>>So when is it okay to say that a movie actually DID elevate
>>the genre, or was a work of art? You see where I'm going?
>
>I can say that about 'Soulplane' and my opinion
>would be about as valid as the ones I hear for
>why 'Pulp Fiction' was artful.

I guess that's true to some extent - except that it's ONE opinion, vs. however many have been made about Pulp Fiction.

If one person says something is art or highly artistic, maybe it is, maybe that person’s full of shit.

But when the general CONSENSUS (among both critics and viewers alike) says something is art or of high artistic quality, it almost certainly is. That’s how art works. Sorry if you can’t grasp that.

Thus is the case for Pulp Fiction, but NOT Soul Plane, which as far as I know, is generally regarded as crap (though I've never and probably will never see it, so I won’t comment).


You, however, somehow continue to argue that Pulp Fiction was a terrible movie, and that the overwhelming consensus of opinion on Pulp Fiction is entirely fabricated on hype - a ludicrous and unfounded bullshit argument that has absolutely no merit or evidence whatsoever.

Yet, you can't resist repeating your insane "Pulp Fiction is all hype" argument, despite the fact that it is completely unfounded and full of shit.

Where did the hype come from, and why? If it's marketing, why not do the same for Grindhouse, or any other movie? It can't be done.

You simply can't manufacture the level of critical and fan acclaim that Pulp Fiction has attained. If you could, every studio would be doing it.

Yes, you can argue that hype and advertising had a hand in the success of Pulp Fiction - maybe that's true - but if it wasn't already a brilliant and amazing work, it wouldn't have worked. Period. You can’t market something with no appeal.

And I'm done talking about that particular point, because you've become like Bill O'Reilly - spewing the same loud and incorrect "point" about something that is obviously not true to anyone with a brain.

Besides, I've already refuted it here: http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=365316&mesg_id=365316&listing_type=search#365819
So, the consensus / majority opinion is that Pulp Fiction is an excellent movie and of high artistic quality.

You can provide exceptions, but the MAJORITY of both critics and viewers view it as much.

Opinions to the contrary - yours for example - are minority opinions. There will always be minority opinions about everything - nothing is universally loved.


>Every single conversation, bar none, about 'Pulp Fiction'
>descends into a wanna be discourse on the philosophy of art.
>That way, they don't actually have to discuss the film.
>They can simply say:
>
>"Art is what it is. Pulp Fiction is art. How do I know?
>Because who says that it is not?"

Bullshit. That's a lie. I've seen plenty of discussions on this very board about the movie that don't involve the "philosophy of art." You are blatantly lying here. Do you watch Fox News?


>>So anytime a movie genuinely does elevate the genre or
>achieve
>>high levels of "artfulness" - and someone makes such a
>>statement - you could call them a fanboy...
>
>No, you guys are fanboys because you can't actually
>explain what the hell it was REALLY ABOUT let alone
>what makes it so great(and miss me with the "redemption"
>bullshit...haha...motherfucking Shawshank was about
>redepmtion...Pulp Fiction was NOT).

What was it ABOUT? You need a fucking plot synopsis?

What makes it so great? Everything. Every fucking thing was great.

You always claim that no one can ever give you reasons why they love it, but I have.

For example, I did it right here: http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=365316&mesg_id=365316&listing_type=search#366068

Quotes:
- “Personally, I don't think I'd call it profound - it didn't change the way I viewed the world or anything. It didn't teach me lessons about life. It's just one of the coolest and most entertaining movies ever, that's all.

I love everything about it - the tone and style, an awesome interwoven plot full of all the elements I love (action, drama, humor), cool plot structure, great acting, the beloved dialogue, fascinating characters, good music... and it exudes visceral coolness (there's the "hype machine" talking, right?).

Shit, what's not to like?”

^^^ a shitload of reasons right there. More points I made:

- “the dialogue in PF is better, cooler, more enjoyable, better written, etc.”
I’m comparing it to Last Boy Scout (a movie that you claim is better), but really, that quote applies to MOST movies. The dialogue in Pulp Fiction is practically second to none.

So your claim that “no one can give me reasons” is obviously a gigantic pile of shit.

I gave you a whole bunch of reasons in that post, which you summarily ignored and rejected as I knew you would – because as we all know by now, you are a gigantic asshole who doesn’t want to actually discuss anything intelligently.

And lest we forget, let me quote you:
“In THIS VERY THREAD I got about 8 different opinions on why it was good.”
http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=365316&mesg_id=365316&listing_type=search#365868

Wait, what were those reasons? Hmm, here are a few:

the_one--- “I thought the way they pieced the storyline together was really dope.”

Sanjuro--- “I just thought it was accepted as a popular, cool, witty, ultra-violent gangster-flick with semi-original time shifts and unconventional structuring… The structure and dialogue are the most standout elements to that flick - both GREAT, by the way, hence the reputation Pulp Ficiton has gained.”

SoulHonky--- “I think Pulp Fiction is much better than Last Boy Scout in it's inventiveness, dialogue, story, and acting. I think those elements were all done at a high level in Pulp Fiction and that's why it deserved an Oscar nod...

Inventiveness: IMO there weren't many films like Pulp Fiction out there before it came out. Call it mood, tone, whatever, it was different. I thought the timeline and tone and talkyness was new and, at the time, fresh. It's been done to death but it was IMO inventive when it came out.

