Some people think Tarantino's films are all style, no substance. Some peopel might be sufficiently impressed with the style and wit not to bother about the substance. And by substance I mean morals, messages, comments, ideas, philosophies, themes, realized characters, tragedies and other things which we expect in a story that is considered great/profound/a work of art. But in my opinion the substance of is films (pre-Kill Bill) is no less impressive than the style. In fact it's the substance that will see these films endure for decades.

Anyway, I've never seen his work analysed better than in this essay by Stanley Crouch

"Eggplant blues: the miscegenated cinema of Quentin Tarantino."

The article can be found on disk 2 of the Jackie Brown DVD, btw. It deals with True Romance, Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I'll post it in 3 parts to facilitate discussion, but remember it's all one essay.

glossary (lol):
miscegenation - Practice of interracial marriage or sexual contact; found in virtually all colonial ventures.

(few introductory paragraphs first)

The recent opening of writer-director Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction is a high point in a low age. Already slobbered over at Cannes and genuflected before by the New York press, it is, perhaps, more than anything else, a continuation of Tarantino themes thus far missed and another startling aesthetic victory for a small, undeclared American film movement. By looking full face into the ethnic quirks and racial complexities of our identity, Pulp Fiction addresses issues most effectively pushed into the ambiguity, humour, and tragedy of art by such different works as City of Hope, Mississippi Masala, One False Move, Driving Miss Daisy, A Bronx Tale, and Six Degrees of Separation. In that respect, no matter his present focus on the underworld milieu, Tarantino is bringing a large and subtle talent to subjects that have eluded even the most consistently celebrated and publicized American directors of the last few decades.

Tarantino is deeply intrigued by the artistic challenges of the many miscegenations that shape the goulash of American culture and by how powerfully the influence of the Negro helps define even those whites who freely assert their racism. Pulp Fiction presents his most recent variations on Carl Jung's observation that white Americans walked, talked, and laughed like Negroes and that the black American was one of the two figures appearing most often in their dreams.

Drawing deftly imposing performances from an ensemble featuring John Travolta, Samuel L Jackson, Uma Thurman, and Bruce Willis, Tarantino brilliantly twists his Jungian themes through the vehicles of cliched crime novel plots until they achieve revelations sometimes so stinging that new life is shocked onto the screen. The human nuances and surprises in the writing provide fresh alterations of meaning as they render a grittier and more relaxed integration that we almost ever experience in American films. Those alterations reach far beyond the customary racial cliches that thud upon us frame by frame and the hostile or maudlin soap box oratory that washes all possible eloquence out of dialogue. The viewing experience is familiar and foreign: we feel we've seen it and not seen it before.

The virtuosity of Pulp Fiction is the culmination of the self-taught, thirty-one-year-old Tarantino's only previous works, True Romance and Reservoir Dogs. In those first Tarantino screenplays, black people exist the way they do in the films of Martin Scorsese. They are at the edge of things, briefly stepping into view, sometimes important but most often all-purpose inspiration for obsessive racial comments.

Directed quite effectively by Tony Scott in the swiftly cut style, color and lighting of television commercials, True Romance clocks the adventures of Clarence and Alabama, a rock-and-roll outlaw couple played with superior perception by Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette. It is at once an ingenious variation on Hamlet and a chase film that reaches for the energy of anarchic destruction that defined one aspect of American films made between the chaotic comedies of Mack Sennett and the patriotic slaughter of World War II Hollywood. That bloody disorder within the dramatic American tale was stretched out further with Bonnie and Clyde, THe Wild Bunch, Godfather I and II, and Taxi Driver.

True Romance is informed by all that but goes its own way. The twice quoted "something is rotten in Denmark" means the dope world of casual sadism and murder. We see how the mistaken grabbing of a suitcase of drugs sets in motion a negative democracy of white "trash," black street criminals, Italian gangsters, aspirant actors, pot-heads, Jewish film producers, and law enforcement. That social sweep might have been introduced in the drug dealing montage of stills Superfly used, but it has never breached the condition of art this film has. One essential reason Tarantino succeeds where others bit the dust of exploitation is that he truly understands his crime world within the larger context of our culture. Besides cocaine, there are also the deadening mass opiates of rock and roll, junk food, the amoral cartoonish gore of imported martial arts movies, and a set of comic book conception of romance, valor, and steadfastness that inspires the harsh violence of Clarence and Alabama, who are either trying for nobility or loyally responding to danger with hysterical self defensive rage.

In Detroit, clarence spends one night with the novice prostitute Alabama and marries her the next day. The film's central icon is Elvis Presley, the white man who most successfully and joyously "went native" by bringing black pop rhythms into adolescent mass America. Presley is Clarence's spiritual father. The ghost of "The King appears and orders Clarence to Avenge his new bride's honor by killing Drexl, her murdering white pimp. A venomous minstrel, Drexl "thinks he is" black, sort of a Motor City Mr. Kurtz, a contemporary version of "going native" the worst way.

In his dreadlocks, with his gold teeth, his scarred face, his strained contemptuous black speech rhythms and falsetto punctuation, Gary Oldman's Drexl is much more frightening than his Dracula and inhabits an integrated world of criminality we won't enter again until Pulp Fiction. At their showdown, Clarence tells Drexl before he kills him that his black street mannerisms aren't frightening because they don't include anything that he hasn't already seen in The Mack, a Blaxploitation film with Ma Julian and Richard Pryor. When told by Clarence of his deed, Alabama weeps with pulp emotion, because she considers the murder "so romantic." This Shakespearean idea that all the world's a stage is perhaps Tarantino's favorite theme. His people are executing roles drawn from mass-media or personal contact, most of them miscegenations of style.

This theme is extended when a Sicilian-American Mafia don uses torture in an attempt to find out where the newlyweds have run with the dope Clarence unintentionally took from Drexl, thinking the suitcase contained Alabama's clothes. Christopher Walken is the don, and Dennis Hopper is Clarence's father, a retired cop. The don explains that lies won't work because Sicilians are "great liars - the best," and that they can read untrue faces better than anybody.

Hopper is then given lines that turn things around through one of the most startling monologues in cinematic history. It is perhaps his finest moment in film. Knowing that he can't the torture, his character decides to make the don angry enough to kill him. He attempts this through the shrewd use of racial invective, informing the don that "Sicilians were spawned by niggers." The supposedly startled don smugly demures.

The father, a former alcoholic and security guard who spends time reading history, then speaks of the Moorish invasion and the sexual pillaging of Sicily, which is why Sicilians don't have blond hair and blue eyes like Northern "wops." He asserts that, obviously, the dark-haired and dark-eyed don's grandmother many generations back had "a half nigger kid." In short, Sicilians are "part eggplant." The upshot is that in America, where neither national nor world history is well known, Sicilians who embrace traditional racism are also acting; they are "passing" for white. Absolutely manipulated, the don shoots him through the head.

Clarence and Alabama free to Los Angeles in his purple Cadillac, where he arranges to sell the suitcase of cocaine. The remainder of the film pivots back and forth between scenes of either sadistic or chaotic violence and a telling send up of self-absorbed Hollywood decadence, from the filthy homes of aspiring actors to the cellular phones and sports cars of drug-dealing producers. Almost everyone is doing some sort of an impersonation or seeking public recognition, even the cops, who demand credit for "the collar,' the drug bust that will give them their media moment. An actor who is caught with some of the coke and made to wear a wire by the police says to himself as he prepares to betray his boss, "Elliot, your motivation is to not go to jail." It is as hilarious as it is harrowing.

I never thought of the whole "world as a stage" thing but its so true. Tarantino uses his very thorough history of movie watching as sort of a POV to which he and his characters view the world around them.

>The recent opening of writer-director Quentin Tarantino's Pulp
>Fiction is a high point in a low age. Already slobbered over
>at Cannes and genuflected before by the New York press, it is,
>perhaps, more than anything else, a continuation of Tarantino
>themes thus far missed and another startling aesthetic victory
>for a small, undeclared American film movement.

That paragraph meant absolutely nothing.

By looking
>full face into the ethnic quirks and racial complexities of
>our identity, Pulp Fiction addresses issues most effectively
>pushed into the ambiguity, humour, and tragedy of art by such
>different works as City of Hope, Mississippi Masala, One False
>Move, Driving Miss Daisy, A Bronx Tale, and Six Degrees of
>Separation. In that respect, no matter his present focus on
>the underworld milieu, Tarantino is bringing a large and
>subtle talent to subjects that have eluded even the most
>consistently celebrated and publicized American directors of
>the last few decades.

Pulp Fiction did not, at all, explore the racial complexities of a gotdamn thing.

And that last sentence sucks.


>Tarantino is deeply intrigued by the artistic challenges of
>the many miscegenations that shape the goulash of American
>culture and by how powerfully the influence of the Negro helps
>define even those whites who freely assert their racism. Pulp
>Fiction presents his most recent variations on Carl Jung's
>observation that white Americans walked, talked, and laughed
>like Negroes and that the black American was one of the two
>figures appearing most often in their dreams.

None of that is true.

'Pulp Fiction' is about none of that shit.

QT thinks he's down with niggaz.

Most niggas don't even fuck with QT.

He ain't shit but a punk ass white boy to me, and his films don't "explore"
a muthafuckin' thing.

Period.

>Drawing deftly imposing performances from an ensemble
>featuring John Travolta, Samuel L Jackson, Uma Thurman, and
>Bruce Willis, Tarantino brilliantly twists his Jungian themes
>through the vehicles of cliched crime novel plots until they
>achieve revelations sometimes so stinging that new life is
>shocked onto the screen.

What?

"achieve relevatioins so stinging that nfew life is shocked onto the screen?"

Whose revelations? And whose new life?"

There were no profound revelations, and wasn't a gotdamn thing shocked.

The human nuances and surprises in
>the writing provide fresh alterations of meaning as they
>render a grittier and more relaxed integration that we almost
>ever experience in American films. Those alterations reach far
>beyond the customary racial cliches that thud upon us frame by
>frame and the hostile or maudlin soap box oratory that washes
>all possible eloquence out of dialogue. The viewing experience
>is familiar and foreign: we feel we've seen it and not seen it
>before.

The guy who wrote this is a fag.

>The virtuosity of Pulp Fiction is the culmination of the
>self-taught, thirty-one-year-old Tarantino's only previous
>works, True Romance and Reservoir Dogs. In those first
>Tarantino screenplays, black people exist the way they do in
>the films of Martin Scorsese. They are at the edge of things,
>briefly stepping into view, sometimes important but most often
>all-purpose inspiration for obsessive racial comments.

There is not racial commentary, for the love of fucking god.

Its a white film nerd who think he down with niggaz, and shit.


>Directed quite effectively by Tony Scott in the swiftly cut
>style, color and lighting of television commercials, True
>Romance clocks the adventures of Clarence and Alabama, a
>rock-and-roll outlaw couple played with superior perception by
>Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette. It is at once an
>ingenious variation on Hamlet and a chase film that reaches
>for the energy of anarchic destruction that defined one aspect
>of American films made between the chaotic comedies of Mack
>Sennett and the patriotic slaughter of World War II Hollywood.
>That bloody disorder within the dramatic American tale was
>stretched out further with Bonnie and Clyde, THe Wild Bunch,
>Godfather I and II, and Taxi Driver.


I like Tony Scott's directing a lot more than Tarantinos.

>True Romance is informed by all that but goes its own way. The
>twice quoted "something is rotten in Denmark" means the dope
>world of casual sadism and murder. We see how the mistaken
>grabbing of a suitcase of drugs sets in motion a negative
>democracy of white "trash," black street criminals, Italian
>gangsters, aspirant actors, pot-heads, Jewish film producers,
>and law enforcement. That social sweep might have been
>introduced in the drug dealing montage of stills Superfly
>used, but it has never breached the condition of art this film
>has. One essential reason Tarantino succeeds where others bit
>the dust of exploitation is that he truly understands his
>crime world within the larger context of our culture.

"Understands his crime world within the larger context of our culture?"

Meaning: He's watched enough crime movies to accurately bite other people's shit?

Yeah. Maybe.


Besides
>cocaine, there are also the deadening mass opiates of rock and
>roll, junk food, the amoral cartoonish gore of imported
>martial arts movies, and a set of comic book conception of
>romance, valor, and steadfastness that inspires the harsh
>violence of Clarence and Alabama, who are either trying for
>nobility or loyally responding to danger with hysterical self
>defensive rage.

This paragraph communicated nothing.

>In Detroit, clarence spends one night with the novice
>prostitute Alabama and marries her the next day. The film's
>central icon is Elvis Presley, the white man who most
>successfully and joyously "went native" by bringing black pop
>rhythms into adolescent mass America. Presley is Clarence's
>spiritual father. The ghost of "The King appears and orders
>Clarence to Avenge his new bride's honor by killing Drexl, her
>murdering white pimp. A venomous minstrel, Drexl "thinks he
>is" black, sort of a Motor City Mr. Kurtz, a contemporary
>version of "going native" the worst way.

Stop FUCKING GIVING CREDIT TO QT for all this racial commentary.

He is a white boy who thinks he's down with niggaz. He could give a fuck about
commenting on racial complexities.

>In his dreadlocks, with his gold teeth, his scarred face, his
>strained contemptuous black speech rhythms and falsetto
>punctuation, Gary Oldman's Drexl is much more frightening than
>his Dracula and inhabits an integrated world of criminality we
>won't enter again until Pulp Fiction. At their showdown,
>Clarence tells Drexl before he kills him that his black street
>mannerisms aren't frightening because they don't include
>anything that he hasn't already seen in The Mack, a
>Blaxploitation film with Ma Julian and Richard Pryor. When
>told by Clarence of his deed, Alabama weeps with pulp emotion,
>because she considers the murder "so romantic." This
>Shakespearean idea that all the world's a stage is perhaps
>Tarantino's favorite theme. His people are executing roles
>drawn from mass-media or personal contact, most of them
>miscegenations of style.

This paragraph communicated nothing.


>This theme is extended when a Sicilian-American Mafia don uses
>torture in an attempt to find out where the newlyweds have run
>with the dope Clarence unintentionally took from Drexl,
>thinking the suitcase contained Alabama's clothes. Christopher
>Walken is the don, and Dennis Hopper is Clarence's father, a
>retired cop. The don explains that lies won't work because
>Sicilians are "great liars - the best," and that they can read
>untrue faces better than anybody.

Uh. Okay.

>Hopper is then given lines that turn things around through one
>of the most startling monologues in cinematic history. It is
>perhaps his finest moment in film. Knowing that he can't the
>torture, his character decides to make the don angry enough to
>kill him. He attempts this through the shrewd use of racial
>invective, informing the don that "Sicilians were spawned by
>niggers." The supposedly startled don smugly demures.

Yes, i saw that. It wasn't that deep.


>The father, a former alcoholic and security guard who spends
>time reading history, then speaks of the Moorish invasion and
>the sexual pillaging of Sicily, which is why Sicilians don't
>have blond hair and blue eyes like Northern "wops." He asserts
>that, obviously, the dark-haired and dark-eyed don's
>grandmother many generations back had "a half nigger kid." In
>short, Sicilians are "part eggplant." The upshot is that in
>America, where neither national nor world history is well
>known, Sicilians who embrace traditional racism are also
>acting; they are "passing" for white. Absolutely manipulated,
>the don shoots him through the head.

Jesus.

The scene ain't about all that.

It was a good monologue and I like Dennis Hopper.

But cheel.

>Clarence and Alabama free to Los Angeles in his purple
>Cadillac, where he arranges to sell the suitcase of cocaine.
>The remainder of the film pivots back and forth between scenes
>of either sadistic or chaotic violence and a telling send up
>of self-absorbed Hollywood decadence, from the filthy homes of
>aspiring actors to the cellular phones and sports cars of
>drug-dealing producers. Almost everyone is doing some sort of
>an impersonation or seeking public recognition, even the cops,
>who demand credit for "the collar,' the drug bust that will
>give them their media moment. An actor who is caught with some
>of the coke and made to wear a wire by the police says to
>himself as he prepares to betray his boss, "Elliot, your
>motivation is to not go to jail." It is as hilarious as it is
>harrowing.

This essay sucks and the writer is a fag.

Nothing else to say.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Haven't spent a great deal of time studied "fancy talk", I know enought to know that Crouch spit 15% content and 85% fancy fluff.
**********

Reality check: according to the 2000 census, there were more than 31,000 black physicians and surgeons, 33,000 black lawyers. There are about 1,400 black athletes playing professional basketball, football and baseball combined.

Yup, Crouch is a fag

Black rewrote True Romance. Most of the big scenes are Quentin's but Shane fixed it up a lot.

(not so much for this one)

Reservoir Dogs put Tarantino behind the camera, where he again showed off his gift for writing the sustained monologue and simultaneously revealed his unique command of narrative time. Tarantino uses a collage of recollected events and establishing flashbacks to move free of linear storytelling as we see a Los Angeles jewelry heist foiled by an undercover cop. Like Scorsese characters of Mean Streets and Goodfellas, Tarantino's thugs talk about black people as repulsive inferiors, but they also accuse on another of verbally imitating their talk and express sexual attraction to Pam Grier types in the middle of a riotous discussion of domestic differences between white and black women.

Their racial complexity is furthered by the fact that the undercover cop's instructor is black and teaches him how to "pass" for the kind of white criminal necessary to fool the robbers. In order to give his character authenticity, the undercover cop even tells a story that the black mentor scripted and rehearsed with him. The audience of racist crooks swallows it whole. This is another variation on the tradition of Negro composers and arrangers successfully writing for white bands that performed almost exclusively for white audiences. It is also a version of thee black choreographer Lester Johnson tutoring John Travolta for Saturday Night Fever, where his character danced in an essentially all-white world and made Travolta into the disco Fred Astaire of the period. Such events raise the essential question of what we mean by "white" if, as in American. it's long gone from any kind of European "purity." Though one instance of torture in Reservoir Dogs goes to far for this writer's taste, the control of form. the ethnic complexity, and the understanding of criminal psychology are outstanding.

waaaaay too deep.

We need an Orbit_ Established take on this lol

glossary:
moxie = backbone, determination, fortitude
protean = exceedingly variable



The evolution from True Romance and Reservoir Dogs to Pulp Fiction is expresssive of a nearly astonishing talent. Tarantino's dark world of overlapping stories is iteslf and emblamatic development of the filmmaker's sense of intricate racial counterpoint. Regardless of our color, the coarse and overstated pulp vision is what anchors so many of us and, ultimately, allows common frames of reference. Our opinionated conversations are full of commitment to the failures of feeling that shape the sentimentality and false moxie of popular culture. Tarantino knows that while those elements are either comical or obnoxiously pretentious in the straight world, they become sinister in a criminal context. He supplies us with a key to how evil works in our time of arrested moral comprehension. Every wrong is justified with offhanded, narcissistic cynicism, a reflection of the flippant anarchy that gives counterfeit vitality tot he mass-market rebellion of our rock and rap world. Even so, the unpredictable arrives to produce a dissonant, gallows wit.

All of the central characters in Pulp Fiction course through a thickening smog of amorality. Their Los Angeles stories lead one into the other, usually focusing on couples, boy and girl robbers asserting their love through petty heists; a pair of seasoned hit men "getting into character" before performing the blood sport of their brutal work; the trusted thug given the job of entertaining Mr. Big's hot wife; a fighter who agrees to throw a bout but double crosses the crime boss central to all of the stories, then the fighter and the outraged boss murderously battling their way into the store, where they become sudden captives of two redneck sadists and are gleefully taken beneath their own underworld into a homemade hell. As prisoners, these two men discover that, for all their knowledge of hard knocks, murder and corruption, there are arenas of evil where they are equal in virginity tot he world's biggest squares.

So realities tumble one into the other, race into race, class into class - and make us realize, once more, how little separates us in our urban Wild West of contraband, drugs, bribery, and processional destruction. In this cosmos of unforced integration, there is a fundamental, hard bitten morality; the sole taboos are the callous unintentional, and indifferent crimes committed against the guilty as well as the innocent. Redemption is possible only through the rigors of and dangers of compassion, the essence of a loyalty that reaches down as well as up, to those who don't understand and to those who do. We also realize that capturing the actual wackiness of American life frees our most insightful artists from the contrivances of surrealism.

Black and white from the central motif, John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson, wearing black ties, black suits and white shirts - like the robbers in Reservoir Dogs - are the killers working for black Ving Rhames, the millionaire criminal whose white wife, Uma Thurman, wears her hair black and has matching nails. As Bruce Willis flees the boxing arena in a cab, the Technicolor interior is back-dropped by black-and-white street scenes from what looks like an old film. The rednecks take their prisoners into a basement of silver chains and black leather. Tarantino himself plays a middle-class friend of Jackson's whose home he and Travolta come to when they have the fierce problem of cleaning up and getting rid of a black corpse after a messy, accidental killing in their car. Tarantino's character, not wanting to rist his marriage, pushes them to do it fast and be gone before his black wife returns from their work. Harvey Keitel, a Jewish fixer in black evening clothes and white shirt, speeds to their aid. The Joycean sense of "here comes everybody" is basic.

What makes the film such an accomplishment is the clarity of the characters. None of them, even the cameos, are cartoons. They all have specific visions of the world, and most love to talk. Tarantino is one of those bent on bringing back to American film the combination of strong dialogue and open physical dimension that gave Hollywwod its greatest moments, those points at which the verbal essence and the stage craft of spoken theater were extended by the camera's freedom of position and range of scale. Tarantino's words push the drama and the comedy, reveal the characters, and give the violence a power it never has in the periodic disruptions of formula action films, where spectacle gore replaces the dramatic intensification of feeling and adolescent smirks pose as anti-establishment irony. Even when Tarantino's people are posturing, they say things that unveil their psychological roots. A real-sounding but expansively rewritten biblical quotation, for instance, prepares the way for a murderer's totally unexpected spiritual revelation.

Possibly an ensemble masterpiece, the film contains the finest performances we've seen yet from Samuel L Jackson and John Travolta. Each of them brings nuances of remarkable subtlety and rhythm to speech, gesture, and facial expressions forming superb contrasts of sensibility that collaborate for murder, detail a friendship, and range into areas as widely removed as theological disputes and discussions of international hamburger quality. Uma Thurman gives a prickly magnetism to her spiritually mildewed sex kitten, a coke-snorting-failed television star who is bored and taken by the upper-class privilege resulting from her marriage to a widely feared and wealthy criminal. During her evening out with Travolta, Tarantino sends up both Planet Hollywood and our self congratulatory faux nostalgia for pop trash. At Jack Rabbit Slim's, the pop museum and restaurant, black and white slides up again - the vanilla milk shakes are called "Martin and Lewis" the chocolate ones "Amos and Andy." Later, the pampered gun moll's mistaking one kind of dope for another allows Tarantino to do a stunning reversal of the stake in the heart of the vampire - this time to save her life.


The lumbering crime boss whose girth and heavy voice are metaphoric of his power is done to a sullen fare-thee-well by Ving Rhames (his character's name - Marsellus - obviously connects him to the Roman references made in Godfather II and to the Greco-Roman appropriations of American slavery, when such names were given to chattel). Effortlessly brilliant, Christopher Walken has a hilarious monologue about patriotism, family heirlooms, and the honoring of friendship that sparks a moral decision in Bruce Willis's fighter. Tarantino then bends a cliche over by making the dialogue's early homoerotic references to one character literal. The avuncular corruption of Harvey Keitel's Winston Wolf is another in what is an almost endless line of high points in varied styles of contemporary film acting, which includes the work of Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquette and Maria De Medeiros.

One cannot be too impressed by what Quentin Tarantino has just accomplished in this time of shrill emptiness and our submission to what has become the sanctimonious profession of ethnic alienation. As they say in the South, Tarantino seems to have been "born knowing." His Pulp Fiction brings a detailed, visceral craft to our culture and makes it clear that he means to join those in our most invincible pantheon. Even at the point of development we can see what he wants - the epic sense of racial conflict and synthesis John Ford brought to his best westerns, the His Girl Friday snap of Howard Hawks, the inventive social satire of Preston Sturges, and the deglamourizing grunge of Scorsese's finest criminal portraits. But, finally, the lyrical cynicism and wit of Pulp Fiction recall the moral dilemmas of Orson Welles and Billy Wilder. The work of both identified the American tension created by what always opposes the high democratic vitality of empathetic individualism. Our perpetual nemesis is the protean and sentimental mob, instructed by the worst of our commercial culture of greed, our cannibalizing of lacquered celebrity, and our narcissistic varieties of xenophobia.

