence within the movie and not as a special feature, that leaves two options for the DVD: seamless branching or two separate releases. I hope for the former - if we get the latter, I will probably buy the version with the B&W, as I thought it looked great and suited the sequence very well.

[Riedenschneider]

BTW, if we are to believe this commentator, then Jim Jarmusch's latest movie "Coffe and Cigarettes" will be the last movie shot on B&W negative stock as "Kodak [the industry's monopolist on film stock] will not aprove another B&W production."

[3DMan]

Originally Posted by Riedenschneider

*ahem*
The Coens and Deakins wanted to shoot on color stock and master-print it in B&W anyway, since B&W stock hasn't been updated in quality in some time. Kodak and others are putting no or next to no effort in enhancing B&W stock, 'cause next to no one uses it in cinematic photography anymore. That's also the reason why shooting in B&W is more expensive today than color, as professional printing commodities for B&W are few and elaborate.

That fucking sucks. Hey I know every redneck won't watch a movie in B/W, but surely there is a draw SOMEWHERE to produce it. I guess I am showing my age. In film class(and the days of Clerks) it cost about $110 bucks to buy a roll(10ish minutes) of color 16mm film. B/W was about half, so that's why everybody used it(including Smith). So you got a good deal on film purchase, and you automatically got "artsy" points!

[Riedenschneider]

Well, student films nowadays produce mostly in what will be the future of every professional film production - digital, where it's just a flick of a switch from color to B&W.

[MJZ]

I hope both versions of the scene are on a single release with seamless branching and audio to match the rest of the film.

I'm waiting to see what the Asian releases of this are going to be like as it was alleged that their theatrical version, although including the colour scene, was going to be more violent.

There could be a lot of options for the DVD releases of this and Volume 2.

[planet_jake]

Originally Posted by Riedenschneider

Well, student films nowadays produce mostly in what will be the future of every professional film production - digital, where it's just a flick of a switch from color to B&W.

I said it to my film instructor and I'll say it again, "I'll be 6 foot under before I'll ever make a digital film", But thats another discussion. Frankly I'd like to have The B&W version on Disc more then the color version, because thats the way I saw it in American theatres. Its kind of funny to read all these people who want Tarantino to change the film from the way it was in theatres after I've been in alot of Star Wars threads full of people unmercifully bashing George Lucas for changing his films. I'm not a bitter fanboy or anything, I'm just making a simple observation.

[Phreak]

It's a little different though, Jake. The color version is the version Tarantino had in mind when making the movie and if there was no such thing as censors, he would have released it in color in every single market. I think Tarantino was right to just switch that part to B&W instead of doing a whole bunch of cutting. Still, the fact remains that if he didn't have to choose between doing a whole bunch of cutting or making the House of Blue Leaves fight into B&W, it would have remained in color, thus making it (in my opinion at least) the definitive version.

Lucas on the other hand is adding shiney new digital effects here and there 25 years after the fact, and is pretty heavily altering a movie that a lot of people grew up on and have a certain nostalgia for. I know I'd be pissed if someone started fucking with The Goonies or something like that.

[Frank Gunn]

Was the rather brutal opening sequence meant to be in color, as well?

[MJZ]

Is there a definitive answer to this black and white or colour question?

I read that it was scripted to go black and white and then back to colour when you see The Bride blink. If that's the case though, why release a black and white version and a colour version.

We had the black and white one in the UK.

[3DMan]

Originally Posted by Phreak

I know I'd be pissed if someone started fucking with The Goonies or something like that.

I don't know why, but I find this hilarious.

And Ried, I believe in and respect digital filmmaking(I have an XL1 myself) but I think some people(like Spielberg) will always shoot on film, and right now it looks light years better.

[Riedenschneider]

Originally Posted by 3DMan

And Ried, I believe in and respect digital filmmaking(I have an XL1 myself) but I think some people(like Spielberg) will always shoot on film, and right now it looks light years better.

Yes, movies shot on 3 chip digital cameras (Dancer in the Dark, Buena Vista Social Club, 28 Days etc.) look like shit when projected on a theater screen. But movies shot with high-def digital cameras (Episode I & II, Cremaster 2 & 3 etc.) are, even at this early stage of of high-def cameras, virtually undistinguishable from 35mm film. Most people who saw direct digital screenings of Episode II say it already even looks better. And high-def cameras will only get better and better and cheaper and cheaper...

Remember, it's hard to find good, unscratched, complete (at reel-change points) prints of films shot before the 90's, and very hard to find non-faded, unscratched, complete prints of pre-80's films. No filmaker can resist digital masters that stay screenable (and look like day one on every screening) for the rest of, well, mankind.

I say in less than 15 years 90% of the world cinema output will be (high-def) digital - including films of Mr. Spielberg.

[moviezzz]

Originally Posted by Riedenschneider

Yes, movies shot on 3 chip digital cameras (Dancer in the Dark, Buena Vista Social Club, 28 Days etc.) look like shit when projected on a theater screen. But movies shot with high-def digital cameras (Episode I & II, Cremaster 2 & 3 etc.) are, even at this early stage of of high-def cameras, virtually undistinguishable from 35mm film. Most people who saw direct digital screenings of Episode II say it already even looks better. And high-def cameras will only get better and better and cheaper and cheaper...

Yes, I saw Episode 2 in a digital theatre and was blown away. Especially the scene on the island where everything was all white, just amazing looking (and it was my second time seeing it after seeing it in a regular theatre). It totally converted me into digital projection.

Plus, DVDs direct from digital look a lot better.

[Sid]

Reguardless of Quentin Tarantino says. I think the scene was meant to be in color. I think Miramax are a bunch of pussies. Dimension proves this fact. But why doesn't anybody badmouth those Weinsteins? And I dont know why Kevin Smith still works with them

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by Sid

But why doesn't anybody badmouth those Weinsteins?

Because they will destroy all who cross them.

Originally Posted by Sid

And I dont know why Kevin Smith still works with them

Because they still pay him.

[Frank Gunn]

As though Kevin Smith is the apex of credibility.

[3DMan]

Originally Posted by Riedenschneider

I say in less than 15 years 90% of the world cinema output will be (high-def) digital - including films of Mr. Spielberg.

[Vincent Vega voice] That's a bold statement. [/Vincent Vega voice]

I saw Episode 2 in Digital, and it didn't look as good as the Pixar stuff, but was "okay". I have no doubt that eventually the resolution will be reached, but the MASSIVE cost of every theater in the world to completely replace projectors that have probably been around for decades will be the toughest hurdle. By the way, it does look crappier the larger it is projected. Same goes for 35mm, but to a much lesser extent.

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by Frank Gunn

As though Kevin Smith is the apex of credibility.

As evidenced by: this

[Frank Gunn]

'Kill Bill' rocks!