To me the dialogue was far better in Pulp Fiction than Last Boy Scout. Lasy Boy Scout had some quality lines but I don't think it compares to Pulp Fiction. Again, I think Pulp Fiction is more comparable to Lethal Weapon. And dialogue was one of the aspects I noted. I didn't say it was a dumb movie with great dialogue. I liked the movie itself.”


The Damaja--- “Well, most famously the original and elegant use of timeshift and multiple, interwoven storylines. Add to that the foregrounding of conversational dialogue which allowed the film to have wonderfully nuanced characters and constant humour and many memorable scenes/lines. Not forgetting the brilliant use of music (not score) and filming techniques (like the special emulsion celluloid they used to give the diner scene its richness). But most IMPORTANTLY the textual (perhaps intertextual) and moral depth that underpins the films status as a masterpiece of cinema.”


Granted, some of these people didn’t think it was all that great, but all of them thought it was a good, entertaining movie - and they gave reasons. So get the fuck out of here with your whiny bullshit about “no one can give me reasons why it was good.”

Disagree with their reasons all you want, but that feeble claim that “no one gives reasons” is clearly killed once and for all.


>>Clearly what it's trying to imply is that the person doesn't
>>judge the work on its merits, but rather, based on who made
>>it.
>
>Jesus H. Christ.

That’s what a “fanboy” is, right? Someone who likes a movie because of who made it, and not because of its content? That’s a much more useful definition than the way you choose to define it – which is basically anyone who likes a movie that you didn’t.


>>And that's a nearly impossible thing for a third party to
>>determine, isn't it? Unless the person admits it ("I will
>>always love anything so-and-so does, even if it sucks"), or
>>the entire world comes to a consensus that the work is a
>piece
>>of shit that only "fanboys" can enjoy.
>
>
>Jesus H. Christ.
>
>That didn't make a grain of motherfucking sense, at all.

It did, but let me simplify it for simpler minds:

- How does a third party (you) determine that someone is a “fanboy”?
{No, it’s not just because they disagree with you and love a movie that you think sucks.}

That third party would have to prove that the person likes the movie because of who made it. And how would that be done?

As far as I can tell, the only ways to determine this are:

A) by admission (the person admits that’s why they liked it)

B) there is an overwhelming general consensus that the movie is quite bad; thus, there’s a decent chance that anyone with the opposite, minority view only likes it because of the name. It’s still only a maybe, but at least you’ve got a case.

However, in the case of Pulp Fiction, MOST people liked it. Critics, viewers, etc. You are in the minority. So unless the majority of the people who viewed Pulp Fiction are all fanboys, you have no point whatsoever.


>>Which rarely happens, and is certainly not true for either
>>Grindhouse, Death Proof, or any other Tarantino movie, all
>of
>>which have strong critical approval as well as fan support.
>
>Another plea cop:
>
>When Pulp Fiction fanboys run into people like me who
>actually think for themselves, they retreat to:
>
>"Well, it was critically acclaimed. That's why its good"
>Using POPULAR APPEAL by a bunch of CRITICS to argue
>why it was good. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT BY:
>
>"Well, its good because its supposed to be good."

NO. No one ever fucking says this! You’re so fucking simple sometimes.

It was good for all the reasons I and others mentioned above (and probably plenty more).

The fact that it was highly critically acclaimed SUPPORTS the notion that it was a good movie, but is not THE REASON it was a good movie. It’s merely EVIDENCE that it is.

The reason fans point out the critical acclaim (and acclaim among general viewers as well) is not to assert that critical acclaim MAKES it a good movie.

The fact that everyone loves it does not mean: “It’s good because it’s supposed to be good.”

What is actually means is: “It’s good and everyone knows it.” Except you.

A shitload of people loved it. That’s not hype; that’s because it was a very good movie. Period.

And their cumulative opinions carry a whole lot more weight than your own single one. Sorry, that’s how it is.



>No one can ever explain it.

See above. You should never make this bullshit claim again. But you will, because like Fox News, you think saying a lie over and over again makes it come true.


>Fans of PF do two things:
>
>1)Get blabber mouthy about philosophy
>2)Retreat to "Its good because everyone says it was."

1) Yes, some fans do get crazy with philosophy shit, but most of them can also give a ton of concrete, non-philosophical reasons why they love it, if you actually cared to listen, which you don’t.

2) No one actually does this. The fact that you don’t understand WHY someone would reference the nearly-universal critical and commercial acclaim as evidence that a movie is good is particularly telling.

I dare you to find one example of someone saying the movie is good BECAUSE everyone says so. You’ve got it fucked.

THE MOVIE IS GOOD. PEOPLE SAYS SO BECAUSE IT’S TRUE.
It’s not the other way around, no matter how much you wish it were.


One final question – do you fucking like anything? I don’t think I’ve seen you praise anything on here – you are almost 100% negative about everything.

I love movies – not all of them obviously – but lots of them.

Whereas you just seem to hate everything. It’s not high standards, it’s just hate.

That’s fine, have fun. Personally, I’d rather praise the movies I love than appear in every single post I can find about movies and directors that I hate (I’m talking about you here). Seriously, you chase them around like it’s your job.

I really think you post just to try to make people mad, which doesn’t work in my case, because I enjoy talking about movies I love – that’s often why I’m here in the first place. Although I have to admit that e-conversations with you are particularly pointless, which is why I generally try to avoid them... unless I’m bored enough to want to expose your endless stream of bullshit for what it is (e.g., just now).

Or maybe you post to make yourself feel good by deceiving yourself into thinking you “won” an e-argument. Which would be fucking pathetic.

Now, go ahead and unleash a stream of “you mads” and BWAHAHA. I’m done with you.