I'm convinced this guy is Frank Longo.



----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

I hate in-depth analysis into shit. See all of my mockeries of araQual's Donnie Darko essays.

since some of you think it says "nothing'

1. The stories of the characters in Pulp Fiction overlap with each other, though they are separate; they are "anchored" by the central figure of crime boss Marsallus who's involved in all the stories. Analogous with this, people in America are separated by race/class etc, but their lives still overlap - everyone has pop culture (pulp fiction) as an anchor. Pop culture has all sorts of racial overlaps. It also has looming figures like the wealthy godfather/crime-boss that we're all familiar with but few of us ever meet.

2. Pop culture gives us sentiments like Scarface's bravura ("I'll execute every last motherfucking one of you"), Corleone's ruthlessness in the name of honor ("I will strike down upon thee with great vengence"), contempt for authorities ("The manager doesn't want to get shot, he knows he's insured"), casual attitude towards drugs, guns (everyone who owns a gun in PF ends up worse for it), disregard for the law. Most of us are entertained BY these ideas, but for the criminal mind they facilitate evil. Serious wrong doing can be brushed off lightly ("Just cops." Any real people?" "Just cops.")

3. Mia didn't reckon her lifestyle would nearly kill her; diners didn't reckon on getting robbed; amateur robbers didn't bragain on coming up against professional hitmen (neither did small time fraudsters); their boss (Marsallus) didn't reckon on coming up against sexual perverts/predators; perverts didn't reckon on coming up against torturers. There are different "arenas" of evil in the film, but from the intertwining storylines we can see that no one is that far apart.

4. The inhabitants of each arena of evil, in their comfort zone, are casual/flippant/callous/narcissistic towards crime. Confronted with deeper evil or sheer misfortune, only compassion, loyalty and other positive elements of human spirituality can save them. Bruce Willis rescued Marsallus out of pity (he may not have wanted to kill Vince either); Jules spared Pumpkin&HoneyBunny because he wanted to give them the same chance that had been granted him; Pumpkin&HoneyBunny let themselves be spared because their concern for each other was greater than their concern for a successful robbery; Mia survived because Vince cared about her.

5. We needn't think that Pulp Fiction isn't true to life... the simultaneous stories make it seem remarkable, but it's not surreal, it's real.

6. The paragraph about "black and white form the central motif" and the "Jocyean sense of here-comes-everybody"... i THINK it's reinforcing the idea of everything being intertwined ("reality tumbles into reality, race into race"), even contrasting elements. Underclass couple with an upper class lifestyle, black man with white wife, and vice versa, white man working alongside black man, employed by black boss, jewish man arriving to solve the problems.

7. The characters have depth because they all love to talk. None of them are cartoons with just a few stereotypical lines

the race related points of his essay are fairly clear and interesting for True Romance and Reservoir Dogs (pulling the rug out from under Sicilian racism, the familiar scenario of white performer with black support, hatred towards black people but fascination with their art, pop culture spreading aspects of black peoples mannerisms to the rest of America); the racial aspects of Pulp Fiction i'm not convinced about

>since some of you think it says "nothing'
>
>1. The stories of the characters in Pulp Fiction overlap with
>each other, though they are separate; they are "anchored" by
>the central figure of crime boss Marsallus who's involved in
>all the stories. Analogous with this, people in America are
>separated by race/class etc, but their lives still overlap -
>everyone has pop culture (pulp fiction) as an anchor. Pop
>culture has all sorts of racial overlaps. It also has looming
>figures like the wealthy godfather/crime-boss that we're all
>familiar with but few of us ever meet.

So Marsellus = pulp fiction? I don't understand the point of this point, or why QT would try to convey this (which I don't get from the film).

>
>2. Pop culture gives us sentiments like Scarface's bravura
>("I'll execute every last motherfucking one of you"),
>Corleone's ruthlessness in the name of honor ("I will strike
>down upon thee with great vengence"), contempt for authorities
>("The manager doesn't want to get shot, he knows he's
>insured"), casual attitude towards drugs, guns (everyone who
>owns a gun in PF ends up worse for it), disregard for the law.
>Most of us are entertained BY these ideas, but for the
>criminal mind they facilitate evil. Serious wrong doing can be
>brushed off lightly ("Just cops." Any real people?" "Just
>cops.")

This is obvious. Saying "Pop culture affects our social mindset" is like saying "Our government affects the politics of our country." This is not nearly exclusive to the work of QT. You can see the affects of pop culture everywhere in cinema.

>
>3. Mia didn't reckon her lifestyle would nearly kill her;
>diners didn't reckon on getting robbed; amateur robbers didn't
>bragain on coming up against professional hitmen (neither did
>small time fraudsters); their boss (Marsallus) didn't reckon
>on coming up against sexual perverts/predators; perverts
>didn't reckon on coming up against torturers. There are
>different "arenas" of evil in the film, but from the
>intertwining storylines we can see that no one is that far
>apart.
>

That's what great about movies. The unexpected happens to characters, creating conflict. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

>4. The inhabitants of each arena of evil, in their comfort
>zone, are casual/flippant/callous/narcissistic towards crime.
>Confronted with deeper evil or sheer misfortune, only
>compassion, loyalty and other positive elements of human
>spirituality can save them. Bruce Willis rescued Marsallus out
>of pity (he may not have wanted to kill Vince either); Jules
>spared Pumpkin&HoneyBunny because he wanted to give them the
>same chance that had been granted him; Pumpkin&HoneyBunny let
>themselves be spared because their concern for each other was
>greater than their concern for a successful robbery; Mia
>survived because Vince cared about her.
>

Character persevere only through morality. Again, THIS IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO PULP FICTION.

>5. We needn't think that Pulp Fiction isn't true to life...
>the simultaneous stories make it seem remarkable, but it's not
>surreal, it's real.

Unless a movie is sci-fi or fantasy, I always view it as if it's real. Who goes to a drama or comedy, murmuring to themselves over and over, "This movie isn't real, this movie isn't real..."? Not to mention Pulp Fiction doesn't have many remarkable "coincidences", except that Bruce Willis and Marsellus run into each other.

>
>6. The paragraph about "black and white form the central
>motif" and the "Jocyean sense of here-comes-everybody"... i
>THINK it's reinforcing the idea of everything being
>intertwined ("reality tumbles into reality, race into race"),
>even contrasting elements. Underclass couple with an upper
>class lifestyle, black man with white wife, and vice versa,
>white man working alongside black man, employed by black boss,
>jewish man arriving to solve the problems.
>

This is a babbling brook of bullshit. The issue of race is never brought up in Pulp Fiction. Ever. QT says the N-word, but no one talks about it. And NOTHING is intertwined in Pulp Fiction! It's ONE story, with a couple of stories about the characters IN the main story tacked on in order to flesh them out.


>7. The characters have depth because they all love to talk.
>None of them are cartoons with just a few stereotypical lines
>

I don't even know what this means. Talking gives a character depth? What the FUCK?

>>since some of you think it says "nothing'
>>
>>1. The stories of the characters in Pulp Fiction overlap
>with
>>each other, though they are separate; they are "anchored"
>by
>>the central figure of crime boss Marsallus who's involved in
>>all the stories. Analogous with this, people in America are
>>separated by race/class etc, but their lives still overlap -
>>everyone has pop culture (pulp fiction) as an anchor. Pop
>>culture has all sorts of racial overlaps. It also has
>looming
>>figures like the wealthy godfather/crime-boss that we're all
>>familiar with but few of us ever meet.
>
>So Marsellus = pulp fiction? I don't understand the point of
>this point, or why QT would try to convey this (which I don't
>get from the film).
>

Marsellus is the common reference point for the different stories, and for the audience.

going on a date = basic human experience
going on a date with crime boss's wife = storyline plucked from pulp fiction

boxer killing his opponent = unique story
boxer not taking the dive ordered by crime boss = storyline plucked from pulp fiction

two guys covering up an accidental murder = you know, could go anywhere
crime boss and two hitmen covering up a murder = story plucked from pulp fiction

Marsellus's presence tells the audience what types of stories these are meant to be, framing the debate

AND he holds the stories together which would otherwise be unrelated


>>
>>2. Pop culture gives us sentiments like Scarface's bravura
>>("I'll execute every last motherfucking one of you"),
>>Corleone's ruthlessness in the name of honor ("I will strike
>>down upon thee with great vengence"), contempt for
>authorities
>>("The manager doesn't want to get shot, he knows he's
>>insured"), casual attitude towards drugs, guns (everyone
>who
>>owns a gun in PF ends up worse for it), disregard for the
>law.
>>Most of us are entertained BY these ideas, but for the
>>criminal mind they facilitate evil. Serious wrong doing can
>be
>>brushed off lightly ("Just cops." Any real people?" "Just
>>cops.")
>
>This is obvious. Saying "Pop culture affects our social
>mindset" is like saying "Our government affects the politics
>of our country." This is not nearly exclusive to the work of
>QT. You can see the affects of pop culture everywhere in
>cinema.

the point he's making is that specifically PF examines the way evil functions in modern American society, with all the amorality and narcissism and flippancy that is reflected by its pop culture

this is a good point because it's a good summation of what Pulp Fiction is "about" - something that has been much debated but not satisfactorily answered (for instance some people say it's about nothing, that all the dialogue is just there for the hell of it; others say it as about redemption)

>
>>
>>3. Mia didn't reckon her lifestyle would nearly kill her;
>>diners didn't reckon on getting robbed; amateur robbers
>didn't
>>bragain on coming up against professional hitmen (neither
>did
>>small time fraudsters); their boss (Marsallus) didn't reckon
>>on coming up against sexual perverts/predators; perverts
>>didn't reckon on coming up against torturers. There are
>>different "arenas" of evil in the film, but from the
>>intertwining storylines we can see that no one is that far
>>apart.
>>
>
>That's what great about movies. The unexpected happens to
>characters, creating conflict. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.


instead of a pair of rapists, why not a pair of greek banjo players with a donkey?
because the film is about how evil functions and the events illustrate the different degrees of evil


>
>>4. The inhabitants of each arena of evil, in their comfort
>>zone, are casual/flippant/callous/narcissistic towards
>crime.
>>Confronted with deeper evil or sheer misfortune, only
>>compassion, loyalty and other positive elements of human
>>spirituality can save them. Bruce Willis rescued Marsallus
>out
>>of pity (he may not have wanted to kill Vince either); Jules
>>spared Pumpkin&HoneyBunny because he wanted to give them the
>>same chance that had been granted him; Pumpkin&HoneyBunny
>let
>>themselves be spared because their concern for each other
>was
>>greater than their concern for a successful robbery; Mia
>>survived because Vince cared about her.
>>
>
>Character persevere only through morality. Again, THIS IS NOT
>EXCLUSIVE TO PULP FICTION.
>

Yes it's common to most great literature
It's quite interesting how it happens in PF though

for instance Jules has to reconstruct his whole moral code in a short time span, and reinterpret his bible passage

Butch acts on compassion and considers morality afterwards ("What about you and me?" "There is no you and me. We're even.")

Vince may have acted out of fear of Marsellus or love for Mia, we're left to ponder that one (or if it was resolved, i've forgotten)

HoneyBunny and Pumpkin have a tender heart under a veneer of disgusting callousness towards society

without these positive reactions Pulp Fiction would be more like a documentary on the seedier side of L.A.

>>5. We needn't think that Pulp Fiction isn't true to life...
>>the simultaneous stories make it seem remarkable, but it's
>not
>>surreal, it's real.
>
>Unless a movie is sci-fi or fantasy, I always view it as if
>it's real. Who goes to a drama or comedy, murmuring to
>themselves over and over, "This movie isn't real, this movie
>isn't real..."? Not to mention Pulp Fiction doesn't have many
>remarkable "coincidences", except that Bruce Willis and
>Marsellus run into each other.
>

But so little of it is real. The Godfather - not real, we know the author just made up all the honor stuff and feudal stuff from his imagination. And in general, the art of writing is the art of paraphrasing. We watch a film where a marriage breaks up, there's usually a scene where the wife wants to share something with her husband, or go somewhere, or whatever, and the husband clearly isn't interested... then a few scenes later the marriage breaks down. We don't think the marriage collapsed just cause the husband ignored his wife ONE evening - we take it as symptomatic, an example of what happens a lot. And comedies, characters don't react naturally, because if they did the jokes would stop and they'd have a serious discussion about what someone had said ("what do you mean by that?" "are you making fun of me?" "you're behaving like an idiot" etc); they always have the FAINTEST excuse to keep the scene moving.

Now in Pulp Fiction the dialogue is different from most films, it's pretty funny, and the number of stories, shown in strange sequences, might give the impression of the whole thing being rather fantastic and unlikely.

But arguably, it's very realistic for a film, because the dialogue is free from having to paraphrase the plot (the characters just have conversations). the jokes are all within the realm of normal everyday life conversational jokes, and the events as you say are not really coincidental at all.

>>
>>6. The paragraph about "black and white form the central
>>motif" and the "Jocyean sense of here-comes-everybody"... i
>>THINK it's reinforcing the idea of everything being
>>intertwined ("reality tumbles into reality, race into
>race"),
>>even contrasting elements. Underclass couple with an upper
>>class lifestyle, black man with white wife, and vice versa,
>>white man working alongside black man, employed by black
>boss,
>>jewish man arriving to solve the problems.
>>
>
>This is a babbling brook of bullshit. The issue of race is
>never brought up in Pulp Fiction. Ever. QT says the N-word,
>but no one talks about it.

I'm not sure about it personally
maybe Crouch felt obliged to force the point since his book was about race and he had picked up good racial themes in the previous films
or maybe there is something there, since all his other points were good

And NOTHING is intertwined in Pulp
>Fiction! It's ONE story, with a couple of stories about the
>characters IN the main story tacked on in order to flesh them
>out.

it's three standard "pulp fiction" stories (in fact the script has the alternate title "Three Stories" written on it)
held together because QT made the standard crime boss character in each story the same individual
and each story unfolds a bit more into the realm of QT's own imagination (the whole clean-up operation with Marvin's corpse; the dungeon scene; the taxi scene; Vince talking to Jules...)
it's intertwined because, for instance, Vince has not made his mind up how the event with Mia is going to change him, is Jules going to convince him to change his ways? would Butch have shot him if the toaster hadn't gone off? was he really EXPECTING Butch to come back to his apartment so he could kill him?


see it's actually IMO an adaption of Hemingway's The Killers, which takes a pulp fiction premise (boxer doesn't take a dive, hitmen sent to kill him) and draws it out a bit, putting in dialogue that examines subjective morality and existentialism, then leaves the rest to your imagination, as was Hemingway's method (just giving you the essentials)

unlike the two other films of The Killers which simply join the dots and pad out the background story you could have guessed, QT combines The Killers story with some similar stories to create a longer work, the different stories reinforcing each other

>
>
>>7. The characters have depth because they all love to talk.
>>None of them are cartoons with just a few stereotypical
>lines
>>
>
>I don't even know what this means. Talking gives a character
>depth? What the FUCK?
>

uh, of course it does
The plastic surgeon dodgy doctor guy in the simpsons - 2D character, given a few one liners, nothing to give him any depth

not that you can't give depth with economic word use
but the point is the characters in PF love to talk, and to express their views of the world

Jules and Vince have that big discussion about the different values of europe, about the do's and don'ts of another man's woman, and by the end of the film they're debating God and the path of the righteous

Marsellus shows his understanding of human psychology with his pep talk to Butch

and so on

I think you could write psychoanalytical diarrhea of the keyboard and be published as well.

However, I see the movie a different way. A simpler way. A non-psychobabble horseshit way.

They are characters in a world. They may be different stories, but they are all about the same world. Characters in a world intertwine and relate. Nothing is new, except in this movie, he tells separate stories about the supporting characters in this world.

Good vs. evil and right vs. wrong is a conflict in damn near EVERY movie. Just because QT expressed it with rapists and pop culture and all the other horseshit mentioned in the article/ your reply doesn't mean it doesn't boil down to the same damn thing as all these other movies.

NONE OF THIS IS ABOUT THE WORLD AS A WHOLE. Can the world relate to characters? Sure. But it's not this huge all-encompassing statement about the unbearable battle between evil and good that all of humanity faces and that B-grade Book of Revelations you and Crouch spell it out to be.

QT didn't tell a NEW story with Pulp Fiction. He just told it differently. People took notice because of its unusual structure and its harsh violence.

now, I'm not gonna ride particularly hard for Pulp Fiction cause I think a lot of this analysis was more read into it than intended.

But a lot of people in this post are basically coming across as saying "movies have no meaning but the basic narrative".

And this, to me, is really too bad. It's enforcing that idea that film is just some zone out entertainment and should not be taken as any kind of art. Or, even if art, it's just the art of straight storytelling and nothing more.

As I said before, even if I may not agree with every point in these essays, they're pretty refreshing just for the fact that they are trying to look deeper and find meaning.

Now, another thing I said in another post is, even if QT didn't explicitly put these ideas into his movies, I've found with a lot of art (my own included) people will realize they put stuff into their works that they never even realized! To take it another step, who cares if QT didn't put the meaning there, someone found it, and it played that way to them. I think it's great, and I think it's comendable that dude is really digging, and he made some valid points.

Bottom line, you may not agree, but the amount of hate is ridiculous.

Lastly, I know you are gonna HATE me for bringing this up, but there haev been times in my life where I was extremely frusturated because I DID NOT UNDERSTAND art analysis. Shit, it still happens all the time. Just food for thought.

>But a lot of people in this post are basically coming across
>as saying "movies have no meaning but the basic narrative".

Yeah, that is what I said.

Lol.

The essay suck.

That is what we are saying.

They suck.

The author of the essay is writing fiction and inventing storylines and themes.

The essays suck

>And this, to me, is really too bad. It's enforcing that idea
>that film is just some zone out entertainment and should not
>be taken as any kind of art. Or, even if art, it's just the
>art of straight storytelling and nothing more.

Strawman.

The essays suck.

Get over it.

>As I said before, even if I may not agree with every point in
>these essays, they're pretty refreshing just for the fact that
>they are trying to look deeper and find meaning.

No,

They are fiction writing.

They suck.


>Now, another thing I said in another post is, even if QT
>didn't explicitly put these ideas into his movies, I've found
>with a lot of art (my own included) people will realize they
>put stuff into their works that they never even realized! To
>take it another step, who cares if QT didn't put the meaning
>there, someone found it, and it played that way to them. I
>think it's great, and I think it's comendable that dude is
>really digging, and he made some valid points.

So its okay for people to invent themes and meanings that the film didn't at all communicate, at all?

Its fiction writing.

It sucks.


>Bottom line, you may not agree, but the amount of hate is
>ridiculous.

No, the fact that this bitch has a job writing and analyzing film is ridiculous.

He needs to write trashy romance novels.

His writing sucks.

>Lastly, I know you are gonna HATE me for bringing this up, but
>there haev been times in my life where I was extremely
>frusturated because I DID NOT UNDERSTAND art analysis. Shit,
>it still happens all the time. Just food for thought.

Well, I *DO* understand art analysis.

These essays were not art analysis.

They are fiction writing.

They suck.

Can you consider anyone's points without being totally dismissive?

You really know how to get your point across by repeating "they suck" over and over again.

>Can you consider anyone's points without being totally
>dismissive?

Not when they SUCK as bad as this essay.

I actually have broken shit down, you just choose to ignore it.

>You really know how to get your point across by repeating
>"they suck" over and over again.

Read above.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

This thread is clearly not for you since you prefer name calling and dismissiveness to actually considering someone else's viewpoint.

Not everyone gets the same thing out of a movie. I'm not agreeing with Crouch/Damaja, but it is interesting to think about.

Personally, I think Crouch was seriously reaching. I didn't agree with the essays. There are some shreds of what Crouch was talking about in the movies, but he took things way too far.
However, Damaja made some great points.

Your arguments are basically that the movie sucks, Crouch sucks, and everyone who disagrees is stupid. That's just not very convincing.

I think this entire discussion would have been better if you hadn't even entered it. You add nothing to the discussion.

>This thread is clearly not for you since you prefer name
>calling and dismissiveness to actually considering someone
>else's viewpoint.

Actually, I have debated intelligently, I just happen to do so and clown people
at the same time. It makes it more fun. I would delve into actual academics if I wanted
stale, boring, bland, discussions.

The difference between PTP and OkaySports is that the PTP guys are waaay too sensitive. In Okaysports you punch, people punch back.

>Not everyone gets the same thing out of a movie. I'm not
>agreeing with Crouch/Damaja, but it is interesting to think
>about.

No. its not interesting to think about, because the people are MANUFACTURING REASONS in order to MAKE THEMSELVES FEEL INTELLIGENT.

That is my beef.

It ain't got NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL MOVIE.

It has to do with the PEOPLE. CROUCH WROTE THIS FOR HIMSELF. NOT TO ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE SOMETHING HELPFUL ABOUT THE MOVIE.

>Personally, I think Crouch was seriously reaching. I didn't
>agree with the essays. There are some shreds of what Crouch
>was talking about in the movies, but he took things way too
>far.
>However, Damaja made some great points.

Like his point about how the metric/imperial system of measurement comparsion had something to do with how the criminal underworld uses the metric system in their measurement of drugs?

That was fucking BRILLIANT.

In a retarded way.

>Your arguments are basically that the movie sucks, Crouch
>sucks, and everyone who disagrees is stupid. That's just not
>very convincing.

Indeed, and I actually made points to that end. Crouch and Damaja's arguments both DO suck, and I explained HOW THEY SUCK.

>I think this entire discussion would have been better if you
>hadn't even entered it. You add nothing to the discussion.

And a skeptic ruins a conversation between a psychic and a woman trying to win the lottery.

I'll take it as a compliment.

Nah mean son.

----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

>>This thread is clearly not for you since you prefer name
>>calling and dismissiveness to actually considering someone
>>else's viewpoint.
>
>Actually, I have debated intelligently,

arguable (lol)


>I just happen to do so
>and clown people
>at the same time. It makes it more fun.

Perhaps. But it's still juvenile. It would be one thing if you were actually funny or amusing, but I think for the most part the only person you amuse is yourself. Which is fine, I mean, it's only a message board. You can amuse yourself however you want.


I would delve into
>actual academics if I wanted
>stale, boring, bland, discussions.

I get it. Academics are boring. Thus the need to be juvenile.


>The difference between PTP and OkaySports is that the PTP guys
>are waaay too sensitive. In Okaysports you punch, people punch
>back.

I don't know about Damaja, but no one's really catching feelings. I don't really care one way or the other, but I enjoy reading posts that are either funny, interesting, or give me something to think about. For the most part, yours do none of the three.


>>Not everyone gets the same thing out of a movie. I'm not
>>agreeing with Crouch/Damaja, but it is interesting to think
>>about.
>
>No. its not interesting to think about, because the people are
>MANUFACTURING REASONS in order to MAKE THEMSELVES FEEL
>INTELLIGENT.

If it's not interesting to you, why are you spending so much time here? I've read plenty of analyses of art (whether it's painting, sculpting, fiction, movies, etc.) that I disagreed with or thought were total bunk. Some of them I may not have understood, some of them really WERE bullshit, and some of them may have had things that the artist put into the work (themes, archetypes, etc) that were not totally intentional/conscious choices.


>That is my beef.
>
>It ain't got NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL MOVIE.

You hate the actual movie, which means you're probably going to attack any in-depth positive analysis/review of the movie, regardless of the content.
Personally, I usually don't bother reading in-depth analyses of movies I hated - it's a waste of my time.
It's funny to me that it's suck a passion of yours. I guess Pulp Fiction is the movie you LOVE to HATE, because you sure as hell pop up every single fucking time the movie is mentioned.


>It has to do with the PEOPLE. CROUCH WROTE THIS FOR HIMSELF.
>NOT TO ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE SOMETHING HELPFUL ABOUT THE MOVIE.

While I don't agree with Crouch, I don't agree with you either.


