Quentin Tarantino talks up Kill Bill 3
It could arrive sometime in 2014...
BY Oct 2nd 2009 20:20PMFILED UNDER: Movie news
User Comments (6)
Quentin Tarantino is notorious for teasing future projects. And now, with Inglourious Basterds finished, he's starting to hint about the likelihood of Kill Bill 3.
But don't go staking out your local fleapit just yet. According to QT, he definitely plans to get around to it, but he's planning to give Uma Thurman's The Bride - AKA Beatrix Kiddo - a 10-year break to spend some time with her child and enjoy the quiet life before going back to fighting.
And since his timescale is based on the release of the second film, that means he's likely eyeing 2014 as a release year.
QT made the comments on an Italian TV show, where he was also asked about the Inglourious prequel (maybe) and a Pulp Fiction sequel (never).
And since it's still rattling around only in his skull, there's no sense of what form the movie might take, especially since Bill was - SPOILER! - well and truly killed the last time around.
Beatrix's kids? Surviving members of the Crazy 88s? The possibilities are endless…
Good idea? What would you like to see in a Kill Bill threequel?
Comments (6)
1: asfm1 says
QT first raised this idea during the production of the original Kill Bill films. He proposed the idea of Copperhead's (the black woman) daughter seeking revenge on the Bride, and that the film may well be called Kill the Bride.
The daughter looked around 8 or 9 in the film, so the ten year gap would leave her character (and Uma Thurman) at about the right age. QT said that he envisioned Kill Bill as a pretty epic revenge saga that goes far beyond Bill and the Bride.
After Copperhead's daughter gets revenge on the Bride, the Bride's daughter will obviously want revenge on Copperhead's daughter. And on, and on, and on...
That he didn't mention this in the interview means he may have completely changed his mind about the above, but then again, where else would the story go?
Posted: Oct 2nd 2009 // 10:35AMAlert a moderator
2: agentblackacid says
FFS Quentin, why? What's the point? The first 2 films were tortuous.... just I when I thought you had grown up a bit.
Posted: Oct 2nd 2009 // 10:41AMAlert a moderator
3: Ianr62 says
I am so fed up with QT's potential future film ideas! Here is a man who created two of the best films of the ninety's, a genre to themselves in Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.
I love both those films immensley and had such high hopes for a the young up and commer.
Since then he has become a parody of himself. Self referential pop c**p movies. Boring, boring, boring. I felt totally ripped off watching Basterds, Brad Pitt got what 30 mins screen time in a two and a half hour film.
The best thing QT could do, although im not sure if he's up to the task! Would be to make a propper film, a thriller and out and out horror. A drama something with a strict plot line, with fleshed out characters. We all know he has the clout to attract a great cast. So why does'nt he prove that he can compete with the big boys, Scorsese, Spielberg, Fincher, Anderson and Nolan?
Make a propper film man, and make it something that you hav'nt ripped off from another source. Rant over, I just feel so let down by a man who at first appeared to be the maverick for a new generation!!
Posted: Oct 2nd 2009 // 11:19AMAlert a moderator
4: DanielMcA says
Let's call a moratorium on remakes, prequels and sequels. Spielberg: Oldboy? Nolan: Besides the Prestige, everything since Momento has been unoriginal (brilliant, but unoriginal). Thank beelzebub for Mr Anderson.
On an entirely unrelated point, who would win in a fight between Malick and Anderson? Malick is more of an outdoorsytype, yes, but Anderson has the years.
Posted: Oct 2nd 2009 // 12:34PMAlert a moderator
5: Bojangles17 says
DanielMcA. With no remakes, prequels or sequels, I can assure you, you'd see a hell of a lot more Uwe Boll-esque adaptations of other mediums...
Posted: Oct 3rd 2009 // 8:08AMAlert a moderator
6: DanielMcA says
I disagree. Setting self-imposed restraints wouldn't necessarily be the route I'd take (we don't need another dogme95 manifesto) but perhaps some degree of seperation is needed. Remember when the British pop charts were overwhelmed by collection albums? The top 10 was hijacked by Now..s and Greatest..s. The BMI (or whomever) simply removed them to another chart. For a while we had a healthier, more interesting chart, which also sent out a signal to the record producers - don't be so f###ing lazy. Of course, the charts have turned to s### since but that's another story. People pay attention to Top 10s and positioning lists. Even in a slow week like this week there is a remake at number 1 and a third-tier sequel at number 7. What if they simply didn't make the list? Sure, who ever owns the ticket for that franchise or product would complain but when they sit down to green light projects afterwards they'd hesitate before inflicting Saw 7 on us.





You need to log in or register to post comments