For those who haven't heard, Quentin Tarantino's new movie, Kill Bill, clocks in about three hours. However, you won't be able to see in all at once. In a studio/artist decision, Kill Bill will be broken up in two, 90-minute movies. The first half will open in theaters on October 10. There is no date set for Part Two.

Miramax financed Kill Bill, and studio head Harvey Weinstein is notorious for fighting with directors to cut their film's running time as much as possible. He got to Scorsese to cut Gangs of New York from 3 hours, 40 minutes to 2 hours, 40 minutes.

That's enough set up. Here's my beef:

Why break up a three-hour movie into two parts? They aren't worried about people getting tired - they could throw an intermission at the 90-minute mark; they are worried about getting the maximum viewing per day, per screen. More bodies a day, means more cash in the pants.

In the past several years, it's become clear that studios have adopted the smash-and-grab theory of movie distribution. A big title opens in at least two to three screens per theater, only to be out of theater, and out of mind within a month or two. There is no slow burn anymore.

I fear that if this movie split is successful, it could set a trend. There will now be an alternative route for studios to take for every movie that comes in at the three-hour mark. Instead of taking the time and crafting the movie to make it better, filmmakers may stand strong by their first, and sometimes arrogant, cut.

I liked GANGS of NY a lot, but 4 hours? If there's one thing DVD deleted scene features have shown me is that it is often best to take it out. The true art of making a movie is telling a story in the amount it takes to tell the story. To put it simply, keep the fatty out of the patty.

Even though I'm seeing more commercials at the theaters (Stop it!), I'm not paying eight buck a trip to watch a Rockford Files two-parter. I'm not watching TV here.

Movies are special because you can get caught up in a story without "a word from our sponsor" every ten minutes. You can involve yourself totally. Throwing a large break - I'm talking months - in the middle of it will ruin the rhythm and depreciate the ending.

The move into the Epic Serial Age may have been set in motion by The Lord of the Rings saga. However, unlike other trilogies, it truly is a continuous story. The first two segments come to an end of sorts, but the final conclusion has clearly yet to come, and people, fans of the novels and those who just like movies, seem genuinely interested in seeing the story through.

A stronger line can be connected to The Matrix sequels. There really isn't a Matrix Trilogy. There's the original, and then there's the second movie, just so happens it's a two-part, five-hour movie. I can still hear the "Bullshit!" cries when "to be continued…" shot up on the screen at a moment that felt like a commercial break.

It may not be right to blame The Matrix yet, though. The most important part hasn't been proven yet: Will the same amount of people return for the second half? Was the first part memorable enough to keep people interested five months down the road?

I'm told this is great for Tarantino (and us), because he his getting his full cut into the theaters. Call me cynical, but I saw a preview for Kill Bill over a year ago, and haven't heard "peep" since. I smell rat. What better way to get people to pay for it twice?

I'm very interested where this Kill Bill situation will take moviegoing. If the crowds show that they are willing tolerate the "to be continued…" and if the studios find a way to efficiently promote the same movie twice, I will be seeing a lot less of the movie theater. TXH Super Quad Sound System be damned.

As it stands now, my plan is to watch Kill Bill when it comes to DVD so I can watch it all at once. Unless, of course, they try to fuck me at the video store, too.

six weeks later...