>>Personally, I think Crouch was seriously reaching. I didn't
>>agree with the essays. There are some shreds of what Crouch
>>was talking about in the movies, but he took things way too
>>far.
>>However, Damaja made some great points.
>
>Damaja

Are you claiming I am an alias? Well, I was here before you OR Damaja so what's that say? I am not an alias, nor do I have any aliases. Aliases are for people who don't have the balls to say what they want - which is stupid because this is a message board and nobody knows you anyway (except GD people who actually get together and meet each other in real life).


>>Your arguments are basically that the movie sucks, Crouch
>>sucks, and everyone who disagrees is stupid. That's just not
>>very convincing.
>
>Indeed, and I actually made points to that end. Crouch and
>Damaja's arguments both DO suck, and I explained HOW THEY
>SUCK.

You attacked some of Damaja's points, but I didn't really see you explain how the arguments suck besides saying that Crouch/Damaja made that shit up and none of it was in the movies. Couldn't you just have said, "I didn't get that from the movies at all."

That would have been your two cents and you wouldn't seem like such a prick. (which clearly doesn't bother you anyway)


>>I think this entire discussion would have been better if you
>>hadn't even entered it. You add nothing to the discussion.
>
>And a skeptic ruins a conversation between a "psychic" and a
>woman trying to win the lottery.

Not really. If the woman believes in and trusts the psychic, the skeptic won't change her mind. He's just in there talking to hear himself speak.

Whether she wins the lottery or not has NOTHING to do with the skeptic, and everything do with
1) whether the psychic is really a psychic or just someone pretending to be psychic
2) luck/chance

The skeptic doesn't affect whether the psychic is a fake or not, and the skeptic doesn't affect the woman's luck/chance. He's just wasting his time.

>I think this entire discussion would have been better if you
>hadn't even entered it. You add nothing to the discussion.

if you look at the stuff OE and I are arguing about, below, it's based on a miniscule detail of the film, then it's based on things one step or more removed from that miniscule detail

now people wont even want to click on the thread, because it's already massive, even though there's been little proper discussion

I rarely enjoy films on a tell-a-revealing-truth-about-society level. Usually films that reach for that piss me off (i.e. Fight Club, but that's a different post).

Can a movie tell me a good story? Can the story intrigue/move/amuse/sadden me? Will this story remain with me after the movie's over? This is what I need.

What I don't like (and what I admittedly don't understand) about film analysis often is the need, the UNDYING DESIRE of these wannabe-intellectual windbags to tie all of the stuff that is WITHIN the story (morality, pride, religion, anything else you could come up with, etc.) to some blanket statement relating to the world. If you wanna talk about movies compared to other movies, cool. Compare characters to other characters in the film, cool. But alla this...nah.

Not to mention this guy states all this stuff as if he's the first one to think of these obvious statements. "There's a battle of the moral versus the immoral." "There are black and white people interacting." These are not huge revelations, as Mr. Crouch makes them out to be. They are merely common sense statements, fluffed up to look like important intellectual bullshit. I am an English major, I've seen bullshit, I've written bullshit, and this is bullshit.

It's not meant to undermine Pulp Fiction, which I enjoy. It's meant to undermine the "art" of Crouch's art analysis, and others like him, where most of these dudes find a thesaurus and grasp at straws, describing these straws using the fanciest words they can find.

>I think you could write psychoanalytical diarrhea of the
>keyboard and be published as well.
>
>However, I see the movie a different way. A simpler way. A
>non-psychobabble horseshit way.
>
>They are characters in a world. They may be different stories,
>but they are all about the same world. Characters in a world
>intertwine and relate. Nothing is new, except in this movie,
>he tells separate stories about the supporting characters in
>this world.
>

You talk about this as if a film is a computer game/simulation that the director merely programs, starts-up, and allows to unfold of its own accord. The writer not only has to choose the initial setting and characters, out of all other possible settings and characters, he has to pick the events that make up the stories, then he has to WRITE the characters into the events and have them REACT every step of the way, and INTERACT, in a manner internally consistent with their personalities, so that by the end of the film they have CHANGED - change being the most fundamental rule of writing a story. EVERYTHING is deliberate, therefore looking for the WHY behind everything is completely valid, though difficult since you as the viewer have to backwards engeneer it.

Also, look at Sin City where there's three different stories and characters pop up in stories they aren't involved in because as you say "they're in the same world." But look at how much more intertwined and cohesive Pulp Fiction is than Sin City, when you take the three stories as a whole.

>Good vs. evil and right vs. wrong is a conflict in damn near
>EVERY movie. Just because QT expressed it with rapists and pop
>culture and all the other horseshit mentioned in the article/
>your reply doesn't mean it doesn't boil down to the same damn
>thing as all these other movies.

i can't believe you're even making this point
did you try this on your Shakespeare paper? lol
"So Macbeth goes from a righteous man to a wrongful one, and there is a conflict between good and evil. VERY ORIGINAL WILL."
right vs. wrong is a THEME, a UNIVERSAL THEME
what matters is how the writer TREATS a theme
and also that you (the audience) can IDENTIFY the theme and the way that it's being treated

(young) audiences haven't been very successful at identifying the central theme of PF, probably because they're so FAMILIAR with violence and crime through their experience of pop culture that they take it for granted, which is one of the main points QT is making, ironically.

>
>NONE OF THIS IS ABOUT THE WORLD AS A WHOLE. Can the world
>relate to characters? Sure. But it's not this huge
>all-encompassing statement about the unbearable battle between
>evil and good that all of humanity faces and that B-grade Book
>of Revelations you and Crouch spell it out to be.
>

I'm not sure why you've got a bee in your bonnet about this either.
Any film that uses real settings and issues will "relate" to the world as you say.

Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
the ending with the main character killing himself doesn't really make sense, it's too extreme, unless you take into account that the schoolboys were being used to symbolize different philosophies, namely romanticism and realism. The boy killed himself because his philosophy of romanticism made death the only acceptbale alternative to freedom. Thus WITHIN the film understanding the ideologies is essential to understanding the story, and OUTWITH the film you can apply those ideologies to real life, if you wish

And best believe writers are very conscious about the overall messages their work puts out. Just by creating characters and events they're essentially playing god so they're bound to think twice about stuff

>QT didn't tell a NEW story with Pulp Fiction. He just told it
>differently. People took notice because of its unusual
>structure and its harsh violence.

it;s a bit harder to pinpoint what exactly is "new" about anything. that's another post

>
>You talk about this as if a film is a computer game/simulation
>that the director merely programs, starts-up, and allows to
>unfold of its own accord. The writer not only has to choose
>the initial setting and characters, out of all other possible
>settings and characters, he has to pick the events that make
>up the stories, then he has to WRITE the characters into the
>events and have them REACT every step of the way, and
>INTERACT, in a manner internally consistent with their
>personalities, so that by the end of the film they have
>CHANGED - change being the most fundamental rule of writing a
>story. EVERYTHING is deliberate, therefore looking for the WHY
>behind everything is completely valid, though difficult since
>you as the viewer have to backwards engeneer it.
>
>Also, look at Sin City where there's three different stories
>and characters pop up in stories they aren't involved in
>because as you say "they're in the same world." But look at
>how much more intertwined and cohesive Pulp Fiction is than
>Sin City, when you take the three stories as a whole.

But these are all things that happen in EVER good movie. Things unfold, characters react, interact, and change.

Not to mention Sin City is different, because I meant "world" meaning they were all of basically the same family. Jules, Vince, Bruce Willis, Wolf, they all worked for Marsellus. Of course co-workers/wives of bosses intertwine better than random hit men in a city.

>
>>Good vs. evil and right vs. wrong is a conflict in damn near
>>EVERY movie. Just because QT expressed it with rapists and
>pop
>>culture and all the other horseshit mentioned in the
>article/
>>your reply doesn't mean it doesn't boil down to the same
>damn
>>thing as all these other movies.
>
>i can't believe you're even making this point
>did you try this on your Shakespeare paper? lol
>"So Macbeth goes from a righteous man to a wrongful one, and
>there is a conflict between good and evil. VERY ORIGINAL
>WILL."
>right vs. wrong is a THEME, a UNIVERSAL THEME
>what matters is how the writer TREATS a theme
>and also that you (the audience) can IDENTIFY the theme and
>the way that it's being treated

I'm not saying it's QT's fault for doing this. EVERYONE takes themes that already exist and put their twist on it. There are many movies with the same themes that I love all of. I'm faulting CROUCH for pointing out the obvious. "The movie has good versus evil and morality in it!" No shit. Or he invents things, like the race arguments.

>
>(young) audiences haven't been very successful at identifying
>the central theme of PF, probably because they're so FAMILIAR
>with violence and crime through their experience of pop
>culture that they take it for granted, which is one of the
>main points QT is making, ironically.
>

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this psychoanalytical bullshit point. Explain it for me in smaller words, my Duke education must not be enough to comprehend what you're trying to say.

>>
>>NONE OF THIS IS ABOUT THE WORLD AS A WHOLE. Can the world
>>relate to characters? Sure. But it's not this huge
>>all-encompassing statement about the unbearable battle
>between
>>evil and good that all of humanity faces and that B-grade
>Book
>>of Revelations you and Crouch spell it out to be.
>>
>
>I'm not sure why you've got a bee in your bonnet about this
>either.
>Any film that uses real settings and issues will "relate" to
>the world as you say.

Yes, but it's not ABOUT the world. It's about characters in a world and their choices. If the world reacts to it, gravy. But it's not ABOUT the world.

>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"

A movie that sucks.

>the ending with the main character killing himself doesn't
>really make sense, it's too extreme, unless you take into
>account that the schoolboys were being used to symbolize
>different philosophies, namely romanticism and realism. The
>boy killed himself because his philosophy of romanticism made
>death the only acceptbale alternative to freedom. Thus WITHIN
>the film understanding the ideologies is essential to
>understanding the story, and OUTWITH the film you can apply
>those ideologies to real life, if you wish
>
>And best believe writers are very conscious about the overall
>messages their work puts out. Just by creating characters and
>events they're essentially playing god so they're bound to
>think twice about stuff

Zzzz Dead Poet's Society is lame.

>
>>QT didn't tell a NEW story with Pulp Fiction. He just told
>it
>>differently. People took notice because of its unusual
>>structure and its harsh violence.
>
>it;s a bit harder to pinpoint what exactly is "new" about
>anything. that's another post

Well, yes.

>But these are all things that happen in EVERY good movie.
>Things unfold, characters react, interact, and change.
>

and it's completely legitimate to analyse all those things
think about it like this - painstaking thought goes into every line of a movie when it's being written, so the movie should be able to generate a great deal of thought in the viewer. of course we'll never match the creative process because we don't spend six months of our lives doing it

some movies are straight forward enough that the changes, reactions etc don't really need explaining
but PF clearly isn't a straight forward film. there's more characters, so there's more changes, and theres more dialogue, and the dialogue is unconventional, and the events are out of order, and the stories are separate
so it's NATURAL that there's a lot of analysis of PF going about


>Not to mention Sin City is different, because I meant "world"
>meaning they were all of basically the same family. Jules,
>Vince, Bruce Willis, Wolf, they all worked for Marsellus. Of
>course co-workers/wives of bosses intertwine better than
>random hit men in a city.
>

well, weren't the pedophile and the serial killer both being protected by the senator? can't remember if the prostitution story was tied in at all... the goldie-twin prostitute and the really tough guy characters knew each other

but anyway, Pulp Fiction IS intertwined. vince talks with jules about all his moral and theological matters, though vince has his own story with Mia, in which unlike Jules he seemingly doesn't redeem himself, cause he gets capped by Butch, who probably wonders if he should really have killed him, since he saves Marsellus's ass in the next chapter, who of course Vince was only following the orders of. its interesting if you look at al the ins and outs


>>right vs. wrong is a THEME, a UNIVERSAL THEME
>>what matters is how the writer TREATS a theme
>>and also that you (the audience) can IDENTIFY the theme and
>>the way that it's being treated
>
>I'm not saying it's QT's fault for doing this. EVERYONE takes
>themes that already exist and put their twist on it. There are
>many movies with the same themes that I love all of. I'm
>faulting CROUCH for pointing out the obvious. "The movie has
>good versus evil and morality in it!" No shit.

he points out what the "twist on it" is, and he also details how the theme pans out - if there's no point in doing that, there's no point in the film having the theme.

>>
>>(young) audiences haven't been very successful at
>identifying
>>the central theme of PF, probably because they're so
>FAMILIAR
>>with violence and crime through their experience of pop
>>culture that they take it for granted, which is one of the
>>main points QT is making, ironically.
>>
>
>I'm still trying to wrap my head around this psychoanalytical
>bullshit point. Explain it for me in smaller words, my Duke
>education must not be enough to comprehend what you're trying
>to say.
>

we're so used to watching gangster films, that we've practically stopped condemning the actions of criminals (as if everyone's a criminal). it's that thing QT does when something horrendous is happening or about to happen, and he gets you to laugh at it, then slaps you with the reality of it. in this respect the ear cutting scene was a bit more successful than the marvin scene.


>Or he invents
>things, like the race arguments.
>

the race arguments for RD and TR were pretty solid... the fact that QT chose a black actor/character for the role of Mr Orange's trainer, is good evidence for his point.

In PF it's a bit more confusing, save to say that QT deliberately used the N word, and deliberately set up interracial couples, and made non racist Vince go to a racist drug dealer. After a bit of thought about it I think Crouch's saying "Tarantino wrote these things into the script, because these are simply the way things are. Integrated, overlapping, tolerated, inappropriate, diverse." I think that's what he means by "joycean sense of here comes everybody"


>>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
>
>A movie that sucks.
>

man

>>But these are all things that happen in EVERY good movie.
>>Things unfold, characters react, interact, and change.
>>
>
>and it's completely legitimate to analyse all those things
>think about it like this - painstaking thought goes into every
>line of a movie when it's being written, so the movie should
>be able to generate a great deal of thought in the viewer. of
>course we'll never match the creative process because we don't
>spend six months of our lives doing it

It is legitimate to do so. It's also okay to be legitimately incorrect, or to legitimately like to hear the sound of your own voice, like our friend Mr. Crouch.

>
>some movies are straight forward enough that the changes,
>reactions etc don't really need explaining
>but PF clearly isn't a straight forward film. there's more
>characters, so there's more changes, and theres more dialogue,
>and the dialogue is unconventional, and the events are out of
>order, and the stories are separate
>so it's NATURAL that there's a lot of analysis of PF going
>about

I don't see what's unconventional about the dialogue. Because it's good? That's what's unconventional? They talk a LOT? Is that why? They do some Seinfeldian talking-about-nothing here and there? Is that why?

Also, I don't see what reactions/changes are complicated enough that they are addressed in Crouch's essay.

>
>
>>Not to mention Sin City is different, because I meant
>"world"
>>meaning they were all of basically the same family. Jules,
>>Vince, Bruce Willis, Wolf, they all worked for Marsellus. Of
>>course co-workers/wives of bosses intertwine better than
>>random hit men in a city.
>>
>
>well, weren't the pedophile and the serial killer both being
>protected by the senator? can't remember if the prostitution
>story was tied in at all... the goldie-twin prostitute and the
>really tough guy characters knew each other
>
>but anyway, Pulp Fiction IS intertwined.

Yes. Because characters like a boss, his wife, and his co-workers are ALWAYS interwined.

vince talks with
>jules about all his moral and theological matters, though
>vince has his own story with Mia, in which unlike Jules he
>seemingly doesn't redeem himself, cause he gets capped by
>Butch, who probably wonders if he should really have killed
>him, since he saves Marsellus's ass in the next chapter, who
>of course Vince was only following the orders of. its
>interesting if you look at al the ins and outs

But this is obvious stuff you can get from the film. All of this is front and center, easy to see. To talk about it is just to summarize the film, or to listen to the sound of your own voice and masturbate to it.

>
>
>>>right vs. wrong is a THEME, a UNIVERSAL THEME
>>>what matters is how the writer TREATS a theme
>>>and also that you (the audience) can IDENTIFY the theme and
>>>the way that it's being treated
>>
>>I'm not saying it's QT's fault for doing this. EVERYONE
>takes
>>themes that already exist and put their twist on it. There
>are
>>many movies with the same themes that I love all of. I'm
>>faulting CROUCH for pointing out the obvious. "The movie has
>>good versus evil and morality in it!" No shit.
>
>he points out what the "twist on it" is, and he also details
>how the theme pans out - if there's no point in doing that,
>there's no point in the film having the theme.

Yes, but the twist he points out is bullshit. Marsellus stands for pop culture. Yes, it all makes sense now.

>>>
>>>(young) audiences haven't been very successful at
>>identifying
>>>the central theme of PF, probably because they're so
>>FAMILIAR
>>>with violence and crime through their experience of pop
>>>culture that they take it for granted, which is one of the
>>>main points QT is making, ironically.
>>>
>>
>>I'm still trying to wrap my head around this
>psychoanalytical
>>bullshit point. Explain it for me in smaller words, my Duke
>>education must not be enough to comprehend what you're
>trying
>>to say.
>>
>
>we're so used to watching gangster films, that we've
>practically stopped condemning the actions of criminals (as if
>everyone's a criminal). it's that thing QT does when something
>horrendous is happening or about to happen, and he gets you to
>laugh at it, then slaps you with the reality of it. in this
>respect the ear cutting scene was a bit more successful than
>the marvin scene.
>

But again, this is easy to see. This doesn't require huge essays. Movies BEFORE Pulp Fiction used violence amusingly.

>
>>Or he invents
>>things, like the race arguments.
>>
>
>the race arguments for RD and TR were pretty solid... the fact
>that QT chose a black actor/character for the role of Mr
>Orange's trainer, is good evidence for his point.
>
>In PF it's a bit more confusing, save to say that QT
>deliberately used the N word, and deliberately set up
>interracial couples, and made non racist Vince go to a racist
>drug dealer. After a bit of thought about it I think Crouch's
>saying "Tarantino wrote these things into the script, because
>these are simply the way things are. Integrated, overlapping,
>tolerated, inappropriate, diverse." I think that's what he
>means by "joycean sense of here comes everybody"

Yeah, but he said "joycean sense of here comes everybody." Which means absolutely nothing and is meant to sound more intellectual and more pompous than everyone reading it.

>
>
>>>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
>>
>>A movie that sucks.
>>
>
>man

Yep. It sucks.

>I don't see what's unconventional about the dialogue. Because
>it's good? That's what's unconventional? They talk a LOT? Is
>that why? They do some Seinfeldian talking-about-nothing here
>and there? Is that why?

because
1. it's not dedicated to the plot or the comedy
2. there relatively lots of it. more to analyse
3. it appears to be about random subjects quite often

this is not NORMAL for a film
dialogue in general had been marginalized by the time PF came out, so they say


>
>Also, I don't see what reactions/changes are complicated
>enough that they are addressed in Crouch's essay.
>

Vincent
a man with some values (you can tell by the way he self importantly says "I don't watch television")
he miraculously escapes death in the hotel room
while Jules has a moment of epiphany, Vince remains cynical and doesn't adjust his values to something like believing in God, or making a new start in life with this miraculous chance
however, he does engage with Jules in debate about what happened
ends it with the words "To be continued"
and he's reading some book (can't remember what it is. maybe something to do with philosophy)
he goes on a date with Mia and saves her life... though we don't know if this is out of concern for Mia or for himself, since if giving her a footmessage gets one flung from a 4 story building
but he continues in his job after Jules quits, seemingly not learned anything, and so dies on his next assignment
BUT you wonder about
1. Vince surely wouldn't be so stupid as to leave his gun in the kitchen while he went to the bathroom, if he REALLY thought Butch was coming back (which he wouldn't have if it wasn't for the unlikely story about the watch). Was he really commited to killing Butch?
2. Butch probably wouldn't have killed Vince if the toaster hadn't popped up and jolted him. In which case Vince's death isn't so much what he deserves, as it is accidental (bit of a karma thing going on there, with Marvin's accidental death, perhaps)

And Butch's character... is not taking the dive a move of integrity or greed? he kills two people in a similar way, but still has "the good guy" thing going on. finally he proves it by rescuing Marsellus... uses the samurai sword as a symbol of honour, common enemy over personal enemy. Samurai is a fitting description for him actually, since he's a modern day professional fighter


>>but anyway, Pulp Fiction IS intertwined.
>
>Yes. Because characters like a boss, his wife, and his
>co-workers are ALWAYS interwined.
>

no they're not. do you know you're bosses wife? how many of us even know our coworkers outside work? either way, waltzing into scenes at CRUCIAL moments is a little bit more than inevitable contact

>vince talks with
>>jules about all his moral and theological matters, though
>>vince has his own story with Mia, in which unlike Jules he
>>seemingly doesn't redeem himself, cause he gets capped by
>>Butch, who probably wonders if he should really have killed
>>him, since he saves Marsellus's ass in the next chapter, who
>>of course Vince was only following the orders of. its
>>interesting if you look at al the ins and outs
>
>But this is obvious stuff you can get from the film. All of
>this is front and center, easy to see. To talk about it is
>just to summarize the film, or to listen to the sound of your
>own voice and masturbate to it.
>

dude, you're bending over backwards... you're the one that insisted the film "IS NOT INTERTWINED" and I replied explaining that it was. Crouch doesn't make that big a deal of it because yes it IS pretty obvoius

(though if they're intertwined, summarizing it is also "unraveling" it, which is useful)


>>
>>
>>>>right vs. wrong is a THEME, a UNIVERSAL THEME
>>>>what matters is how the writer TREATS a theme
>>>>and also that you (the audience) can IDENTIFY the theme
>and
>>>>the way that it's being treated
>>>
>>>I'm not saying it's QT's fault for doing this. EVERYONE
>>takes
>>>themes that already exist and put their twist on it. There
>>are
>>>many movies with the same themes that I love all of. I'm
>>>faulting CROUCH for pointing out the obvious. "The movie
>has
>>>good versus evil and morality in it!" No shit.
>>
>>he points out what the "twist on it" is, and he also details
>>how the theme pans out - if there's no point in doing that,
>>there's no point in the film having the theme.
>
>Yes, but the twist he points out is bullshit. Marsellus stands
>for pop culture. Yes, it all makes sense now.
>

how evil functions in a modern society whose amorality, flipancy, narcissism and callousness are reflected/enforced in its pop culture

Marsellus, who is undeniably the "anchor" of all the stories, is the EPITOME of that pop culture

(if you choose that interpretation at least. you could also argue that he's the devil)


>>we're so used to watching gangster films, that we've
>>practically stopped condemning the actions of criminals (as
>if
>>everyone's a criminal). it's that thing QT does when
>something
>>horrendous is happening or about to happen, and he gets you
>to
>>laugh at it, then slaps you with the reality of it. in this
>>respect the ear cutting scene was a bit more successful than
>>the marvin scene.
>>
>
>But again, this is easy to see. This doesn't require huge
>essays.

it's not easy to see anymore... that's the point. we're numbed to it. i bet you could look back at those archived PF posts and find people talking all sorts of things about PF before they even mention the basics.

>Movies BEFORE Pulp Fiction used violence amusingly.

they used the same technique of undermining violence, deliberately? of catching the audience out for enjoying it? example?

>Yeah, but he said "joycean sense of here comes everybody."
>Which means absolutely nothing and is meant to sound more
>intellectual and more pompous than everyone reading it.
>

Well, have you read Finnegan's Wake?
if you're familiar with Joyce presumably it's not more cryptic than saying something like "P.E.'s sense of militancy"

>>
>>
>>>>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
>>>
>>>A movie that sucks.
>>>
>>
>>man
>
>Yep. It sucks.

jesus

>>I don't see what's unconventional about the dialogue.
>Because
>>it's good? That's what's unconventional? They talk a LOT? Is
>>that why? They do some Seinfeldian talking-about-nothing
>here
>>and there? Is that why?
>
>because
>1. it's not dedicated to the plot or the comedy
>2. there relatively lots of it. more to analyse
>3. it appears to be about random subjects quite often
>
>this is not NORMAL for a film
>dialogue in general had been marginalized by the time PF came
>out, so they say
>

Most of the dialogue breaks your rule #1, because it is comical in many people's opinion. I find much of the dialogue amusing.

