Print Page

Title: ^
Post by: yarsrevenge on October 14, 2003, 01:14:00 PM

Title: ^
Post by: Sleuth on October 14, 2003, 01:32:45 PM

Is this another one of your challenging trivia topics? Am I going to click the link and be required to solve the missing quote/music so that I may access the script? YOU TELL ME RIGHT NOW, IS THAT WHAT THIS IS

Title: ^
Post by: smash on October 14, 2003, 04:11:59 PM

that link isn't working, but here's an early version of the script. I haven't read it so I don't know how accurate/inaccurate it actually is. http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~alexward/script.htm

Title: ^
Post by: yarsrevenge on October 14, 2003, 07:25:19 PM

Title: ^
Post by: MacGuffin on October 17, 2003, 09:17:03 PM

The Script Vs. The Film:

http://screenwriting.ugo.com/film/killbillscriptvsfilm.php

Title: ^
Post by: Ghostboy on October 18, 2003, 12:06:13 AM

That script vs. film article is incredibly faulty. The writer seems to have only skimmed portions of the script -- the Buck scene was not only in the script, it was more explicit. In the original draft I read, Buck lifted up the Brider's hopsital gown, and there was a shot description along the lines of: ECU Bride's pussy.

Title: ^
Post by: Cecil on October 18, 2003, 10:48:04 AM

wasnt it "ECU uma's blond pussy"?

Title: ^
Post by: Alethia on October 18, 2003, 10:25:27 PM

he said they did like a ta-da curtain opening representation of her vagina too, or something like that. and she also heard the orderly as bills voice, and she thought bill was there. im glad he got rid of that.

Title: ^
Post by: tpfkabi on October 18, 2003, 10:34:49 PM

i don't want to spoil Vol. 2, but i have a question.

i wondered if he really split them, meaning the revelation that comes at the end of Vol. 1 was revealed there in the full script halfway through, or he moved it around to make it a cliffhanger?

if answering this involves spoiling Vol. 2, then i don't want to know.

Title: ^
Post by: Alethia on October 18, 2003, 10:43:06 PM

that reveal wasn't in the script.

Title: ^
Post by: Pedro on October 19, 2003, 01:13:03 AM

Quote from: GhostboyThat script vs. film article is incredibly faulty. The writer seems to have only skimmed portions of the script -- the Buck scene was not only in the script, it was more explicit. In the original draft I read, Buck lifted up the Brider's hopsital gown, and there was a shot description along the lines of: ECU Bride's pussy.

i remember a line of "sometimes that cunt's cunt can get drier than sand paper" in the film there was "chick's cooch" and it did sound overdubbed...

Title: ^
Post by: Alethia on October 19, 2003, 01:42:18 PM

i hate the word cunt.

Title: ^
Post by: Cecil on October 19, 2003, 01:49:32 PM

i like it

Title: ^
Post by: thedog on October 20, 2003, 12:15:14 AM

yeah, it's a funny word. watch sexy beast and tell me the word "cunt" isn't funny, and I will give you a nickel.

Title: ^
Post by: Gsus4 on November 01, 2003, 02:21:49 PM

change this
change that
things get fixed
drop of a hat
color
to black and white
from nc
to r
hmph
no matter how big
a boy can get
he is still grounded
by the sounded
of the armanis
kbkbkbkbkbkb
fyi
kunt is not as whore ed
as 'gash'

perhaps

Title: ^
Post by: Gsus4 on November 02, 2003, 08:29:51 PM

vat r u va-tink 4 den?
r eye t
mun knee
wear
y oar
mao ph
iz

Xixax Film Forum

The Director's Chair => Quentin Tarantino => Topic started by: yarsrevenge on October 14, 2003, 01:14:00 PM