> And yet I keep telling you that it works REALLY WELL as a split film.

You do keep telling me that, but the rest of this post consists of really good arguments I haven't heard before. But I'm still leary about it: even if this was "correct" for Kill Bill, what kind of message is it to send to the studios if what is perceived to be an arbitrarily split film makes twice the money? My issue was always more about precedent than specifically Kill Bill.

> I believe the initial reports that this was solely a marketing move by Miramax were way off-base, and I'm more inclined to believe that the splitting was the correct artistic decision.

The reports I've heard are that Miramax made Tarantino choose between splitting and chopping, and Tarantino chose the former. This sounds pretty right to me. Miramax had a financial problem and allowed Tarantino to pick an artistic solution. It's a tough thing, because it's not like I would have preferred the studio-enforced cuts.