>
>>
>>Also, I don't see what reactions/changes are complicated
>>enough that they are addressed in Crouch's essay.
>>
>
>Vincent
>a man with some values (you can tell by the way he self
>importantly says "I don't watch television")
>he miraculously escapes death in the hotel room
>while Jules has a moment of epiphany, Vince remains cynical
>and doesn't adjust his values to something like believing in
>God, or making a new start in life with this miraculous
>chance
>however, he does engage with Jules in debate about what
>happened
>ends it with the words "To be continued"
>and he's reading some book (can't remember what it is. maybe
>something to do with philosophy)
>he goes on a date with Mia and saves her life... though we
>don't know if this is out of concern for Mia or for himself,
>since if giving her a footmessage gets one flung from a 4
>story building
>but he continues in his job after Jules quits, seemingly not
>learned anything, and so dies on his next assignment
>BUT you wonder about
>1. Vince surely wouldn't be so stupid as to leave his gun in
>the kitchen while he went to the bathroom, if he REALLY
>thought Butch was coming back (which he wouldn't have if it
>wasn't for the unlikely story about the watch). Was he really
>commited to killing Butch?
>2. Butch probably wouldn't have killed Vince if the toaster
>hadn't popped up and jolted him. In which case Vince's death
>isn't so much what he deserves, as it is accidental (bit of a
>karma thing going on there, with Marvin's accidental death,
>perhaps)
>
>And Butch's character... is not taking the dive a move of
>integrity or greed? he kills two people in a similar way, but
>still has "the good guy" thing going on. finally he proves it
>by rescuing Marsellus... uses the samurai sword as a symbol of
>honour, common enemy over personal enemy. Samurai is a fitting
>description for him actually, since he's a modern day
>professional fighter
>

You said very little in a lot of words.

>>>but anyway, Pulp Fiction IS intertwined.
>>
>>Yes. Because characters like a boss, his wife, and his
>>co-workers are ALWAYS interwined.
>>
>
>no they're not. do you know you're bosses wife?

I know her family, yes. Not to mention in most mafia/mob movies, characters know the big boss's wife.

how many of
>us even know our coworkers outside work?

Many of my best friends are coworkers.

either way, waltzing
>into scenes at CRUCIAL moments is a little bit more than
>inevitable contact

Yes, but there's ONE moment of that.

>
>>vince talks with
>>>jules about all his moral and theological matters, though
>>>vince has his own story with Mia, in which unlike Jules he
>>>seemingly doesn't redeem himself, cause he gets capped by
>>>Butch, who probably wonders if he should really have killed
>>>him, since he saves Marsellus's ass in the next chapter,
>who
>>>of course Vince was only following the orders of. its
>>>interesting if you look at al the ins and outs
>>
>>But this is obvious stuff you can get from the film. All of
>>this is front and center, easy to see. To talk about it is
>>just to summarize the film, or to listen to the sound of
>your
>>own voice and masturbate to it.
>>
>
>dude, you're bending over backwards... you're the one that
>insisted the film "IS NOT INTERTWINED" and I replied
>explaining that it was. Crouch doesn't make that big a deal of
>it because yes it IS pretty obvoius
>
>(though if they're intertwined, summarizing it is also
>"unraveling" it, which is useful)

I said it's not intertwined because that implies a level of complication/coincidence to the stories tying together, when it's not terribly complicated. They didn't list this movie at the beginning of Magnolia.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>right vs. wrong is a THEME, a UNIVERSAL THEME
>>>>>what matters is how the writer TREATS a theme
>>>>>and also that you (the audience) can IDENTIFY the theme
>>and
>>>>>the way that it's being treated
>>>>
>>>>I'm not saying it's QT's fault for doing this. EVERYONE
>>>takes
>>>>themes that already exist and put their twist on it. There
>>>are
>>>>many movies with the same themes that I love all of. I'm
>>>>faulting CROUCH for pointing out the obvious. "The movie
>>has
>>>>good versus evil and morality in it!" No shit.
>>>
>>>he points out what the "twist on it" is, and he also
>details
>>>how the theme pans out - if there's no point in doing that,
>>>there's no point in the film having the theme.
>>
>>Yes, but the twist he points out is bullshit. Marsellus
>stands
>>for pop culture. Yes, it all makes sense now.
>>
>
>how evil functions in a modern society whose amorality,
>flipancy, narcissism and callousness are reflected/enforced in
>its pop culture
>
>Marsellus, who is undeniably the "anchor" of all the stories,
>is the EPITOME of that pop culture

Give me one instance of Marsellus being pop culture.

>
>(if you choose that interpretation at least. you could also
>argue that he's the devil)
>

*yawn*

>
>>>we're so used to watching gangster films, that we've
>>>practically stopped condemning the actions of criminals (as
>>if
>>>everyone's a criminal). it's that thing QT does when
>>something
>>>horrendous is happening or about to happen, and he gets you
>>to
>>>laugh at it, then slaps you with the reality of it. in this
>>>respect the ear cutting scene was a bit more successful
>than
>>>the marvin scene.
>>>
>>
>>But again, this is easy to see. This doesn't require huge
>>essays.
>
>it's not easy to see anymore... that's the point. we're numbed
>to it. i bet you could look back at those archived PF posts
>and find people talking all sorts of things about PF before
>they even mention the basics.
>
>>Movies BEFORE Pulp Fiction used violence amusingly.
>
>they used the same technique of undermining violence,
>deliberately? of catching the audience out for enjoying it?
>example?

Horror movies do it often. We are shocked, but the main characters are less appealing than the violent evil. If Milton had had a video camera...


>
>>Yeah, but he said "joycean sense of here comes everybody."
>>Which means absolutely nothing and is meant to sound more
>>intellectual and more pompous than everyone reading it.
>>
>
>Well, have you read Finnegan's Wake?
>if you're familiar with Joyce presumably it's not more cryptic
>than saying something like "P.E.'s sense of militancy"
>

You're saying the easiest, clearest way to convey his point is through that statement?

>>>
>>>
>>>>>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
>>>>
>>>>A movie that sucks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>man
>>
>>Yep. It sucks.
>
>jesus

Jesus also hates that movie.

>Most of the dialogue breaks your rule #1, because it is
>comical in many people's opinion. I find much of the dialogue
>amusing.
>

no, it doesn't break the rule, you're being so simple minded, and i've explained this already. the dialogue is witty but the humour isn't more important than the conversation itself, unlike in most comedies. Watch an episode of Friends notice how many times an unrealistic reaction to a joke is the only thing that lets the scene continue, or how many times Joey says something so dumb it makes his character's existence an impossibility. Pulp Fiction manages to be very funny, without being unrealistic like that.

>
>You said very little in a lot of words.
>

LOL i attempted to be thorough in explaining the complexity of some of the changes/reactions the characters go through, as YOU requested. You're not even concentrating, are you?

>>>>but anyway, Pulp Fiction IS intertwined.
>>>
>>>Yes. Because characters like a boss, his wife, and his
>>>co-workers are ALWAYS interwined.
>>>
>>
>>no they're not. do you know you're bosses wife?
>
>I know her family, yes. Not to mention in most mafia/mob
>movies, characters know the big boss's wife.
>

other than Masellus, Vince is the only one who knows Mia, and it was the first time they'd met.

>either way, waltzing
>>into scenes at CRUCIAL moments is a little bit more than
>>inevitable contact
>
>Yes, but there's ONE moment of that.
>

1. Butch turning up to kill Vince
2. Pumpkin and Honeybunny meeting Jules during a "transitional period"

but you don't want too much of that stuff because it's coincidental
the main thing is there is similar themes in all 3 main stories, Vince and Jules are effected by the same event, not to mention recurring motifs linking up all the chapters, and that the stories are re-sequenced so that the film as a whole builds momentum towards the end like a normal film does


>I said it's not intertwined because that implies a level of
>complication/coincidence to the stories tying together, when
>it's not terribly complicated.

the stories are related to each other on more than just a "some of the characters are acquainted with each other" level, what more is there to say. if it was any more intertwined it would just be irritating

>
>Give me one instance of Marsellus being pop culture.
>

Without his presence, the three main stories aren't "pulp fiction" stories

>>they used the same technique of undermining violence,
>>deliberately? of catching the audience out for enjoying it?
>>example?
>
>Horror movies do it often. We are shocked, but the main
>characters are less appealing than the violent evil. If Milton
>had had a video camera...

You said not enough in unsurprisingly few words

i take it you mean we have a morbid fascination with monsters and serial killers, so we enjoy watching horror films. or maybe you mean something else. i don't know


>
>
>>
>>>Yeah, but he said "joycean sense of here comes everybody."
>>>Which means absolutely nothing and is meant to sound more
>>>intellectual and more pompous than everyone reading it.
>>>
>>
>>Well, have you read Finnegan's Wake?
>>if you're familiar with Joyce presumably it's not more
>cryptic
>>than saying something like "P.E.'s sense of militancy"
>>
>
>You're saying the easiest, clearest way to convey his point is
>through that statement?
>

if you're talking to a scholarly audience, why not. it's not like he's referencing an obscure book, it's one of the most famous books there is



>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
>>>>>
>>>>>A movie that sucks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>man
>>>
>>>Yep. It sucks.
>>
>>jesus
>
>Jesus also hates that movie.

jesus is a hater

>
>>Most of the dialogue breaks your rule #1, because it is
>>comical in many people's opinion. I find much of the
>dialogue
>>amusing.
>>
>
>no, it doesn't break the rule, you're being so simple minded,
>and i've explained this already. the dialogue is witty but the
>humour isn't more important than the conversation itself,
>unlike in most comedies. Watch an episode of Friends notice
>how many times an unrealistic reaction to a joke is the only
>thing that lets the scene continue, or how many times Joey
>says something so dumb it makes his character's existence an
>impossibility. Pulp Fiction manages to be very funny, without
>being unrealistic like that.

But it's still funny.

>
>>
>>You said very little in a lot of words.
>>
>
>LOL i attempted to be thorough in explaining the complexity of
>some of the changes/reactions the characters go through, as
>YOU requested. You're not even concentrating, are you?

No I'm not. Because I'm tired and bored.

>
>>>>>but anyway, Pulp Fiction IS intertwined.
>>>>
>>>>Yes. Because characters like a boss, his wife, and his
>>>>co-workers are ALWAYS interwined.
>>>>
>>>
>>>no they're not. do you know you're bosses wife?
>>
>>I know her family, yes. Not to mention in most mafia/mob
>>movies, characters know the big boss's wife.
>>
>
>other than Masellus, Vince is the only one who knows Mia, and
>it was the first time they'd met.

Jules knows of Mia. I'm sure Wolf has met Mia, or knows of her. They know who she is, and what she's done. When/If they meet, they already know her background and story.

>
>>either way, waltzing
>>>into scenes at CRUCIAL moments is a little bit more than
>>>inevitable contact
>>
>>Yes, but there's ONE moment of that.
>>
>
>1. Butch turning up to kill Vince

How is that a coincidence? Butch doesn't know Vince. Just because we know them both doesn't make it a coincidence in the story. A coincidence would be if a person runs into another person they know unexpectedly. There are lots of strangers I interact with that maybe a mutual friend knows. That doesn't make it a coincidence.

>2. Pumpkin and Honeybunny meeting Jules during a "transitional
>period"
>

Same thing.


>
>>I said it's not intertwined because that implies a level of
>>complication/coincidence to the stories tying together, when
>>it's not terribly complicated.
>
>the stories are related to each other on more than just a
>"some of the characters are acquainted with each other" level,
>what more is there to say. if it was any more intertwined it
>would just be irritating
>
>>
>>Give me one instance of Marsellus being pop culture.
>>
>
>Without his presence, the three main stories aren't "pulp
>fiction" stories

That doesn't explain how HE PERSONALLY is pop culture. That's sidestepping the question by saying what things aren't without him. Without him, there's no story, so that's a bullshit answer. How IS he pop culture?

>
>>>they used the same technique of undermining violence,
>>>deliberately? of catching the audience out for enjoying it?
>>>example?
>>
>>Horror movies do it often. We are shocked, but the main
>>characters are less appealing than the violent evil. If
>Milton
>>had had a video camera...
>
>You said not enough in unsurprisingly few words
>
>i take it you mean we have a morbid fascination with monsters
>and serial killers, so we enjoy watching horror films. or
>maybe you mean something else. i don't know

Right. And horror films amuse us. And the violence doesn't shock us. Sometimes the violence amuses us/ intrigues us. Like you said.

>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>Yeah, but he said "joycean sense of here comes everybody."
>>>>Which means absolutely nothing and is meant to sound more
>>>>intellectual and more pompous than everyone reading it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, have you read Finnegan's Wake?
>>>if you're familiar with Joyce presumably it's not more
>>cryptic
>>>than saying something like "P.E.'s sense of militancy"
>>>
>>
>>You're saying the easiest, clearest way to convey his point
>is
>>through that statement?
>>
>
>if you're talking to a scholarly audience, why not. it's not
>like he's referencing an obscure book, it's one of the most
>famous books there is
>

Zzzzzz. Again, is it the clearest way to make his point? No.

>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A movie that sucks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>man
>>>>
>>>>Yep. It sucks.
>>>
>>>jesus
>>
>>Jesus also hates that movie.
>
>jesus is a hater

I guess so. Cuz Dead Poets Society sucks.

>>
>>>Most of the dialogue breaks your rule #1, because it is
>>>comical in many people's opinion. I find much of the
>>dialogue
>>>amusing.
>>>
>>
>>no, it doesn't break the rule, you're being so simple
>minded,
>>and i've explained this already. the dialogue is witty but
>the
>>humour isn't more important than the conversation itself,
>>unlike in most comedies. Watch an episode of Friends notice
>>how many times an unrealistic reaction to a joke is the only
>>thing that lets the scene continue, or how many times Joey
>>says something so dumb it makes his character's existence an
>>impossibility. Pulp Fiction manages to be very funny,
>without
>>being unrealistic like that.
>
>But it's still funny.
>

... uh-huh


>
>>
>>>>>>but anyway, Pulp Fiction IS intertwined.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. Because characters like a boss, his wife, and his
>>>>>co-workers are ALWAYS interwined.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>no they're not. do you know you're bosses wife?
>>>
>>>I know her family, yes. Not to mention in most mafia/mob
>>>movies, characters know the big boss's wife.
>>>
>>
>>other than Masellus, Vince is the only one who knows Mia,
>and
>>it was the first time they'd met.
>
>Jules knows of Mia. I'm sure Wolf has met Mia, or knows of
>her. They know who she is, and what she's done. When/If they
>meet, they already know her background and story.
>

ok so the characters know of eachother...
pulp fiction's stories are intertwined, related, mixed together, whatever, it's OBVIOUS
you're complaining because Tarantino actually allows a PRETENCE for them being connected? And if you say it's not more intertwined than a normal film, normal flims don't have 3 or 4 separate stories.

>>
>>>either way, waltzing
>>>>into scenes at CRUCIAL moments is a little bit more than
>>>>inevitable contact
>>>
>>>Yes, but there's ONE moment of that.
>>>
>>
>>1. Butch turning up to kill Vince
>
>How is that a coincidence? Butch doesn't know Vince. Just
>because we know them both doesn't make it a coincidence in the
>story. A coincidence would be if a person runs into another
>person they know unexpectedly. There are lots of strangers I
>interact with that maybe a mutual friend knows. That doesn't
>make it a coincidence.
>
>>2. Pumpkin and Honeybunny meeting Jules during a
>"transitional
>>period"
>>
>
>Same thing.
>

They are "coincidental" as far as the FILM is concerned, because they are important collisions for the characters. They are contrived meetings so Tarantino can make a point. If you do that too much, it looks bad


>>>Give me one instance of Marsellus being pop culture.
>>>
>>
>>Without his presence, the three main stories aren't "pulp
>>fiction" stories
>
>That doesn't explain how HE PERSONALLY is pop culture. That's
>sidestepping the question by saying what things aren't without
>him. Without him, there's no story, so that's a bullshit
>answer. How IS he pop culture?
>

"Marsellus Wallace IS pop culture" doesn't make sense, and nobody said it

Masellus Wallace, does, however, BRING pop culture to the film
He could have been someone else, like say Vince's brother, just another hoodlum that happens to make the story link up nicely
But he's the CRIME BOSS, THE GODFATHER, he's the ingredient that makes all the stories "pulp fiction" stories, and the crime boss is practically a CREATION of pop culture because very few people actually know any crime bosses in real life, but we all know who Corleone and Scarface are, and hell the most we know about Al Capone is probably Robert Di Nero holding a baseball bat

(come to think of it, did Bruce Willis pick up a bat before he picked up the sword?)

>
>Right. And horror films amuse us. And the violence doesn't
>shock us. Sometimes the violence amuses us/ intrigues us. Like
>you said.
>

I'm still not sure what you mean. "Amuse" as in makes us laugh? or "amuse" as in entertains us

i've seen horror films have the characters joke about, then suffer a catastrophe, the sudden contrast catching us off guard
i've seen horror films attempting to be scary, but just being idiotic (therefore funny)
i've seen horror films advertise nothing exept horror and suffering, and pull audiences

but none of these things strikes me as being equivalent to Tarantino catching the audience out for its callous reaction to on screen violence, making you laugh then feel guilty for laughing. Guilt being the key emotion, not shock or fear (though that may be part of the scene)


>Zzzzzz. Again, is it the clearest way to make his point? No.

it could be explained more clearly, but that would take several sentences, and he'd actually already explained it in the introductory paragraphs. if you don't know what the sentence means, then it causes confusion, but otherwise it just reaffirms an ealier point.


>
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A movie that sucks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>man
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep. It sucks.
>>>>
>>>>jesus
>>>
>>>Jesus also hates that movie.
>>
>>jesus is a hater
>
>I guess so. Cuz Dead Poets Society sucks.
>

it's a damn sight better than The Passion of the Christ, I bet

>>>no, it doesn't break the rule, you're being so simple
>>minded,
>>>and i've explained this already. the dialogue is witty but
>>the
>>>humour isn't more important than the conversation itself,
>>>unlike in most comedies. Watch an episode of Friends notice
>>>how many times an unrealistic reaction to a joke is the
>only
>>>thing that lets the scene continue, or how many times Joey
>>>says something so dumb it makes his character's existence
>an
>>>impossibility. Pulp Fiction manages to be very funny,
>>without
>>>being unrealistic like that.
>>
>>But it's still funny.
>>
>
>... uh-huh

Good one.


>>>1. Butch turning up to kill Vince
>>
>>How is that a coincidence? Butch doesn't know Vince. Just
>>because we know them both doesn't make it a coincidence in
>the
>>story. A coincidence would be if a person runs into another
>>person they know unexpectedly. There are lots of strangers I
>>interact with that maybe a mutual friend knows. That doesn't
>>make it a coincidence.
>>
>>>2. Pumpkin and Honeybunny meeting Jules during a
>>"transitional
>>>period"
>>>
>>
>>Same thing.
>>
>
>They are "coincidental" as far as the FILM is concerned,
>because they are important collisions for the characters. They
>are contrived meetings so Tarantino can make a point. If you
>do that too much, it looks bad
>

Contrived and coincidence are two totally different words, you realize that, right? If you'd said contrived earlier, we wouldn't be arguing this point.


>"Marsellus Wallace IS pop culture" doesn't make sense, and
>nobody said it
>

You made THE FOLLOWING ANALOGY.

"they are "anchored" by the central figure of crime boss Marsallus who's involved in all the stories. Analogous with this, people in America are separated by race/class etc, but their lives still overlap - everyone has pop culture (pulp fiction) as an anchor."

Marsellus= anchor for movie world
Pop Culture= anchor for real world

You can put two and two together to make four very easily with your phrasing, pal o' mine.


>Masellus Wallace, does, however, BRING pop culture to the
>film
>He could have been someone else, like say Vince's brother,
>just another hoodlum that happens to make the story link up
>nicely
>But he's the CRIME BOSS, THE GODFATHER, he's the ingredient
>that makes all the stories "pulp fiction" stories, and the
>crime boss is practically a CREATION of pop culture because
>very few people actually know any crime bosses in real life,
>but we all know who Corleone and Scarface are, and hell the
>most we know about Al Capone is probably Robert Di Nero
>holding a baseball bat
>
>(come to think of it, did Bruce Willis pick up a bat before he
>picked up the sword?)
>

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


>I'm still not sure what you mean. "Amuse" as in makes us
>laugh? or "amuse" as in entertains us

Amuse as in funny? I'm funny how? I amuse you?

"to
>Tarantino catching the audience out for its callous reaction
>to on screen violence, making you laugh then feel guilty for
>laughing. Guilt being the key emotion, not shock or fear
>(though that may be part of the scene)"

Did ANYBODY feel like this while watching Pulp Fiction? Please post a reply to this message of "No." if you, like me, didn't feel guilty for laughing.


>
>
>>Zzzzzz. Again, is it the clearest way to make his point? No.
>
>it could be explained more clearly, but that would take
>several sentences, and he'd actually already explained it in
>the introductory paragraphs. if you don't know what the
>sentence means, then it causes confusion, but otherwise it
>just reaffirms an ealier point.
>

It was an artsy-fartsy bullshit phrase where he wanted to reference classic literature and create his own little expression that barely makes sense in order to seem more intellectual than everyone who's seen the movie that's reading his essay. I understand. Because I've read the book. And I've seen the movie. And that sentence is in no way enlightening or eye-opening or even clever.


>>>>>>>>>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A movie that sucks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>man
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yep. It sucks.
>>>>>
>>>>>jesus
>>>>
>>>>Jesus also hates that movie.
>>>
>>>jesus is a hater
>>
>>I guess so. Cuz Dead Poets Society sucks.
>>
>
>it's a damn sight better than The Passion of the Christ, I
>bet

I don't even know what means, really.

>
>>>>no, it doesn't break the rule, you're being so simple
>>>minded,
>>>>and i've explained this already. the dialogue is witty but
>>>the
>>>>humour isn't more important than the conversation itself,
>>>>unlike in most comedies. Watch an episode of Friends
>notice
>>>>how many times an unrealistic reaction to a joke is the
>>only
>>>>thing that lets the scene continue, or how many times Joey
>>>>says something so dumb it makes his character's existence
>>an
>>>>impossibility. Pulp Fiction manages to be very funny,
>>>without
>>>>being unrealistic like that.
>>>
>>>But it's still funny.
>>>
>>
>>... uh-huh
>
>Good one.
>

lol. You're implying that I didn't come back with a strong argument on that last line? That's because you didn't even PRESENT an argument by saying "But it's still funny." That basically AGREED with what I said. And then you have the nerve to say "good one" like that

>
>>>>1. Butch turning up to kill Vince
>>>
>>>How is that a coincidence? Butch doesn't know Vince. Just
>>>because we know them both doesn't make it a coincidence in
>>the
>>>story. A coincidence would be if a person runs into another
>>>person they know unexpectedly. There are lots of strangers
>I
>>>interact with that maybe a mutual friend knows. That
>doesn't
>>>make it a coincidence.
>>>
>>>>2. Pumpkin and Honeybunny meeting Jules during a
>>>"transitional
>>>>period"
>>>>
>>>
>>>Same thing.
>>>
>>
>>They are "coincidental" as far as the FILM is concerned,
>>because they are important collisions for the characters.
>They
>>are contrived meetings so Tarantino can make a point. If you
>>do that too much, it looks bad
>>
>
>Contrived and coincidence are two totally different words, you
>realize that, right? If you'd said contrived earlier, we
>wouldn't be arguing this point.
>
>
>>"Marsellus Wallace IS pop culture" doesn't make sense, and
>>nobody said it
>>
>
>You made THE FOLLOWING ANALOGY.
>
>"they are "anchored" by the central figure of crime boss
>Marsallus who's involved in all the stories. Analogous with
>this, people in America are separated by race/class etc, but
>their lives still overlap - everyone has pop culture (pulp
>fiction) as an anchor."
>
>Marsellus= anchor for movie world
>Pop Culture= anchor for real world
>
>You can put two and two together to make four very easily with
>your phrasing, pal o' mine.
>

yes but I didn't say "Marsellus IS pop culture" because that sounds silly
I explained in what way Marsellus represents pop culture or brings it into the equation (below and elsewhere)

>
>>Masellus Wallace, does, however, BRING pop culture to the
>>film
>>He could have been someone else, like say Vince's brother,
>>just another hoodlum that happens to make the story link up
>>nicely
>>But he's the CRIME BOSS, THE GODFATHER, he's the ingredient
>>that makes all the stories "pulp fiction" stories, and the
>>crime boss is practically a CREATION of pop culture because
>>very few people actually know any crime bosses in real life,
>>but we all know who Corleone and Scarface are, and hell the
>>most we know about Al Capone is probably Robert Di Nero
>>holding a baseball bat
>>
>>(come to think of it, did Bruce Willis pick up a bat before
>he
>>picked up the sword?)
>>
>
>Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>
>

good one

>>I'm still not sure what you mean. "Amuse" as in makes us
>>laugh? or "amuse" as in entertains us
>
>Amuse as in funny? I'm funny how? I amuse you?
>


good one


>"to
>>Tarantino catching the audience out for its callous reaction
>>to on screen violence, making you laugh then feel guilty for
>>laughing. Guilt being the key emotion, not shock or fear
>>(though that may be part of the scene)"
>
>Did ANYBODY feel like this while watching Pulp Fiction? Please
>post a reply to this message of "No." if you, like me, didn't
>feel guilty for laughing.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>Zzzzzz. Again, is it the clearest way to make his point?
>No.
>>
>>it could be explained more clearly, but that would take
>>several sentences, and he'd actually already explained it in
>>the introductory paragraphs. if you don't know what the
>>sentence means, then it causes confusion, but otherwise it
>>just reaffirms an ealier point.
>>
>
>It was an artsy-fartsy bullshit phrase where he wanted to
>reference classic literature and create his own little
>expression that barely makes sense in order to seem more
>intellectual than everyone who's seen the movie that's reading
>his essay. I understand. Because I've read the book. And I've
>seen the movie. And that sentence is in no way enlightening or
>eye-opening or even clever.
>
>

whatever. it's not even important. we can do this with practically any piece of writing


>>>>>>>>>>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A movie that sucks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>man
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yep. It sucks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>jesus
>>>>>
>>>>>Jesus also hates that movie.
>>>>
>>>>jesus is a hater
>>>
>>>I guess so. Cuz Dead Poets Society sucks.
>>>
>>
>>it's a damn sight better than The Passion of the Christ, I
>>bet
>
>I don't even know what means, really.

how could you not?

in fiction they ARE the same thing, this is obvious

(unless it's a very small detail that the author overlooked)

These essays are all hilarious.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

i think not

look, you say PF is nothing but a series of inside jokes, and that the plot was razor thin

why don't you pick a movie you like, and explain why it's plot is more substantial, and why there's more to it beyond the amusing lines, and what it's valuable deeper meaning is

A film which OE champions, LOL.

At least Eminem actually has real black friends, though, and is somewhat good at what he does.

QT invents his friends, and sucks at what he does.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

You liked 8 Mile.

I said the film was well done. As in well-researched. As in, the characters looked mid-90s. As in the music playing was all timely, all the posters on all the walls, were very timely. It had the feel of a dark era in the hip hop art form. It captured what the hip hop scene was like in a city bereft of any stars as of yet. The battles were well choreographed, and the rhymes were well written. I like the freestyle scene at the Steel plant, well done, especially when the girl freestyles about how she hates her job...love that scene.

I also think that '8 Mile's protagonist's life was only even worthy of a film because of his whiteness. Without him being white, that film is never made, because white people don't grasp the concept that 'B Rabbit's' life is actually the story of countless black rappers whose lives will never warrant a feature film.

Its very telling for how much more sympathy people have for white hardship than black hardship.

I also felt like it was quite ironic that the two of the largest grossing hip hop/urban movies of all time are '8 Mile' and 'Save the Last Dance' both featuring white protagonists facing racial discrimination from the big, mean, black kids.

>You liked 8 Mile.



----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

>I also think that '8 Mile's protagonist's life was only even
>worthy of a film because of his whiteness. Without him being
>white, that film is never made, because white people don't
>grasp the concept that 'B Rabbit's' life is actually the story
>of countless black rappers whose lives will never warrant a
>feature film.

But that's the point. That's what makes it interesting. A white man in a black man's world. Otherwise, it's just another story about a rapper. I grasped the concept that he a broke, struggling artist. There are plenty of those, black and white.

Why should countless black rappers warrant a feature film? There needs to be an angle, a good story.

Remember, rap is still relatively young in the scope of its and our lifetimes. A movie about Ray Charles in his heydey would have been premature as a movie about Chuck D would be now. But someday, his career would be worth looking at in the context of a movie.

>But that's the point. That's what makes it interesting. A
>white man in a black man's world. Otherwise, it's just another
>story about a rapper. I grasped the concept that he a broke,
>struggling artist. There are plenty of those, black and
>white.

But here is what's ironic:

Eminem's whiteness has actually made his rise to success EASIER and not HARDER.

The film focused on how HARD it was for him being WHITE.

That is the problem.

Don't focus on whitness as a handicap when its not a handicap, but an advantage.

And you are wrong -- there is PLENTY OF ROOM for a gritty, well made drama about a black man's rise in hip hop.

Just check that whole "Hustle and Flow" movie that is getting rave reviews.

Sadly, "Hustle and Flow" would not have even been MADE without the commercial success of '8 Mile'(though, Hustle and Flow will make a fraction at the box office compared to '8Mile' despite being twice as good a film).

>Why should countless black rappers warrant a feature film?
>There needs to be an angle, a good story.

If you are black, you are simple minded.

If you are white, you are a closet racist.

Lets do this:

Andre Benjamin.

Nasir Jones

Andre Young

Oshea Jackson.

Rakim Allah.

Chris Parker.

Christopher Wallace.

Curtis Jackson.


THE ONLY THING these guys have in common is the fact that they are black.


They each have compelling, inspirational, unique stories about their rise to hip hop.


Some of their stories are AT LEAST as compelling as that of Marshall Mathers.


And are therefore worthy of a film.


That fact that you can so flippantly say that Eminem's life is more interesting solely because he operated "in a black man's world" is quite disturbing to me.


The reality is that all of hip hop operates in a white man's world. Just check most of the record label execs and CEOs.

"Old White Men, is Running this Rap Shit..."

(C) Mos.


>Remember, rap is still relatively young in the scope of its
>and our lifetimes. A movie about Ray Charles in his heydey
>would have been premature as a movie about Chuck D would be
>now. But someday, his career would be worth looking at in the
>context of a movie.


No. No. No. No.

That is what makes films about Hip hop NOW MORE COMPLELLING because a lot of its creators/early innovators are RELATIVELY YOUNG and we can still see them making the artform, and see the effects of their artform.



----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Came up, sold out as a gimmick, got ripped by Biggie, could never overcome his gimmick and be taken seriously. Like a hip hop Hollywood Shuffle.

being white has not made eminems career easier. i actually think its made it completely harder than it needs to be. the fact that he's white and when he came out late 90's the only comparison people made was vanilla ice. so he had to prove that he wasnt a joke or vanilla ice (same thing now that i think about it), and that he actually had staying power which is incredibly difficult in the music business. come the marshal mather lp. he is now looking for sophemore success. he now has to convince the world that he can be taken seriously, or its all over. controversial lyrics lead to protests against his music, bannings on radio, etc etc.

he has faced so many hardships to get to the point he's at now. its easy for him now, he could shit and record the audio of it and he'll win best rap album. but it wasnt that easy some years back.

a black rapper might not have had as much success if he released the exact same albums, but he would be scrutinized the same either.

>being white has not made eminems career easier.

He has said that he sells millions of records today specifically because he is white.

He has admitted this.

I didn't invent this.

Sure, he said his whiteness prevented him from being noticed early in his career, but the second he started amassing national acclaim of any kind, his whitenss, his stand-out-ability, was an immediate benefit.

Its really not up for debate.

> i actually
>think its made it completely harder than it needs to be. the
>fact that he's white and when he came out late 90's the only
>comparison people made was vanilla ice.

Oh!

So his whiteness prevented him from getting into the Source's unsigned hype, from winning the Rap Olympics, getting signed to Aftermath, getting the best producer the game has ever seen to produce his first two albums, and go one to sell more records than any rapper in the history of the game?

I guess I was thinking about someone else.

Lol.

so he had to prove
>that he wasnt a joke or vanilla ice (same thing now that i
>think about it), and that he actually had staying power which
>is incredibly difficult in the music business. come the
>marshal mather lp. he is now looking for sophemore success. he
>now has to convince the world that he can be taken seriously,
>or its all over. controversial lyrics lead to protests against
>his music, bannings on radio, etc etc.

I know the history of Eminem.

And the protest/controversy actually helped his sales and popularity. Not hurt him.

>he has faced so many hardships to get to the point he's at
>now. its easy for him now, he could shit and record the audio
>of it and he'll win best rap album. but it wasnt that easy
>some years back.

I didn't say it was easy. But its been easy for very few people in rap.

You think Jay-Z's rise from Brooklyn freestyle king to CEO of Def Jam was easier than Eminem's rise to superstardom solely because Jay-Z is black?

Lol.

>a black rapper might not have had as much success if he
>released the exact same albums, but he would be scrutinized
>the same either.

Sure.

His whiteness is a blessing and a curse, but much more of a blessing than a curse.

This is why Phaoraoh Monche, and Ras Kass, and Big Pun(who *WAS* a better version of Eminem imo), all as talented, would, could, and will never, ever, ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever come close to amassing the fame and fortune that Eminem has.

And I actually like dude a little bit. Believe it or not, I think he's a decent dude.

I also think that Eminem has never put out anything better than a "pretty good" album. Most of his albums are mediocre, at best.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

He's grasping at straws here. They were good movies. Tarantino wasn't born knowing a damn thing. There are times when crouch makes sense and there are times when he's a pretentious jackass, when he writes about jazz, and this is one of those times.



-------------
"Everywhere I go, I hear 'Welcome back.' But everywhere I have been, I have always been with myself. I'm with myself now more than ever. It's funny people say 'Welcome back' when I haven't gone anywhere." -- Ricky Williams

I think he makes a few good points. However, he usually takes ideas way too far and makes everything very lofty and unnatural like in all those Ken Burns docs. He ofen disregards any other POV but his own.

n/m

>I think he makes a few good points. However, he usually takes
>ideas way too far and makes everything very lofty and
>unnatural like in all those Ken Burns docs. He ofen disregards
>any other POV but his own.
>
>


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

>I think he makes a few good points. However, he usually takes
>ideas way too far and makes everything very lofty and
>unnatural like in all those Ken Burns docs. He often disregards
>any other POV but his own.
>

n/m

Even the people who like QT think he's a white boy trying to hard to be down. Almost to the point where no one takes him seriously. That was his saving grace with the blowup with spike. That and sam jack telling spike to lighten up.



-------------
"Everywhere I go, I hear 'Welcome back.' But everywhere I have been, I have always been with myself. I'm with myself now more than ever. It's funny people say 'Welcome back' when I haven't gone anywhere." -- Ricky Williams

>Even the people who like QT think he's a white boy trying to
>hard to be down. Almost to the point where no one takes him
>seriously. That was his saving grace with the blowup with
>spike. That and sam jack telling spike to lighten up.

Because I doubt QT will ever use the N word *that* much ever again.

It did make him self aware.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Seriously.

This is 95% fiction writing.

Most of the shit he's talking about has nothing to do with the films, at all.

Dude has an active imagination.

----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

you clearly hate Pulp Fiction and nothing anyone says is going to change your mind.

i'm posting for people who like Pulp Fiction but aren't sure what it all means, or people who have idea what it means but want to compare notes, or for people who want a fresh persepective

Crouch's comments about how evil functions amongst amorality and flippancy etc are what I particularly liked about the article, since the smokescreen of comedy and bizzare chains of events it's easy to forget that the film is primarily concerned with evil and crime

None of these are great essays.

In fact, they suck.

In fact, they suck terribly.

They invent themes and intentions that had absolutely nothing to do with the films.

He has an active imagination.

The essays suck. Crouch sucks, and you almost such for wasting our collective time with this suckiness.

Deal with it.



>you clearly hate Pulp Fiction and nothing anyone says is
>going to change your mind.
>
>i'm posting for people who like Pulp Fiction but aren't sure
>what it all means, or people who have idea what it means but
>want to compare notes, or for people who want a fresh
>persepective
>
>Crouch's comments about how evil functions amongst amorality
>and flippancy etc are what I particularly liked about the
>article, since the smokescreen of comedy and bizzare chains of
>events it's easy to forget that the film is primarily
>concerned with evil and crime

and it made my head hurt

wasn't expecting this

but he could've written the same essay about the Karate Kid.

j/k


-------------
"Everywhere I go, I hear 'Welcome back.' But everywhere I have been, I have always been with myself. I'm with myself now more than ever. It's funny people say 'Welcome back' when I haven't gone anywhere." -- Ricky Williams

I love when people analyze this deep, even if I don't always agree

in fact, I think it's this kind of analysis that's missing from almost anything I read about film

a lot of people are completely unwilling to look past the narrative for any meaning beyond it, and when it is brought up, a lot of people simply dismiss it, as in this post

and even supress discussion of it
strange
and people need to stop using dismissal as an argument tactic
that's how Tony Blair got away with the Iraq war, whenever the oil question came up, he played his dismissal card
sneaky bastard

>and even supress discussion of it
>strange
>and people need to stop using dismissal as an argument tactic

I am dismissing it because the author is INVENTING things about the films. He is writing fiction and passing it off as analysis.

There is no racial commentary in 'Pulp Fiction'. There is no cross examination of black manhood, or blackness, or any of that shit. There is none. Tarantino didn't intend, nor did he accomplish, analyzing or providing salient commenatary on race relations in any galaxy I'm familiar with.

His films had shit to do with any of that.

>that's how Tony Blair got away with the Iraq war, whenever the
>oil question came up, he played his dismissal card
>sneaky bastard

I'm going to act like you didn't just say that.

You get a warning for that.

Don't let it happen again.




----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

>>and even supress discussion of it
>>strange
>>and people need to stop using dismissal as an argument
>tactic
>
>I am dismissing it because the author is INVENTING things
>about the films. He is writing fiction and passing it off as
>analysis.

now why would I trust your "analysis", over dude who wrote the articles?

>There is no racial commentary in 'Pulp Fiction'. There is no
>cross examination of black manhood, or blackness, or any of
>that shit. There is none. Tarantino didn't intend, nor did he
>accomplish, analyzing or providing salient commenatary on race
>relations in any galaxy I'm familiar with.

now, I'm not gonna flat out say you're wrong, but how do you know this? In addition to that, the great thing about art, is different people get different things out of it.

>His films had shit to do with any of that.
>
>>that's how Tony Blair got away with the Iraq war, whenever
>the
>>oil question came up, he played his dismissal card
>>sneaky bastard
>
>I'm going to act like you didn't just say that.
>
>You get a warning for that.
>
>Don't let it happen again.

LOL, warning someone on a message board

what in the fuck are YOU gonna do?

These essays bring up the timless question: who the fuck cares?

These are ridiculous essays which read way too into Quentin's films. It's like the articles about how horror movies are actually making huge cultural statements.

They say nothing at all about the movie.

repeatly picking fist fights with other writers he disagrees with. He and Harry Allen got into it back in the day while at the Village Voice. He's gotten into it a few times since then too —- as recently as last summer. He gets punked with somebody of any size disgrees with him.

are a lotta bullshit...they seem like crounch had a word limit to meet and just fluffed his way through it.

I don't like tarantino's work...i think its massively overblown and very mean and cynical without having much of a POINT other than being mean and cynical....

but these essays are actually worse than the films they talk about, cuz they have nothing to do with the actual movies. And more importantly, they manage to use a lotta words to say absolutely nothing, really.

And besides...i can never say anything good about a grown black man who lips STAY ashy like crouch's...buddy lips stay looking like he's 3 years old in a head start program

Intellectualy insecurity.

Thats all it is.

I know tons of negroes like this.

They have to write like this to please white people, to be truly "respected" for their intellect.

And of course, if call these essays the pieces of steaming hot shit that they are, you just aren't "deep enough" and "didn't get it."

Co sign on your views on Tarantino, by the way.


>are a lotta bullshit...they seem like crounch had a word
>limit to meet and just fluffed his way through it.
>
>I don't like tarantino's work...i think its massively
>overblown and very mean and cynical without having much of a
>POINT other than being mean and cynical....
>
>but these essays are actually worse than the films they talk
>about, cuz they have nothing to do with the actual movies.
>And more importantly, they manage to use a lotta words to say
>absolutely nothing, really.
>
>And besides...i can never say anything good about a grown
>black man who lips STAY ashy like crouch's...buddy lips stay
>looking like he's 3 years old in a head start program

as in the lesson

why do people even try it. it instantly weakens their argument

pick any sentence in the part of the essay about Pulp Fiction. Pick any paragraph. Now find his main arguments and their supporting points, or evidence.

Just the fact that that simple task is not very easy, is a pretty good indicator of how much of a nothing ass article this is.

Throw in the fact that whatever arguments he does manage to present coherently, simply ain't supported in the ACTUAL film, then, yep, hot trash on the page.

And besides...scroll down and look at this dude (he's the cat with the glasses, under Marsalis)...he REALLY DO need some chapstick, lol


I remember being at a symposium with him, quincy troupe and ishmael reed on these two seperate panels...essentially, many black academics consider cruoch an intellectual fraud...and, having read a LOT of his other work, that analysis aint too far off

>pick any sentence in the part of the essay about Pulp
>Fiction. Pick any paragraph. Now find his main arguments and
>their supporting points, or evidence.

Impossible.

>Just the fact that that simple task is not very easy, is a
>pretty good indicator of how much of a nothing ass article
>this is.

Crouch wrote this essay to showcase himself, not to discuss the film.

>Throw in the fact that whatever arguments he does manage to
>present coherently, simply ain't supported in the ACTUAL film,
>then, yep, hot trash on the page.

Oh year. He should write romance novels.

>And besides...scroll down and look at this dude (he's the cat
>with the glasses, under Marsalis)...he REALLY DO need some
>chapstick, lol

Lol.

>I remember being at a symposium with him, quincy troupe and
>ishmael reed on these two seperate panels...essentially, many
>black academics consider cruoch an intellectual fraud...and,
>having read a LOT of his other work, that analysis aint too
>far off

Wow. I bet Reed tore into his ass. Reed feasts on cats like this.

>pick any sentence in the part of the essay about Pulp
>Fiction. Pick any paragraph. Now find his main arguments and
>their supporting points, or evidence.
>
>Just the fact that that simple task is not very easy, is a
>pretty good indicator of how much of a nothing ass article
>this is.
>

i've done that several times in this post
also, evidence is overrated. Crouch didn't use many quotes, but then when someone uses a quote in an essay, it can always be misleading, something taken out of context, or something that's isolated that the essayist is trying to use as "just an EXAMPLE"
anyway, for most of the things Crouch said, whether he provided evidence or not, I could use MY knowledge of the film to agree with them

sometimes the racial point is oversated, and sometimes the essay is confusing, but I find that with most pieces of criticism

"evidence is overrated."


I rest my case.


Actually, when writing a critique/analysis of an actual film, evidence is required, otherwhise you are writing fiction and not an analysis/critque.


Capiche?





Crouch didn't use many quotes,
>but then when someone uses a quote in an essay, it can always
>be misleading, something taken out of context, or something
>that's isolated that the essayist is trying to use as "just an
>EXAMPLE"
>anyway, for most of the things Crouch said, whether he
>provided evidence or not, I could use MY knowledge of the film
>to agree with them

i.e. you guys have the same PCP supplier.

>sometimes the racial point is oversated, and sometimes the
>essay is confusing, but I find that with most pieces of
>criticism

Oh, so these essays suck no worse than other pieces of criticism. I won't entirely disagree with that, though I do believe this is the single shittiest collection of words and paragraphs I've read in years.

----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

> "evidence is overrated."
>
>
>I rest my case.
>
>
>Actually, when writing a critique/analysis of an actual film,
>evidence is required, otherwhise you are writing fiction and
>not an analysis/critque.
>
>
>Capiche?

but the point stands, he's not writing for a highschool exam board, the fact that he doesn't always give supporting quotations doesn't automatically make what he's saying is wrong. besides, he gives evidence for most of his points (not always in quotation form. and as i say, quotations can be misleading), to about the level I usually find in professional criticism

and when he doesn't give evidence, like here
"In this cosmos of unforced integration, there is a fundamental, hard bitten morality; the sole taboos are the callous unintentional, and indifferent crimes committed against the guilty as well as the innocent. Redemption is possible only through the rigors of and dangers of compassion, the essence of a loyalty that reaches down as well as up, to those who don't understand and to those who do."
evidence can be readily found in the film. Bruce Willis - already with a two homicides under his belt - out of compassion rescues his personal enemy from the rapists


>
>
>
>
>
> Crouch didn't use many quotes,
>>but then when someone uses a quote in an essay, it can
>always
>>be misleading, something taken out of context, or something
>>that's isolated that the essayist is trying to use as "just
>an
>>EXAMPLE"
>>anyway, for most of the things Crouch said, whether he
>>provided evidence or not, I could use MY knowledge of the
>film
>>to agree with them
>
>i.e. you guys have the same PCP supplier.
>
>>sometimes the racial point is oversated, and sometimes the
>>essay is confusing, but I find that with most pieces of
>>criticism
>
>Oh, so these essays suck no worse than other pieces of
>criticism. I won't entirely disagree with that, though I do
>believe this is the single shittiest collection of words and
>paragraphs I've read in years.
>
>----------------------------
>
>O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.
>
>"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night
>and that he and I live to fight another day."
>
>(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

I had no idea the 'Pulp Fiction' zealots were so persistent.

God damn that movie sucks.

>but the point stands, he's not writing for a highschool exam
>board, the fact that he doesn't always give supporting
>quotations doesn't automatically make what he's saying is
>wrong. besides, he gives evidence for most of his points (not
>always in quotation form. and as i say, quotations can be
>misleading), to about the level I usually find in professional
>criticism

No, he's writing an about an actual film, drawing conclusions about the film's writer and director. He is burdened with having to provide evidence.

>and when he doesn't give evidence, like here
>"In this cosmos of unforced integration, there is a
>fundamental, hard bitten morality; the sole taboos are the
>callous unintentional, and indifferent crimes committed
>against the guilty as well as the innocent. Redemption is
>possible only through the rigors of and dangers of compassion,
>the essence of a loyalty that reaches down as well as up, to
>those who don't understand and to those who do."
>evidence can be readily found in the film. Bruce Willis -
>already with a two homicides under his belt - out of
>compassion rescues his personal enemy from the rapists

Motherfucker, so what?

d Mayweather Jr.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

This is very true tho.

>He is burdened with
>having to provide evidence.
>

I mean, when a group of "working-class"/lower-class white criminals get together...yes, they'll PROLLY drop the N-word, but will still fantasize about a fine Black chick, period.

The dialogues aren't indepth commentary into socio-babble. WTF?? The shit is realistic entertainment, albeit creative. C'mon, 2 hit men talking about foot massages? WTF is the inner-racial GOING ONs here?? NOTHING...the answer is nothing.

Longo is right...pop culture causes racial barriers to overlap sometimes? Duh. Double duh.

Crouch is acting like Taratino is taking notes at the fuckin Trilateral Commssion for his flicks. I can't count how many times random comvos between me and friends (a MULTI-RACIAL CAST!! It must've took some DEEP soul-searching for me to actually relate to this motley crew of...normal people I happen to have convos with), havd me thinking "this could be a dialogue from a _____ film.

This guy blows.

That's why The Damaja and Crouch are gettin torn up in this post, because it's a "duh", common sense thing.

>I'm I the ONLY one who see's QT's movies as just REALISTIC?

>I mean, when a group of "working-class"/lower-class white
>criminals get together...yes, they'll PROLLY drop the N-word,
>but will still fantasize about a fine Black chick, period.
>
>The dialogues aren't indepth commentary into socio-babble.
>WTF?? The shit is realistic entertainment, albeit creative.

As I said in a post above, the dialogue in Pulp Fiction is realistic because it's not burdened with driving the plot, it's normal conversation, with normal conversational jokes. And as for the content, what better reason to include something than because it's realistic? Vince has a good working relationship (lol) with fellow hitman Jules and boss Marsellus, but he also has a good customer-dealer relationship with a racist heroine vendor ("Am I a nigger? Is this Ingelwood? Discerning white folks know..."). A middle class white guy feels OK to use the N word because he has a black wife, so he's down. Various other couples are deliberately set up to be interracial but seemingly without their being a COMMENT on this... maybe because that's just the way things ARE. And Crouch says this in his essay - "a relaxed integration" that's not "the customary racial cliches that thud upon the screen" and "soapbox oratory."

However, just because the conversation is realistic, doesn't mean it's superficial

>C'mon, 2 hit men talking about foot massages? WTF is the
>inner-racial GOING ONs here?? NOTHING...the answer is
>nothing.
>

here for example, foot message discussion does not have anything to do with interracial goings on (Crouch never said it did. the interracial theme isn't the only point he has to make about PF. i find his other points more interesting), but there's still a deeper purpose.
1. it sets up the scene after next which opens with a shot of Mia's foot, just like the scene that came before sets up the scene that comes next by talking about burgers, and this goes on like dominoes for the entire film. There isn't necessary any great meaning in this, but it helps us follow an otherwise twisting narrative

2. A great deal of the dialogue, particularly Vince's, is concerned with values/morals. It starts off talking about the "little differences" like the metric system, then about degrees of licentiousness (the foot massage), then about common decency ("you don't fuck with a man's car"), integrity (when he calls Willis "palookah") responsibility ('shit, I just shot Marvin in the face. Hey, it was an accident!'), until finally Vince is inhabiting two moral sytems at once (saving Mia's life, or just saving his own skin)

and trivial conversations with deeper or metaphorical meanings aren't new in Tarantino films. ResDogs opens with a discussion of Like a Virgin because a)everyone's about to get fucked and b)these hardened criminals are about to learn fear, panic, vulnerability all over again

>Longo is right...pop culture causes racial barriers to overlap
>sometimes? Duh. Double duh.
>

well, it's something "the Lesson elite" love discussing and archiving
and most films don't treat this issue intelligently, or even seem aware of it

>Crouch is acting like Taratino is taking notes at the fuckin
>Trilateral Commssion for his flicks. I can't count how many
>times random comvos between me and friends (a MULTI-RACIAL
>CAST!! It must've took some DEEP soul-searching for me to
>actually relate to this motley crew of...normal people I
>happen to have convos with), havd me thinking "this could be a
>dialogue from a _____ film.
>

I remember saying to my friends once when conversation had gone stale "we need to elevate our dialogue, to Reservoir Dogs level" to which someone replied 'that took months of writing and polishing, I don't think we're quite there' and the truth is Tarantino has a gift for putting conversational dialogue in his films that actually resembles real conversation, but this is a positive thing, and it doesn't mean there's not a great deal of craft involved

"A great deal of the dialogue, particularly Vince's, is concerned with values/morals. It starts off talking about the "little differences" like the metric system....."


Not a goddamn thing, actually.

Keep going though.

This is entertaining.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

for subjective morality, "different ballparks," a numerical value for a moral value

But just because you're seeing all this in these movies, doesn't necessarily mean that Quentin consciously put them there. And for me that's the big "if" to all this. We can wax philosophic about his flicks all day long, but the question of intent will remain up in the air.

>But just because you're seeing all this in these movies,
>doesn't necessarily mean that Quentin consciously put them
>there. And for me that's the big "if" to all this. We can wax
>philosophic about his flicks all day long, but the question of
>intent will remain up in the air.

*shrug* I got the point about the metric/imperial systems being a metaphor for subjective morality from another essay which was included on one of Tarantino's DVDs, or at the back of his published screenplays. So that means he endorses it on some level (as with Crouch's essay). And the quality of being open to interpretation... hell, it's a quality shared with Hamlet.

and not even attempt to explain them

It'll come to you.

the conversation about "the little differences" moves from the possibly metaphoric metric system, to discussion about the actual LAWS of Amsterdam, which is closer to morality, isn't it

>the conversation about "the little differences" moves from
>the possibly metaphoric metric system, to discussion about the
>actual LAWS of Amsterdam, which is closer to morality, isn't

Okay, so what does the metric system have to do with morality?

The metric system is actually the narrower, colder, more scientific system of measurement, so it dosen't, at all, even match the latter discussion of how Europe is more "relaxed" in the sense as they allow the sale of beer, etc.

So again, either Tarantino is an idiot, or Crouch in an idiot, or both.

The Metric system is completley useless in that context.

>>the conversation about "the little differences" moves from
>>the possibly metaphoric metric system, to discussion about
>the
>>actual LAWS of Amsterdam, which is closer to morality, isn't
>
>Okay, so what does the metric system have to do with
>morality?
>
>The metric system is actually the narrower, colder, more
>scientific system of measurement, so it dosen't, at all, even
>match the latter discussion of how Europe is more "relaxed" in
>the sense as they allow the sale of beer, etc.
>

lol. OR you could look it as the imperial measurement is full of more rules, more specifics, and different systems whereas metric measurement is simpler, more relaxed and integrated

but BOTH points are going too far. if there is a metaphor it's simply that different peoples have different moral codes, 3 yards isn't the same length as 3 meters, carrying drugs on the streets of Amsterdam isn't the same as carrying drugs on the streets of LA

>So again, either Tarantino is an idiot, or Crouch in an idiot,
>or both.
>
>The Metric system is completley useless in that context.

the difference between measurement systems is a fairly decent metaphor for the difference between laws and moral codes

I'm listening.

>lol. OR you could look it as the imperial measurement is full
>of more rules, more specifics, and different systems whereas
>metric measurement is simpler, more relaxed and integrated

Or,

You could look at the metric system as based on actual physics, rooted in consistent mathematics(based on '10'), with the consistent use of prefixes to define the fraction of measurement(milli, deci, centi, etc).

Or,

You could admit that the metric system versus the imperial system has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with morality, at all, and is a terrible metaphor.

>but BOTH points are going too far. if there is a metaphor it's
>simply that different peoples have different moral codes, 3
>yards isn't the same length as 3 meters, carrying drugs on the
>streets of Amsterdam isn't the same as carrying drugs on the
>streets of LA

And like I said, the metric system/imperial system as metaphor for morality is either:

a)A pitiful, shitty metaphor for morality, as morality is difficult to crystallize specifically because its abstract and immaterial, while measurements are material. A 'yard' is the same today as it was in 1900.A 'meter' is the same today as it was in 1900.

'Evil' is not the same today as it was in 1950. 'Evil' is not the same in Brooklyn as it is in Nairobi.

So if it was a metaphor, it was a shitty one, and should have been left out.

b)An even more pitiful example of how you, and Crouch, and whoever else made that god awful connection, are good fiction writers, focusing in on irrelevant details and manufacturing false meaning for....whatever reason....trying to come across intelligent to white folks, in Crouch's case. I don't know what your excuse is.

I'm willing to entertain the possibility that your simply an idiot.

>the difference between measurement systems is a fairly decent
>metaphor for the difference between laws and moral codes

No, its a terrible metaphor.

The evolution of the differences between the imperial and metric system are entirely different than the evolution of laws and moral codes, and is therefore intuitively unhelpful for putting across that point.

In fact, the only thing the imperial/metric dichotomy has in common with the moral differences discussion is the fact that metric/imperial systems are different, in which case the characters in 'Pulp Fiction' could have been talking about any given difference between two random nations, such as currency, language, Gross National Product, Goverment, ethnicity, Imports, Exports, Climate, Mean temperature, literacy rate, infant mortality rate, population, per capita income, population density, average humidity.........

.....a comparison of any of those would have been as good, or better than the use of the metric/imperial systems because the above characteristics are at least largely unique to single countries.....


...yes that metaphor sucked, and you suck for defending it.

He uses a lot of diverse vocabulary and beautiful sentence construction in sidestepping his questions, I'll give him credit for that.

>
>I'm listening.
>

firstly, metaphors aren't supposed to be connected with their subject, as you ought to know

ask donne what individuals have to do with islands
ask burns what love has to do with plantlife
etc

>And like I said, the metric system/imperial system as metaphor
>for morality is either:
>
>a)A pitiful, shitty metaphor for morality, as morality is
>difficult to crystallize specifically because its abstract and
>immaterial, while measurements are material. A 'yard' is the
>same today as it was in 1900.A 'meter' is the same today as it
>was in 1900.
>
>'Evil' is not the same today as it was in 1950. 'Evil' is not
>the same in Brooklyn as it is in Nairobi.
>
>So if it was a metaphor, it was a shitty one, and should have
>been left out.
>

you're taking it beyond a simple metaphor and wanting it to be a full blown analogy
we can entertain this if you want
the metric system has come into common usage in english speaking coutries relatively recently, so actually it fits well since Tarantino's film is about how evil functions in MODERN society, where values have changed a lot (and yes the metric system is the one used by the criminal underworld of PF - the drug dealer weighs the heroine in grams)

anyway
do you realize what you're saying?
have you ever seen the statue called Justice outside the Old Bailey (you most likely have)
have you noticed that in one hand it holds a sword and the other hand it holds a set of scales?
THE FUCKING SCALES OF JUSTICE
the most well known metaphor for justice/law/morality in the entire english language, probably in the world, probably in HISTORY

where is your argument NOW?

oh and guess what they talk about STRAIGHT after metric weight measurements... they talk about LAWS



>b)An even more pitiful example of how you, and Crouch, and
>whoever else made that god awful connection, are good fiction
>writers, focusing in on irrelevant details and manufacturing
>false meaning for....whatever reason....trying to come across
>intelligent to white folks, in Crouch's case. I don't know
>what your excuse is.
>
>I'm willing to entertain the possibility that your simply an
>idiot.
>

this particular metaphor had nothing to do with Crouch, though several other critics/reviewers picked up on it in articles

heck, it might be the only part of Jules and Vince's dialogue in the entire film (with eachother) that's not OVERTLY about morality or theology, so thinking of it as a metaphor isn't entirely unreasonable


>>the difference between measurement systems is a fairly
>decent
>>metaphor for the difference between laws and moral codes
>
>No, its a terrible metaphor.
>
>The evolution of the differences between the imperial and
>metric system are entirely different than the evolution of
>laws and moral codes, and is therefore intuitively unhelpful
>for putting across that point.
>

this would be a problem if it was an analogy Tarantino was dwelling on extensively, which it isn't. it's a short metaphoric bit of conversation which recurrs in the next scene to create tension


>In fact, the only thing the imperial/metric dichotomy has in
>common with the moral differences discussion is the fact that
>metric/imperial systems are different, in which case the
>characters in 'Pulp Fiction' could have been talking about any
>given difference between two random nations, such as currency,
>language, Gross National Product, Goverment, ethnicity,
>Imports, Exports, Climate, Mean temperature, literacy rate,
>infant mortality rate, population, per capita income,
>population density, average humidity.........
>

currency? would work, but it's far too obvious. "You know the funny thing about Europe about is the little differences. You know what they call dollars over there? Euros. It's because they have a different currency."

language? no, because it's not concerned with values. see also: climate, temperature, literacy rate, population, income,

GNP? just a scaled up version of mmoney

imports and exports? maybe you COULD make a good analogy with that one

OR you could just use WEIGHT MEASUREMENT, an easy topic to use, a metaphor that's already widely recognized

>.....a comparison of any of those would have been as good, or
>better than the use of the metric/imperial systems because the
>above characteristics are at least largely unique to single
>countries.....
>
>
>...yes that metaphor sucked, and you suck for defending it.
>

your attack on this metaphor was not a good idea

>firstly, metaphors aren't supposed to be connected with their
>subject, as you ought to know

Actually, they are.

Discussing the differences between the imperial/metric system is merely a difference between two countries. Discussing any difference at all is not helpful for discussing differences in moral codes. Again, I could use the difference between Japan Yen and the Mexican Peso as an example of a difference. That difference would, however, be a terrible metaphor for the differences in moral code between the two places.


>ask donne what individuals have to do with islands
>ask burns what love has to do with plantlife
>etc

Those are real metaphors, though.

They discuss specific behavior on one object that is helpful for understanding aspects to another, more abstract, non-descript object(plant life vs. love).

So actually, you are wrong.

the film 'Get on the Bus' was a metaphor film, for example. It compared the bus ride to Washington DC, to the Million Man March in 1995 to the state of black manhood as a whole.

The 'Bus Ride' and 'Black Manhood' are completely different. Spike Lee did an exquisite job of using a relatively concrete object('Bus Ride') to help describe an abstract, non-descript object('Black Manhood in America').

That is an excellent metaphor. The objects have specific relationships, and the elements of the concrete example are SPECIFICALLY related to the abstract object.


I usually charge for lectures like this, by the way.


>you're taking it beyond a simple metaphor and wanting it to be
>a full blown analogy
>we can entertain this if you want
>the metric system has come into common usage in english
>speaking coutries relatively recently, so actually it fits
>well since Tarantino's film is about how evil functions in
>MODERN society, where values have changed a lot (and yes the
>metric system is the one used by the criminal underworld of PF
>- the drug dealer weighs the heroine in grams)

That doesn't make a grain of motherfucking sense.

Not a single, fucking grain.

Not one.

For one, English speaking countries have been using the metric system for eons. Every scientist in the United States, every single one, has been using the metric system for the past century, at least. In fact, I am a scientist, and have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever measured anything of any kind in anything other than the metric system, and neither have any of my previous bosses who have been doing the shit for half a century.

And the reason why the criminal underworld uses the metric system is because the science world uses the metric system, because they use the same tools to measure their substance as the scientific and medical world uses to measure there substances.

A syringe shoots coaine, and shoots Morphine into a patient writhing in pain at a hospital.

A scale measures cocaine in grams, and I use a scale to measure bacterial media, in grams.

There is nothing about this phenomenon, at all, that has anything to do with the criminal underworld, or morals.

So you are wrong, and your metaphor sucks and dies right than and there.

Secondly, no, requiring a metaphor to actually be a metaphor is not requiring it to be a "full blown analogy."

Again, a metaphor typically describes a concrete phenomenon'object, and dicusses elements of that phenomenon/object that are similar to a relatively abstract, non-descript object/phenomenon.

The fact is that the only thing that Imperial/metric has in common with US morals/Dutch morals, is that they are different. That is similar to saying that the mean temperature in the US/Mean temperature of Holland are different, and attempting to relate this to moral differences. They would all be terrible analogies, unless one discussed SPECIFICS OF THE CONCRETE object that related to the abstract.


Your argument is an enormous piece of shit, by the way.

>anyway
>do you realize what you're saying?
>have you ever seen the statue called Justice outside the Old
>Bailey (you most likely have)
>have you noticed that in one hand it holds a sword and the
>other hand it holds a set of scales?
>THE FUCKING SCALES OF JUSTICE
>the most well known metaphor for justice/law/morality in the
>entire english language, probably in the world, probably in
>HISTORY

Uh.

No.

The "scale" has thousands of applications. There are thousands of metaphors for morality.

Anytime we say that we need to "balance" something, we are using the scale as something of a metaphor.

We need to "balance" imports and exports.

We need to "balance" the individual rights of citizens with the collective rights of a society.

The problem is the scales of justice, and the "balance" has nothing to do with the differences between the metric and imperial system, or even worse.

The "scales of justice" is a discussing of morals, not the fact that you need multiply the number of miles on your car mileage by 1.609 to get the number of kilometers.

Its amazing, every time your argument is refuted, you hop onto another even worse, argument.


>where is your argument NOW?

Pissing all over your argument.


>this particular metaphor had nothing to do with Crouch, though
>several other critics/reviewers picked up on it in articles

Hell, you are all idiots than.

>heck, it might be the only part of Jules and Vince's dialogue
>in the entire film (with eachother) that's not OVERTLY about
>morality or theology, so thinking of it as a metaphor isn't
>entirely unreasonable

Like I said -- Its either a terrlbe metaphor, or the product of an active imagination on the part of you overanalysts.

I'd say its probably a mixture of both.

Tarantino might have been trying to say something, but the analogy sucked, AND you all misinterpreted his attempt and over-arch your attempts at rationalizing it.

>
>>firstly, metaphors aren't supposed to be connected with
>their
>>subject, as you ought to know
>
>Actually, they are.
>

a metaphor is a phrase that is not literally connected to the thing it's describing
saying "the metric system is a bad metaphor because it has nothing to do with morality" is fucking world class redundancy

>Discussing the differences between the imperial/metric system
>is merely a difference between two countries. Discussing any
>difference at all is not helpful for discussing differences in
>moral codes. Again, I could use the difference between Japan
>Yen and the Mexican Peso as an example of a difference. That
>difference would, however, be a terrible metaphor for the
>differences in moral code between the two places.
>

How about this: every human being has the concept of weight. Any quantifying terms given to weight are meaningful only to the person who made them. Eventually people manage to standardize the terms into an agreed system of measurement, but there will be different systems amongst different peoples, Similarly every human being has concepts of right and wrong, but they're only meaningful to themselves (subjective morality), eventually people manage to standardize the concepts (law), but there's still peoples with different laws.

>
>>ask donne what individuals have to do with islands
>>ask burns what love has to do with plantlife
>>etc
>
>Those are real metaphors, though.
>
>They discuss specific behavior on one object that is helpful
>for understanding aspects to another, more abstract,
>non-descript object(plant life vs. love).
>
>

people have different systems by which to make judgements
you have physical judgements, and you have moral judgements

it's really simple


>the film 'Get on the Bus' was a metaphor film, for example. It
>compared the bus ride to Washington DC, to the Million Man
>March in 1995 to the state of black manhood as a whole.
>
>The 'Bus Ride' and 'Black Manhood' are completely different.
>Spike Lee did an exquisite job of using a relatively concrete
>object('Bus Ride') to help describe an abstract, non-descript
>object('Black Manhood in America').
>
>That is an excellent metaphor. The objects have specific
>relationships, and the elements of the concrete example are
>SPECIFICALLY related to the abstract object.
>

lol. i've not seen Get on the Bus but it looks like you're comparing a metaphor that's developed for an entire film, with a metaphor that takes up a couple of lines then gives way to the actual subject. of course it's not as developed


>>you're taking it beyond a simple metaphor and wanting it to
>be
>>a full blown analogy
>>we can entertain this if you want
>>the metric system has come into common usage in english
>>speaking coutries relatively recently, so actually it fits
>>well since Tarantino's film is about how evil functions in
>>MODERN society, where values have changed a lot (and yes the
>>metric system is the one used by the criminal underworld of
>PF
>>- the drug dealer weighs the heroine in grams)
>
>That doesn't make a grain of motherfucking sense.
>
>Not a single, fucking grain.
>
>Not one.
>
>For one, English speaking countries have been using the
>metric system for eons. Every scientist in the United States,
>every single one, has been using the metric system for the
>past century, at least. In fact, I am a scientist, and have
>never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever measured anything of any
>kind in anything other than the metric system, and neither
>have any of my previous bosses who have been doing the shit
>for half a century.
>

this is idiotic.
did you notice the term "common usage"
meaning outside scientific usage
and more importantly if you were intellectually honest you would consider how the metric system has only been fading in to common vocabulary of English speaking countries over the last 20 or 30 years, that lots of middle-aged people didn't learn it at school, that the US is a particularly slow adopter and still hasn't officially taken to it (for general purposes like trade and road signs), and having considered that you would not make this irrelevant point about scientists (btw, congrats on being a scientist)

p.s. shame about that NASA probe that smashed into Mars because some scientist got miles and kms mixed up



>And the reason why the criminal underworld uses the metric
>system is because the science world uses the metric system,
>because they use the same tools to measure their substance as
>the scientific and medical world uses to measure there
>substances.
>

1. It's not that important. It's just showing consistency
2. Where I live people measure drugs in ounces. Maybe for heroine they exclusively use grams though

>Secondly, no, requiring a metaphor to actually be a metaphor
>is not requiring it to be a "full blown analogy."
>
>Again, a metaphor typically describes a concrete
>phenomenon'object, and dicusses elements of that
>phenomenon/object that are similar to a relatively abstract,
>non-descript object/phenomenon.
>

not exclusively. you often hear phrases like "gallons of fun", "acres of knowledge"
Shakespeare frequently used metaphors between two abstractions, it's practically his trade mark


>The fact is that the only thing that Imperial/metric has in
>common with US morals/Dutch morals, is that they are
>different. That is similar to saying that the mean
>temperature in the US/Mean temperature of Holland are
>different, and attempting to relate this to moral differences.
>They would all be terrible analogies, unless one discussed
>SPECIFICS OF THE CONCRETE object that related to the abstract.
>
>

look
subject of the discussion is the that there is difference between moral systems
metaphor used is systems of (weight) measurement, which differ

you couldn't use "differing mean temperature" as a metaphor, that's just a physical fact, there's no judgement or system or people involved


>>anyway
>>do you realize what you're saying?
>>have you ever seen the statue called Justice outside the Old
>>Bailey (you most likely have)
>>have you noticed that in one hand it holds a sword and the
>>other hand it holds a set of scales?
>>THE FUCKING SCALES OF JUSTICE
>>the most well known metaphor for justice/law/morality in the
>>entire english language, probably in the world, probably in
>>HISTORY
>
>Uh.
>
>No.
>
>The "scale" has thousands of applications. There are
>thousands of metaphors for morality.
>

the "scales of justice" is the most common metaphor involving scales, and the most common metaphor for justice. it's on statues outside courts of law, it's on textbooks, it's on walls inside pyramids


>Anytime we say that we need to "balance" something, we are
>using the scale as something of a metaphor.
>

no we are not, because the verb "balance" has passed into our language as a verb and whenever anyone uses it they aren't trying to use a metaphor. when someone says "analysis" they are not thinking of breaking something up, they just use the word

if you're talking about the "scales of justice" you KNOW you're using a metaphor
if you see ten males on the jury and say the jury's imbalanced, you're NOT using a metaphor

>The problem is the scales of justice, and the "balance" has
>nothing to do with the differences between the metric and
>imperial system, or even worse.
>
>The "scales of justice" is a discussing of morals, not the
>fact that you need multiply the number of miles on your car
>mileage by 1.609 to get the number of kilometers.
>

scales of justice
balancing the crime with the punishment
weighing in metric or imperial
using dutch law or u.s. law

>Like I said -- Its either a terrlbe metaphor, or the product
>of an active imagination on the part of you overanalysts.
>
>I'd say its probably a mixture of both.

that doesn't even make sense. either Tarantino used a metaphor or I (and others) just imagined he did. you can't have a mixture of both

>
>Tarantino might have been trying to say something, but the
>analogy sucked, AND you all misinterpreted his attempt and
>over-arch your attempts at rationalizing it.
>

what's laughable about this is that it's such a small thing
i could have said 'dutch law' instead of 'the metric system' and we wouldn't even be having this discussion
it's not like Pulp Fiction or my point relied on this metaphor
there's material to back it up or do its job immediately following on screen
yet you zoom in on it like it's crucial, and talk complete nonsense too

i'm still laughing at you saying the metric system was a "colder, narrower" system of measurement

COLDER? NARROWER? were you speaking metaphorically?

>>And the reason why the criminal underworld uses the metric
>>system is because the science world uses the metric system,
>>because they use the same tools to measure their substance
>as
>>the scientific and medical world uses to measure there
>>substances.
>>
>
>1. It's not that important. It's just showing consistency
>2. Where I live people measure drugs in ounces. Maybe for
>heroine they exclusively use grams though
>

Have you ever heard of the expression "a key"? Short for a "kilo"? Which I'm pretty sure doesn't stand for "kilo-ounces"? There are ounces too, but grams is also fairly acceptable for measuring drugs, especially larger quantities.

>>Secondly, no, requiring a metaphor to actually be a metaphor
>>is not requiring it to be a "full blown analogy."
>>
>>Again, a metaphor typically describes a concrete
>>phenomenon'object, and dicusses elements of that
>>phenomenon/object that are similar to a relatively abstract,
>>non-descript object/phenomenon.
>>
>
>not exclusively. you often hear phrases like "gallons of fun",
>"acres of knowledge"
>Shakespeare frequently used metaphors between two
>abstractions, it's practically his trade mark
>

But see, those make sense. If you said "she has gallons of fun", then she has a lot of fun. If you said "she has acres of knowledge", then she has a lot of smarts. Gallons and acres are more or less concrete in the sense that everyone knows "gallons" and "acres" are BIG to the point where we can't really understand the "bigness" of what we're being described.

The metric system as a metaphor doesn't really cut the mustard, because it's not specific enough. If morality is a metric system, what does that even mean? How much is 100 grams of morality? A lot? Are there also measurements of the level of a person's immorality, or is that just "0 grams"? Or is immorality the low end of the metric system, and there's a median where immorality switches to morality, around, say 543 centimeters. THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, CAN'T YOU SEE?

The blind Justice lady holds the scale because it's supposed to be fair and balanced. That's why she's blind, because sight makes her imbalanced. Since the scale is straight, it shows she's not partial. It's not a metric thing.

You're thinking WAAAAAY too much into this.

>
>>>And the reason why the criminal underworld uses the metric
>>>system is because the science world uses the metric system,
>>>because they use the same tools to measure their substance
>>as
>>>the scientific and medical world uses to measure there
>>>substances.
>>>
>>
>>1. It's not that important. It's just showing consistency
>>2. Where I live people measure drugs in ounces. Maybe for
>>heroine they exclusively use grams though
>>
>
>Have you ever heard of the expression "a key"? Short for a
>"kilo"? Which I'm pretty sure doesn't stand for "kilo-ounces"?
>There are ounces too, but grams is also fairly acceptable for
>measuring drugs, especially larger quantities.
>

(i take it you meant to say kilos instead of grams)

and? what would that show? that out of two systems Tarantino chose one, the pertinent one

to be honest for something like heroine for personal usage they probably only ever say grams, because it's so powerful (unless they say grains, which they would in the opium days).

but that doesn't really matter either, it just means there's a real life reason

>>>Secondly, no, requiring a metaphor to actually be a
>metaphor
>>>is not requiring it to be a "full blown analogy."
>>>
>>>Again, a metaphor typically describes a concrete
>>>phenomenon'object, and dicusses elements of that
>>>phenomenon/object that are similar to a relatively
>abstract,
>>>non-descript object/phenomenon.
>>>
>>
>>not exclusively. you often hear phrases like "gallons of
>fun",
>>"acres of knowledge"
>>Shakespeare frequently used metaphors between two
>>abstractions, it's practically his trade mark
>>
>
>But see, those make sense. If you said "she has gallons of
>fun", then she has a lot of fun. If you said "she has acres of
>knowledge", then she has a lot of smarts. Gallons and acres
>are more or less concrete in the sense that everyone knows
>"gallons" and "acres" are BIG to the point where we can't
>really understand the "bigness" of what we're being
>described.
>
>The metric system as a metaphor doesn't really cut the
>mustard, because it's not specific enough. If morality is a
>metric system, what does that even mean? How much is 100 grams
>of morality? A lot? Are there also measurements of the level
>of a person's immorality, or is that just "0 grams"? Or is
>immorality the low end of the metric system, and there's a
>median where immorality switches to morality, around, say 543
>centimeters. THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, CAN'T YOU SEE?
>
>The blind Justice lady holds the scale because it's supposed
>to be fair and balanced. That's why she's blind, because sight
>makes her imbalanced. Since the scale is straight, it shows
>she's not partial. It's not a metric thing.
>
>You're thinking WAAAAAY too much into this.

"here's an equivocator (a lawyer), that could
swear in both the scales against either scale" - from Macbeth

what COULD you use as a metaphor for law or morality?
it has to be a SYSTEM with RULES
I suppose you could have the rules of a game
like chess, but then there's only ever 1 set of rules for chess
maybe poker, since there are different sets of rules for poker
but then what's an "ace high" in moral terms? what's the small blind?

metric/imperial weight are both systems/rules for measuring the same thing, simple as that

if you want to expand the metaphor (which Tarantino doesn't do), you can make it good or bad. a good idea that one essay said is that units are just arbitrary terms slapped on things, that don't alter subjective ideas of "light" and "heavy" - laws are arbitrary and don't alter subjective ideas of good and evil (necessarily)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

WOOOOOOO

WOOOOOOOOOOOO

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

YOU SEE WHY YOU GET CLOWNED!!!!

PICK A FUCKING POINT!!!

YOU SWITCH POINTS EVERY TWO POSTS!!!!!

FIRST YOU SAID:

1) The Metric/Imperial dialogue was supposed to represent the subjective understandings of the physical world, how metric/imperial are two completely different views on the physical world, just like our subjective understandings of morals.

THAN YOU TURN RIGHT AROUND AND SAY:

2)The Metric/Imperial dialogue is supposed to represent the fact that the labels are just labels and don't represent differences in subjective understanding of the physical world. The labels mean nothing for how we interpret the world.

PICK A FUCKING ARGUMENT!!!!

YOU HAVE MADE BOTH OF THESE ARGUMENTS IN A SINGLE FUCKING DISCUSSION!!!!

YOU ARE SUCH A FUCKING COLD, CLAMMY CUP OF LATTE IT AIN'T NEVEN FUNNY!!!!

>if you want to expand the metaphor (which Tarantino doesn't
>do), you can make it good or bad. a good idea that one essay
>said is that units are just arbitrary terms slapped on things,
>that don't alter subjective ideas of "light" and "heavy" -

MOTHEFUCKER I JUST EXPLAINED THIS SHIT TO YOU ABOVE!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!

DIS LATTE TRIED TO STEAL MY IDEA AND SAY "I read it in an essay."

I JUST TOLD YOU THAT SHIT.

I JUST JUST JUST JUST JUST EXPLAINED TO YOU HOW THE METRIC/IMPERIAL SYSTEM DOSEN'T CHANGE THE INTERPRETATION OF "light" and "heavy." I

I EVEN USED THE EXACT WORDS "light" and "heavy"

Look at what I JUST TOLD YOU in the post titled "I am definately no match for you:"

"Light" is totally subjective, and is based on a cognitive-sensory interaction with objects that has nothing to do with the unit of measurement.

"Heavy" is totally subjective, and is also based on a cognitive-sensory interaction with objects that have nothing to do with the unit of measurement.

Me and a 10 year old American kid, who both use the imperial system for common measures like our mass, have completely different ideas of what "heavy" and "light" are, despite the fact that we both use the Imperial system of mass measurement.

Me and a 25 year old Dutch guy, who are the same size, both athletic and work out occassionally, likely have similar SUBJECTIVE understandings of what light and heavy are, despite the fact that we use different standards of measurement for our mass.


You are SO FULL OF SHIT!!!!


>laws are arbitrary and don't alter subjective ideas of good
>and evil (necessarily)

WRONG!!!!!!!

LAWS ABSOLUTELY DO CRAFT WHAT SOCIETIES BELIEVE IS RIGHT AND WRONG!!!!

I GREW UP BELIEVING WEED SMOKING WAS WRONG SOLELY BECAUSE OF ITS ILLEGALITY!!!!!

LAWS CRAFT MORALS *AND* MORALS CRAFT LAWS....ITS A TWO WAY STREET!!!!!!!


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!!!!


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>
>WOOOOOOO
>
>WOOOOOOOOOOOO
>
>WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>
>YOU SEE WHY YOU GET CLOWNED!!!!
>

^ so childish


>PICK A FUCKING POINT!!!
>
>YOU SWITCH POINTS EVERY TWO POSTS!!!!!
>
>FIRST YOU SAID:
>
>1) The Metric/Imperial dialogue was supposed to represent the
>subjective understandings of the physical world, how
>metric/imperial are two completely different views on the
>physical world, just like our subjective understandings of
>morals.
>
>THAN YOU TURN RIGHT AROUND AND SAY:
>
>2)The Metric/Imperial dialogue is supposed to represent the
>fact that the labels are just labels and don't represent
>differences in subjective understanding of the physical world.
> The labels mean nothing for how we interpret the world.
>
>PICK A FUCKING ARGUMENT!!!!
>
>YOU HAVE MADE BOTH OF THESE ARGUMENTS IN A SINGLE FUCKING
>DISCUSSION!!!!
>

haven't you been paying attention? these are both ways of extending a basic metaphor that the author doesn't elaborate for us. if you MUST elaborate. the basic point is "different people have different moral codes"


>YOU ARE SUCH A FUCKING COLD, CLAMMY CUP OF LATTE IT AIN'T
>NEVEN FUNN!!!!
>

^ not many people, even on OKP, stoop to this level of arguing


>>if you want to expand the metaphor (which Tarantino doesn't
>>do), you can make it good or bad. a good idea that one essay
>>said is that units are just arbitrary terms slapped on
>things,
>>that don't alter subjective ideas of "light" and "heavy" -
>
>MOTHEFUCKER I JUST EXPLAINED THIS SHIT TO YOU ABOVE!!!!!
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!
>
>DIS LATTE TRIED TO STEAL MY IDEA AND SAY "I read it in an
>essay."
>
>I JUST TOLD YOU THAT SHIT.
>
>I JUST JUST JUST JUST JUST EXPLAINED TO YOU HOW THE
>METRIC/IMPERIAL SYSTEM DOSEN'T CHANGE THE INTERPRETATION OF
>"light" and "heavy." I
>
>I EVEN USED THE EXACT WORDS "light" and "heavy"
>

funny isn't it when your own ideas come back and slap you in the face. like your idea about science and drug dealers.

anyway, after you made that point, i said I could easily reframe the debate to take account of that point, because it's already been done in an essay. You think i'm lying about the essay? I can go and find out the author and publication RIGHT NOW, in fact there's AT LEAST TWO essays that use the idea, and they're on the Pulp Fiction dvd and they appeared in big periodicals like the NY Times. But you can take my word for it, because i'm not dishonest

>
>>laws are arbitrary and don't alter subjective ideas of good
>>and evil (necessarily)
>
>WRONG!!!!!!!
>
>LAWS ABSOLUTELY DO CRAFT WHAT SOCIETIES BELIEVE IS RIGHT AND
>WRONG!!!!
>
>I GREW UP BELIEVING WEED SMOKING WAS WRONG SOLELY BECAUSE OF
>ITS ILLEGALITY!!!!!
>
>

that's why I said "necessarily"
obviously they do affect peoples views
but the point would be that ULTIMATELY the connections are arbitrary
that's what makes it an original point worth making, and not stating the fucking obvious

it's so funny watching you scramble to make your triumphant proclamations of stupidity, IN CAPITAL LETTERS

but it's also a waste of time, so i'm not responding anymore

>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!!!!
>

Yes you did.

Like I said, your artsy-fartsiness wrote checks that your intellect can't cash.

Its been amusing.

Okay.

*TURNS ON THUG_ORBIT*

>haven't you been paying attention? these are both ways of
>extending a basic metaphor that the author doesn't elaborate
>for us. if you MUST elaborate. the basic point is "different
>people have different moral codes"

NO YOU DUMBASS. THEY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!

EITHER ONE IS RIGHT OR THE OTHER.

YOU AND THE OTHER LATTE'S HAVE GONE WAAAAAAAAYYYYY OUT OF YOUR WAY TO SEARCH FOR MEANING IN SOMETHING THAT ISN'T THAT FUCKING DEEP!!!!

EVERY TIME I REFUTE ONE VIEW, YOU TURN AROUND AND ADOPT ANOTHER!!!

PICK A FUCKING ARGUMENT!!!!

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!


>anyway, after you made that point, i said I could easily
>reframe the debate to take account of that point, because it's
>already been done in an essay. You think i'm lying about the
>essay? I can go and find out the author and publication RIGHT
>NOW, in fact there's AT LEAST TWO essays that use the idea,
>and they're on the Pulp Fiction dvd and they appeared in big
>periodicals like the NY Times. But you can take my word for
>it, because i'm not dishonest

THAN WHY DID YOU USE MY EXACT WORDS "light" and "heavy" and their "subjective interpretation!!!"THE ESSAYS YOU DISCUSSED BEFORE DID NOT USE THOSE EXACT WORDS and make that EXACT ARGUMENT!!!!

"ORBIT_ESTABLISHED' MADE THAT EXACT ARGUMENT, THAT SHAT ON SOMETHING YOU HAD SAID, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU ADOPTED IT AND TALKED ABOUT "I READ IT IN AN ESSAY." YOU SIMPLY DIDN'T THINK I'D BE READING YOUR OTHER POSTS, BUT I FOUND AND EXPOSED IT!!

YOU ARE SUCH A FRAUD!!!!


>that's why I said "necessarily"
>obviously they do affect peoples views
>but the point would be that ULTIMATELY the connections are
>arbitrary
>that's what makes it an original point worth making, and not
>stating the fucking obvious

What?

MAKE-A-FUCKING-POINT!!!!

WHICH METAPHOR IS TARANTINO USING!!!

WHAT METAPHOR DO YOU SEE AS BEING MOST LIKELY!!!!

YOU CAN'T JUST SUGGEST EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE PERMUMATION AND ASSUME THAT PERHAPS TARANTINO'S METAPHOR APPLIED TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH WITH A DIFFERENT SPIN ON THE SCENE!!!!

ULTIMATELY ITS A MOVIE, WITH A WRITER AND A DIRECTOR WHO ACTUALLY WAS TRYING TO COMMUNICATE A POINT WITH THE SCENE!!!!!

YOU COME UP WITH ALL SORTS OF WRONG ASS CONCLUSIONS THAN WHEN YOU GET CALLED OUT ON THEM YOU SAY:

"Different people interpret things differently"

COPOUT!!!!!

IF YOU ARE WRONG, YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!

THE METRIC/IMPERIAL DISCOURSE HAD NOTHING, AT ALL, TO DO WITH THE CRIMINAL UNDERWORLD'S EMBRACE OF THE METRIC SYSTEM!!!!!!!

EITHER THE IMPERIAL/METRIC DISCOURSE HAD TO DO WITH HOW MORALS *ARE* SUBJECTIVE *OR* HOW THEY *AREN'T* SUBJECTIVE. TAKE A FUCKING STAND AND STOP BACKPEDDLING!!!!

>it's so funny watching you scramble to make your triumphant
>proclamations of stupidity, IN CAPITAL LETTERS

*THUG_ORBIT OFF*

Its actually dope. That's why they call me the "five tool poster." I can sling dirt at cats. I can debate cats intellectually. I can make an academic argument in a third-grade tone. I can expose your logical fallacies, and talk about how fat yo momma is. All in a single post.

I'm the man.

>but it's also a waste of time, so i'm not responding anymore

^^^Dis Latte Admits Defeat^^^^


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

And shitty.

>a metaphor is a phrase that is not literally connected to the
>thing it's describing
>saying "the metric system is a bad metaphor because it has
>nothing to do with morality" is fucking world class
>redundancy

And suggesting that:

Holland uses the Metric System
US uses the Imperial System

Holland allows you to drink beer in the movies
US dosent' allow you to drink beer in the movies

Is a good metaphor for differences in morality is just......hmm.......PCP induced.

>How about this: every human being has the concept of weight.
>Any quantifying terms given to weight are meaningful only to
>the person who made them. Eventually people manage to
>standardize the terms into an agreed system of measurement,
>but there will be different systems amongst different peoples,
>Similarly every human being has concepts of right and wrong,
>but they're only meaningful to themselves (subjective
>morality), eventually people manage to standardize the
>concepts (law), but there's still peoples with different
>laws.

Hmm. What you just said, sucked. Not only because it has nothing to do with what Tarantino was trying to put across, but because it sucks.

Besides, you just made that horseshit up.

Every human has their own individual concept of weight. Too bad this has nothing to do with whether I decide to weigh something in pounds or grams. In fact, two people, both of whom measure things in grams, might have completely different subjective perspectives on what "light" or "heavy" is. And two people who measure objects in different units, might in fact have very similar intuitive perspectives on what constitutes a "heavy" object versus a "light" object.

So again, the system of measurement is a shitty, shitty, shitty, shitty metaphor for moral differences.

As much as I hate Tarantino, I think you are the bigger idiot for manufacturing that bullshit.

>people have different systems by which to make judgements
>you have physical judgements, and you have moral judgements

Here's what's even more retarded:

The different systems of measurement actually don't change anything about the objects themselves. 0 Kelvin and -270 degrees Celsius are exactly the same temperature. There is nothing subjective about that.


So, your metaphor continues to be shitty.


>lol. i've not seen Get on the Bus but it looks like you're
>comparing a metaphor that's developed for an entire film, with
>a metaphor that takes up a couple of lines then gives way to
>the actual subject. of course it's not as developed

Not the point. Spike Lee used an actual metaphor. To pull it off for an entire film is actually MORE DIFFICULT than to introduce oen in a little dialogue. If what you are suggesting is correct(which it isn't) Tarantino couldn't even get a minute metaphor correct.


>this is idiotic.
>did you notice the term "common usage"
>meaning outside scientific usage
>and more importantly if you were intellectually honest you
>would consider how the metric system has only been fading in
>to common vocabulary of English speaking countries over the
>last 20 or 30 years, that lots of middle-aged people didn't
>learn it at school, that the US is a particularly slow adopter
>and still hasn't officially taken to it (for general purposes
>like trade and road signs), and having considered that you
>would not make this irrelevant point about scientists (btw,
>congrats on being a scientist)

No.

You made a terrible, terrible, terrible, connection between the use of metric system, its increased use in the United States, and its subsequent use in the criminal underworld.

I shot that down by telling you that the criminal underworld's use of the metric system is derved from the fact that science world, who constructs the instruments of measurement, including scales and syringes, uses the metric system.


>p.s. shame about that NASA probe that smashed into Mars
>because some scientist got miles and kms mixed up

Not quite correct, but ironically, he was using the metric system. Not the imperial system.

Scientists use the metric system, Have for many years.

If drug dealers use the metric system, its because syringes are marked in metric volumetric measurment, not because the criminal underworld has co-opted the metric system for some specific cultural reason. That is why that point you made was terrible.

>that doesn't even make sense. either Tarantino used a
>metaphor or I (and others) just imagined he did. you can't
>have a mixture of both

Yes you can. Maybe Tarantino did mean to communicate something with the dialogue. I think the dialogue was stupid, because if he wanted to communicate something, he simply should have communicated it and not layered it.

And while Tarantino migt have meant to communicate something, I think you got whatever he wanted to communicate dead wrong.

>what's laughable about this is that it's such a small thing
>i could have said 'dutch law' instead of 'the metric system'
>and we wouldn't even be having this discussion
>it's not like Pulp Fiction or my point relied on this
>metaphor

LOL.

In that case you'd be admitting that the use of 'metric system' had nothing to do with the later discussion of the law, and had nothing to do with this grandiose comparison of moral codes or whatever bullshit you've put together.

>there's material to back it up or do its job immediately
>following on screen
>yet you zoom in on it like it's crucial, and talk complete
>nonsense too

No. I actually require you to tell me what the hell the metric system/imperial system discussion actually has to do with morals.

You see, my guess is better than yours:

Even if Tarantino did want to say something about morals, that discussion didn't come until LATER IN THAT CAR CONVERSATION and he used the metric/imperial system merely to INTRODUCE THE TOPIC, not as a DIRECT METAPHOR.

You see.

I hate Tarantino, and that movie, yet I've come up with a better approximation for what went on than you have.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

>i'm still laughing at you saying the metric system was a
>"colder, narrower" system of measurement
>COLDER? NARROWER? were you speaking metaphorically?

I use metaphors all the time.

"Warmth" = full of life, living, biotic, organic

"Colder" = abiotic, physical, lifeless.

I consider the imperial system "warmer" because there is a story behind each measurement -- the 'foot' being the size of an alleged actual foot, the 'yard' being the length from the king's ear to his wrist(or some approximation of that)....etc. The imperial system has origins in actual living people.

The millimeter and meter and kilometer, on the other hand, have no such story, and are therefore "colder."

You see how nicely that works? That's because I actually know how to correctly construct a metaphor.

Sort of like how I call your arguments "shitty." They stink, are repulsive, and would be best stored in a sewer somewhere. Not in this post.

Mang.

or for Afkap
or for that matter anyone who can conduct an intellectually honest discussion

>
>And shitty.
>
>>a metaphor is a phrase that is not literally connected to
>the
>>thing it's describing
>>saying "the metric system is a bad metaphor because it has
>>nothing to do with morality" is fucking world class
>>redundancy
>
>And suggesting that:
>
>Holland uses the Metric System
>US uses the Imperial System
>
>Holland allows you to drink beer in the movies
>US dosent' allow you to drink beer in the movies
>
>Is a good metaphor for differences in morality is
>just......hmm.......PCP induced.
>

been over this before

>>How about this: every human being has the concept of weight.
>>Any quantifying terms given to weight are meaningful only to
>>the person who made them. Eventually people manage to
>>standardize the terms into an agreed system of measurement,
>>but there will be different systems amongst different
>peoples,
>>Similarly every human being has concepts of right and wrong,
>>but they're only meaningful to themselves (subjective
>>morality), eventually people manage to standardize the
>>concepts (law), but there's still peoples with different
>>laws.
>
>Hmm. What you just said, sucked. Not only because it has
>nothing to do with what Tarantino was trying to put across,
>but because it sucks.
>
>Besides, you just made that horseshit up.
>
>Every human has their own individual concept of weight. Too
>bad this has nothing to do with whether I decide to weigh
>something in pounds or grams. In fact, two people, both of
>whom measure things in grams, might have completely different
>subjective perspectives on what "light" or "heavy" is. And
>two people who measure objects in different units, might in
>fact have very similar intuitive perspectives on what
>constitutes a "heavy" object versus a "light" object.
>

yes cavemen argued about whether or not 100 grams was heavy, didn't they?
no, early man had to make units of weight to help him think, then eventually everyone had to be using THE SAME, STANDARDIZED units of weight

yes "light" and "heavy' are still subjective but at least now there's a system to put things in perspective


>So again, the system of measurement is a shitty, shitty,
>shitty, shitty metaphor for moral differences.
>
>As much as I hate Tarantino, I think you are the bigger idiot
>for manufacturing that bullshit.
>
>>people have different systems by which to make judgements
>>you have physical judgements, and you have moral judgements
>
>Here's what's even more retarded:
>
>The different systems of measurement actually don't change
>anything about the objects themselves. 0 Kelvin and -270
>degrees Celsius are exactly the same temperature. There is
>nothing subjective about that.
>
>

different laws don't change the actions themselves. smoking weed in Amsterdam is exactly the same thing as smoaking weed in LA


>So, your metaphor continues to be shitty.
>
>
>>lol. i've not seen Get on the Bus but it looks like you're
>>comparing a metaphor that's developed for an entire film,
>with
>>a metaphor that takes up a couple of lines then gives way to
>>the actual subject. of course it's not as developed
>
>Not the point. Spike Lee used an actual metaphor. To pull it
>off for an entire film is actually MORE DIFFICULT than to
>introduce oen in a little dialogue. If what you are suggesting
>is correct(which it isn't) Tarantino couldn't even get a
>minute metaphor correct.
>
>

it's a PASSING METAPHOR, like most metaphors are. he doesn't go into it in depth


>>this is idiotic.
>>did you notice the term "common usage"
>>meaning outside scientific usage
>>and more importantly if you were intellectually honest you
>>would consider how the metric system has only been fading in
>>to common vocabulary of English speaking countries over the
>>last 20 or 30 years, that lots of middle-aged people didn't
>>learn it at school, that the US is a particularly slow
>adopter
>>and still hasn't officially taken to it (for general
>purposes
>>like trade and road signs), and having considered that you
>>would not make this irrelevant point about scientists (btw,
>>congrats on being a scientist)
>
>No.
>
>You made a terrible, terrible, terrible, connection between
>the use of metric system, its increased use in the United
>States, and its subsequent use in the criminal underworld.
>
>I shot that down by telling you that the criminal underworld's
>use of the metric system is derved from the fact that science
>world, who constructs the instruments of measurement,
>including scales and syringes, uses the metric system.

no, because the point about the drug dealer using metric was a small, supporting side point in brackets, which i only said because I suspected you would say some shit like "but in America, where the film is set, they use the Imperial system. so how does the metric system have anything to do with the story?", and explaining that the reason is because it's science related doesn't actually change anything, it doesn't make it inconsistent


>
>
>>p.s. shame about that NASA probe that smashed into Mars
>>because some scientist got miles and kms mixed up
>
>Not quite correct, but ironically, he was using the metric
>system. Not the imperial system.
>

LOL why would you even refute this point. They crashed because of a metric/imperial mix up. End of story. I'm not even going to bother entertaining there being something "ironic" about it being metric or whatever, because it's so fucking irrelevant and typical of you

>Scientists use the metric system, Have for many years.
>
>If drug dealers use the metric system, its because syringes
>are marked in metric volumetric measurment, not because the
>criminal underworld has co-opted the metric system for some
>specific cultural reason. That is why that point you made was
>terrible.
>

the point i was making was actually that metric has come into common usage reletavely recently. which it has.

>>that doesn't even make sense. either Tarantino used a
>>metaphor or I (and others) just imagined he did. you can't
>>have a mixture of both
>
>Yes you can. Maybe Tarantino did mean to communicate
>something with the dialogue. I think the dialogue was stupid,
>because if he wanted to communicate something, he simply
>should have communicated it and not layered it.
>

still doesn't make sense


>And while Tarantino migt have meant to communicate something,
>I think you got whatever he wanted to communicate dead wrong.
>
>
>>what's laughable about this is that it's such a small thing
>>i could have said 'dutch law' instead of 'the metric system'
>>and we wouldn't even be having this discussion
>>it's not like Pulp Fiction or my point relied on this
>>metaphor
>
>LOL.
>
>In that case you'd be admitting that the use of 'metric
>system' had nothing to do with the later discussion of the
>law, and had nothing to do with this grandiose comparison of
>moral codes or whatever bullshit you've put together.
>

no, in that case i'd be realizing that it is not ESSENTIAL to the film
you're so childish in thinking that just because I don't attach absolute importance to something, i must be admitting it's wrong

>>there's material to back it up or do its job immediately
>>following on screen
>>yet you zoom in on it like it's crucial, and talk complete
>>nonsense too
>
>No. I actually require you to tell me what the hell the metric
>system/imperial system discussion actually has to do with
>morals.
>
>You see, my guess is better than yours:
>
>Even if Tarantino did want to say something about morals, that
>discussion didn't come until LATER IN THAT CAR CONVERSATION
>and he used the metric/imperial system merely to INTRODUCE THE
>TOPIC, not as a DIRECT METAPHOR.
>
>You see.
>
>I hate Tarantino, and that movie, yet I've come up with a
>better approximation for what went on than you have.
>
>You should be ashamed of yourself.
>

no, because in that case he could have talked about any other "little difference," like the ones you listed, none of which were as good a metaphor as metric/imperial, leaving you only the possibility that it's a COINCIDENCE he chose metric/imperial, which is not a good argument

and it's so simple
morality, system for making moral judgements
imperial/metric, system for making physical judgements
and physical judgement, particularly weight, is a well known metaphor for moral judgement already

>>i'm still laughing at you saying the metric system was a
>>"colder, narrower" system of measurement
>>COLDER? NARROWER? were you speaking metaphorically?
>
>I use metaphors all the time.
>
>"Warmth" = full of life, living, biotic, organic
>
>"Colder" = abiotic, physical, lifeless.
>
>I consider the imperial system "warmer" because there is a
>story behind each measurement -- the 'foot' being the size of
>an alleged actual foot, the 'yard' being the length from the
>king's ear to his wrist(or some approximation of that)....etc.
>The imperial system has origins in actual living people.
>
>The millimeter and meter and kilometer, on the other hand,
>have no such story, and are therefore "colder."
>
>You see how nicely that works? That's because I actually know
>how to correctly construct a metaphor.
>

lol, i suspected that's what you'd say for "colder"
what's even funnier is
1. what the fuck does being colder have to do with being less "relaxed"?
2. what the fuck was "narrower"

your metaphors were weak because you were making a really bad point trying to say the metric system in particular was bad for these purposes

>Sort of like how I call your arguments "shitty." They stink,
>are repulsive, and would be best stored in a sewer somewhere.
>Not in this post.
>
>Mang.
>

you're so bad at this

For if I were you, I would have given up making persistently bad arguments days ago.

But its all in good fun.

In one single discourse:

You suggested that the objects in metaphors aren't supposed to be "related".

I refuted that.

You then suggested that the dialogue between Vince and Jules and the metric/imperial comparsion has to do with the use of metric system in the criminal underworld.

I completely refuted that.

You are now suggesting that the metric/imperial comparison is about subjective interpretation of reality.

I have already refuted that, and will completely refute it below.

Watch.

>yes cavemen argued about whether or not 100 grams was heavy,
>didn't they?
>no, early man had to make units of weight to help him think,
>then eventually everyone had to be using THE SAME,
>STANDARDIZED units of weight

Lol. What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

At all?

Oh. I'm not supposed to ask that question, because you wouldn't be posting at all if you were to answer it.....keep it moving.....

>yes "light" and "heavy' are still subjective but at least now
>there's a system to put things in perspective

Lol.

Idiot.

No.

No.

No.

You are wrong.

"Light" is totally subjective, and is based on a cognitive-sensory interaction with objects that has nothing to do with the unit of measurement.

"Heavy" is totally subjective, and is also based on a cognitive-sensory interaction with objects that have nothing to do with the unit of measurement.

Me and a 10 year old American kid, who both use the imperial system for common measures like our mass, have completely different ideas of what "heavy" and "light" are, despite the fact that we both use the Imperial system of mass measurement.

Me and a 25 year old Dutch guy, who are the same size, both athletic and work out occassionally, likely have similar SUBJECTIVE understandings of what light and heavy are, despite the fact that we use different standards of measurement for our mass.

You introduced the "metric/imperial = subjective interpretation" argument, and it dosen't stand up to any scrutiny. There is nothing about the dichotomy about "metric/imperial" that speaks to any aspect to the subjective understanding of "tall" and "short" let alone "good" and "evil."

Like I said, the connection was likely manufactured by people like yourself over-exerting yourself in the attempt to extract meaning.

>different laws don't change the actions themselves. smoking
>weed in Amsterdam is exactly the same thing as smoaking weed
>in LA

Cop out #1.

Nice cop out attempt, but you can't sneak that by me, paw.

The subjective understanding of weed-smoking is different to different people, in different places.

What "heavy" and "light" are is different to different people in different places, but has nothing to do with metric/imperial sytem, or geography, or culture. It has to do with how people perceive the masses of objects. How your sensory nervous sytem interacts with your conciousness and object...a neurobiological phenomenon. Not one tied to how one perceives "rightness" and "wrongness."

In fact, the only thing that the US/Holland -- Imperial/Metric connection has in common is that they are......differences. Mere differences don't make a helpful metaphor for moral differences.

>no, because the point about the drug dealer using metric was a
>small, supporting side point in brackets, which i only said
>because I suspected you would say some shit like "but in
>America, where the film is set, they use the Imperial system.
>so how does the metric system have anything to do with the
>story?", and explaining that the reason is because it's
>science related doesn't actually change anything, it doesn't
>make it inconsistent

Lol. You suck.

Cop out attempt #2, caught by OE.

You brought up the "criminal world uses the metric system" because you actually though that was part of the metaphor in the movie. I simply exposed and refuted it. Now you are saying "I said it only in passing."

Why did you decide to say *that* only in passing?

Because you actually believed it was relevant to the metaphor, and I exosed it for the fiction that it was.

>LOL why would you even refute this point. They crashed because
>of a metric/imperial mix up. End of story. I'm not even going
>to bother entertaining there being something "ironic" about it
>being metric or whatever, because it's so fucking irrelevant
>and typical of you

Watch this:

I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, used the imperial system for any scientific measurement of any kind.

Ever.

And I'm an American.

In fact, I can run into my laboratory, look at every single instrument of measurement I have, of every kind, and I will see not a single trace of imperial measurement. Judging by the scientific instrumentation in the lab in which I work, you wouldn't know whether or not I'm in Europe or America.

Again, you brought this up when discussing your "the criminal underworld uses the metric system." That point was wrong, and I think you know it by now.


>no, in that case i'd be realizing that it is not ESSENTIAL to
>the film
>you're so childish in thinking that just because I don't
>attach absolute importance to something, i must be admitting
>it's wrong

Cop Out #3.

So because your arguments are floundering, you now say "It wasn't ther serious...I'm not attaching absolute importance to it.."

Bullshit.

If it was, the burden of proof lay on you to explain how it was a metaphor. You haven't done that. You've gone from "Its slightly a metaphor" to talking about the "scales of justice" to talking about how "the criminal underworld uses the metric system."

All of those arguments are bad for the outlined reasons.

>no, because in that case he could have talked about any other
>"little difference," like the ones you listed, none of which
>were as good a metaphor as metric/imperial, leaving you only
>the possibility that it's a COINCIDENCE he chose
>metric/imperial, which is not a good argument

Lol. Since when is "coincidence" a bad argument? Even worse than 'coincidence' is the over-arching attempts of yourself and crouch to extract meaning from the very simple.

Or, like I SAID, he likely used the metric/imperial example to merely introduce the discussion..."primers" are what some people call them...they don't have to be full of meaning themselves. If it wasn't that, it was a bad metaphor for morality. I hope by now you can admit the latter.

>and it's so simple
>morality, system for making moral judgements
>imperial/metric, system for making physical judgements
>and physical judgement, particularly weight, is a well known
>metaphor for moral judgement already

No, its no so simple, because you've shaved down your argument because the other ones you have made have been refuted.

You said the metric/imperial comparison was related to the of the metric system in the criminal underworld.

Was that wrong?

Yes.

You said the metaphor was used to highlight how the metric system has gained common usage in the english speaking world.

Is that wrong?

Yes.

In fact, you have rambled on about the imperial/metric system in manners so obtuse that you've ruined whatever semblance of an actual metaphor might have once existed.

>lol, i suspected that's what you'd say for "colder"
>what's even funnier is
>1. what the fuck does being colder have to do with being less
>"relaxed"?

Lol.

I'm glad you asked this. Watch someone really explain a metaphor:

Physiologically, cold temperatures lead to the vasoconstriction of blood vessels. Cold temperatures slow the heart rate. The smooth muscle in your blood vessels are "less relaxed" in colder temperatures.


Damn, I'm nice wit mines.


>2. what the fuck was "narrower"

Your blood vessels literally are narrower in cold temperatures, again, due to vasoconstriction.



But it didn't have to come to this.

You wrote an argumentative check that your intellect can't cash.

You could have been humble from the start. Instead, you made all sorts of enormous leaps, tried bridging concepts that didn't quite have any real connection, and then dug a hole for yourself that you can't quite argue out of.

Perhaps the imperial/metric comparison was meant to communicate something. The problem is, it definatley had nothing to do with the criminal underwold's use of the metric system, it certainly had nothing to do with the increased use of the metric system in the English speaking world, it surely had nothing to do with the "scales of justice." It has nothing to do with any of those things, at all. In fact, people who like Pulp Fiction as much as you do have given me much better, more sensible, spins on that scene than you have.

i said at the start of the discussion the metaphor is simply different systems of measurement for different systems of morality, anything else is going too far

however since you decided to take it too far with this hilarious shit about metric being innappropriate because it's a "colder, narrower" system (and muscles are tense in the cold and blood vessels narrow, which Tarantino should have thought of, what a moron) it was obvious that you were incredibly bad at attacking what you were claiming was a bad metaphor, so i indulged you

i gave you the idea about the metric system being mordern, therefore appropriate
added that the drug dealer in the film uses the metric system

i gave you the idea that systems of measurement had to evolve into widely shared values, similar to how laws and moral codes had to evolve into widely shared values

i was giving you these ideas simply in response to your idiotic ideas about the suppposed wrongness of the metaphor, to show how easily your ideas could be countered. remember we're still in the realm of going too far

your point about scientists and laborotories using metric measurement, therefore making it "common usage," continues to be irrelevant. OBVIOUSLY in a science lab everything will be in metric. but on the road the signs are mph, at the gym the weights are in pounds, you give your bodyweight in stone/pounds, you order pints, in trade they use imperial units, IE in EVERYDAY LIFE

your point about criminals using metric because thats what their syringes say, that's probably right (except that it's not exclusively the case), but it doesn't actually change anything, all it means is that the drug dealers are among the fastest adopters of the metric system, which actually backs up the idea of using a modern measurement system in a film about evil in modern times

I can SEE your point about measurement units being different from subjective values but 1. it's still going to far, and 2. believe me I can easily reframe the debate so that the metaphor fits the subjective values idea, it's already been done in one of the essays i've read

your accusation about me shaving down my arguement because my comments about the metric/imperial system is intellectually dishonest and ridiculous. YOU are the one who dragged out these complicated ideas about the nature of the metric system (hey, it's cold and narrow reminscent of the unrelaxed muscles and tighter blood streams of the human body in cold temps!), and now you want to say it's my weak arguing.

and you said "what has morality got to do with measurements" which makes it look like you don't understand what a metaphor is, since there's not supposed to be a direct connection

* ON DAMAJA*

*TURNOVER ON DOWNS*

*ORBIT'S BALL!!!!*

>i said at the start of the discussion the metaphor is simply
>different systems of measurement for different systems of
>morality, anything else is going too far

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

BULLLLLLSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIITTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!

Motherfucka, there was NOOOOOOO one forcing you to bring up:

a)The notion that metaphors need not discuss phenomenon with any sort of connection

b)The notion that the use of metric/imperial was related to the "scales of justice"

c)The notion that the metric/imperial dichotomy was related to the criminal underworld's embrace of the metric system.

d)The notion taht the use of metric/imperial dichotomy was suggestive of subjective realities

YOU brought that shit up.

YOU did.

You didn't have to.

But YOU DID.

And the second it got shot the FUCK DOWN you fly in here talkin' bout:

"I didn't even mean it, Orbit."

"That isn't what I meant."

Muthafucka, STAND UP FOR YO SHIT, BIATCH!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

Mang.

>however since you decided to take it too far with this
>hilarious shit about metric being innappropriate because it's
>a "colder, narrower" system (and muscles are tense in the cold
>and blood vessels narrow, which Tarantino should have thought
>of, what a moron) it was obvious that you were incredibly bad
>at attacking what you were claiming was a bad metaphor, so i
>indulged you

No, assholeomunchesseee,

You embraced me because you were arguing that Tarantino used the Metric/Imperial dichotomy to make references to the the concept of subjective reality/perception, the criminal underworld, and all other types of WRONG shit.

Admit it.

>i gave you the idea that systems of measurement had to evolve
>into widely shared values, similar to how laws and moral codes
>had to evolve into widely shared values

You made that WRONG idea that has nothing to do with Tarantino, or Pulp Fiction.

Again, YOU INVENTED THAT SHIT and it simply didn't stand up to any REAL scrutiny.

>i was giving you these ideas simply in response to your
>idiotic ideas about the suppposed wrongness of the metaphor,
>to show how easily your ideas could be countered. remember
>we're still in the realm of going too far

NOT TRUE!!!!

You went too far FROM JUMP!!!!

>your point about scientists and laborotories using metric
>measurement, therefore making it "common usage," continues to
>be irrelevant. OBVIOUSLY in a science lab everything will be
>in metric. but on the road the signs are mph, at the gym the
>weights are in pounds, you give your bodyweight in
>stone/pounds, you order pints, in trade they use imperial
>units, IE in EVERYDAY LIFE

Who fucking cares????

You made the point that the metric/Imperial system comparison has to do with embracing different moral values or some shit like dat.

No, it dosen't.

>your point about criminals using metric because thats what
>their syringes say, that's probably right (except that it's
>not exclusively the case), but it doesn't actually change
>anything, all it means is that the drug dealers are among the
>fastest adopters of the metric system, which actually backs up
>the idea of using a modern measurement system in a film about
>evil in modern times

See, this is why you are a hoe:

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE METRIC/IMPERIAL COMPARISON WAS USED TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT THE CRIMINAL UNDERGROUND, OR ARE YOU NOT MAKING THAT POINT?????

WHICH IS IT???

FIRST YOU SAY:

"No, Orby, we are taking it too far. I meant none of it."

Than you turn right around and say the metric/imperial comparison and the fact that the criminal underworld uses the metric system, is a valid point.....

You can't have BOTH.

Pick an argument, and I'll wee wee on it.

But stand by something.

>I can SEE your point about measurement units being different
>from subjective values but 1. it's still going to far, and 2.
>believe me I can easily reframe the debate so that the
>metaphor fits the subjective values idea, it's already been
>done in one of the essays i've read

Hell, I've heard interpretations that Mia and Vince's relationship are Adam/Eve like.

The problem is, Mia and Vince's interaction is not Adam and Eve like.

Why?

Because it wasn't.

>your accusation about me shaving down my arguement because my
>comments about the metric/imperial system is intellectually
>dishonest and ridiculous. YOU are the one who dragged out
>these complicated ideas about the nature of the metric system
>(hey, it's cold and narrow reminscent of the unrelaxed muscles
>and tighter blood streams of the human body in cold temps!),
>and now you want to say it's my weak arguing.

You mad, doggie?

Prollem is my vascular system/colder/more narrow metaphor is an ACTUAL METAPHOR comparing an ABSTRACT PHENOMENON to a CONCRETE PHENOMENON where I use elements of the CONCRETE phenomenon(blood vessels) to highlight elements of the abstract phenomenon(how "flexible" a system of measurement is).

Like I said, I usually charege for lessons like this.

i said at the start of the discussion the metaphor is simply different systems of measurement for different systems of morality, anything else is going too far

however since you decided to take it too far with this hilarious shit about metric being innappropriate because it's a "colder, narrower" system (and muscles are tense in the cold and blood vessels narrow, which Tarantino should have thought of, what a moron) it was obvious that you were incredibly bad at attacking what you were claiming was a bad metaphor, so i indulged you

i gave you the idea about the metric system being mordern, therefore appropriate
added that the drug dealer in the film uses the metric system

i gave you the idea that systems of measurement had to evolve into widely shared values, similar to how laws and moral codes had to evolve into widely shared values

i was giving you these ideas simply in response to your idiotic ideas about the suppposed wrongness of the metaphor, to show how easily your ideas could be countered. remember we're still in the realm of going too far

your point about scientists and laborotories using metric measurement, therefore making it "common usage," continues to be irrelevant. OBVIOUSLY in a science lab everything will be in metric. but on the road the signs are mph, at the gym the weights are in pounds, you give your bodyweight in stone/pounds, you order pints, in trade they use imperial units, IE in EVERYDAY LIFE

your point about criminals using metric because thats what their syringes say, that's probably right (except that it's not exclusively the case), but it doesn't actually change anything, all it means is that the drug dealers are among the fastest adopters of the metric system, which actually backs up the idea of using a modern measurement system in a film about evil in modern times

I can SEE your point about measurement units being different from subjective values but 1. it's still going to far, and 2. believe me I can easily reframe the debate so that the metaphor fits the subjective values idea, it's already been done in one of the essays i've read

your accusation about me shaving down my arguement because my comments about the metric/imperial system is intellectually dishonest and ridiculous. YOU are the one who dragged out these complicated ideas about the nature of the metric system (hey, it's cold and narrow reminscent of the unrelaxed muscles and tighter blood streams of the human body in cold temps!), and now you want to say it's my weak arguing.

and you said "what has morality got to do with measurements" which makes it look like you don't understand what a metaphor is, since there's not supposed to be a direct connection

and you're posts are awful. you constantly repeat yourself in the same post, scattering the debate all over the place; and you put in numerous useless lines like 'your argument sucks' and use a ridiculous number of paragraphs (ie one line paragraphs)

* ON DAMAJA*

*TURNOVER ON DOWNS*

*ORBIT'S BALL!!!!*

>i said at the start of the discussion the metaphor is simply
>different systems of measurement for different systems of
>morality, anything else is going too far

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

BULLLLLLSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIITTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!

Motherfucka, there was NOOOOOOO one forcing you to bring up:

a)The notion that metaphors need not discuss phenomenon with any sort of connection

b)The notion that the use of metric/imperial was related to the "scales of justice"

c)The notion that the metric/imperial dichotomy was related to the criminal underworld's embrace of the metric system.

d)The notion taht the use of metric/imperial dichotomy was suggestive of subjective realities

YOU brought that shit up.

YOU did.

You didn't have to.

But YOU DID.

And the second it got shot the FUCK DOWN you fly in here talkin' bout:

"I didn't even mean it, Orbit."

"That isn't what I meant."

Muthafucka, STAND UP FOR YO SHIT, BIATCH!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

Mang.

>however since you decided to take it too far with this
>hilarious shit about metric being innappropriate because it's
>a "colder, narrower" system (and muscles are tense in the cold
>and blood vessels narrow, which Tarantino should have thought
>of, what a moron) it was obvious that you were incredibly bad
>at attacking what you were claiming was a bad metaphor, so i
>indulged you

No, assholeomunchesseee,

You embraced me because you were arguing that Tarantino used the Metric/Imperial dichotomy to make references to the the concept of subjective reality/perception, the criminal underworld, and all other types of WRONG shit.

Admit it.

>i gave you the idea that systems of measurement had to evolve
>into widely shared values, similar to how laws and moral codes
>had to evolve into widely shared values

You made that WRONG idea that has nothing to do with Tarantino, or Pulp Fiction.

Again, YOU INVENTED THAT SHIT and it simply didn't stand up to any REAL scrutiny.

>i was giving you these ideas simply in response to your
>idiotic ideas about the suppposed wrongness of the metaphor,
>to show how easily your ideas could be countered. remember
>we're still in the realm of going too far

NOT TRUE!!!!

You went too far FROM JUMP!!!!

>your point about scientists and laborotories using metric
>measurement, therefore making it "common usage," continues to
>be irrelevant. OBVIOUSLY in a science lab everything will be
>in metric. but on the road the signs are mph, at the gym the
>weights are in pounds, you give your bodyweight in
>stone/pounds, you order pints, in trade they use imperial
>units, IE in EVERYDAY LIFE

Who fucking cares????

You made the point that the metric/Imperial system comparison has to do with embracing different moral values or some shit like dat.

No, it dosen't.

>your point about criminals using metric because thats what
>their syringes say, that's probably right (except that it's
>not exclusively the case), but it doesn't actually change
>anything, all it means is that the drug dealers are among the
>fastest adopters of the metric system, which actually backs up
>the idea of using a modern measurement system in a film about
>evil in modern times

See, this is why you are a hoe:

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE METRIC/IMPERIAL COMPARISON WAS USED TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT THE CRIMINAL UNDERGROUND, OR ARE YOU NOT MAKING THAT POINT?????

WHICH IS IT???

FIRST YOU SAY:

"No, Orby, we are taking it too far. I meant none of it."

Than you turn right around and say the metric/imperial comparison and the fact that the criminal underworld uses the metric system, is a valid point.....

You can't have BOTH.

Pick an argument, and I'll wee wee on it.

But stand by something.

>I can SEE your point about measurement units being different
>from subjective values but 1. it's still going to far, and 2.
>believe me I can easily reframe the debate so that the
>metaphor fits the subjective values idea, it's already been
>done in one of the essays i've read

Hell, I've heard interpretations that Mia and Vince's relationship are Adam/Eve like.

The problem is, Mia and Vince's interaction is not Adam and Eve like.

Why?

Because it wasn't.

>your accusation about me shaving down my arguement because my
>comments about the metric/imperial system is intellectually
>dishonest and ridiculous. YOU are the one who dragged out
>these complicated ideas about the nature of the metric system
>(hey, it's cold and narrow reminscent of the unrelaxed muscles
>and tighter blood streams of the human body in cold temps!),
>and now you want to say it's my weak arguing.

You mad, doggie?

Prollem is my vascular system/colder/more narrow metaphor is an ACTUAL METAPHOR comparing an ABSTRACT PHENOMENON to a CONCRETE PHENOMENON where I use elements of the CONCRETE phenomenon(blood vessels) to highlight elements of the abstract phenomenon(how "flexible" a system of measurement is).

Like I said, I usually charege for lessons like this.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

of those points only B) about the scales of justice is particularly important

the point about metaphors - I only brought that up because you made yourself look like you didn't know how metaphors didn't work, ie. no direct connection. when i point this out you bang on about how there should be a relative connection and try and make it into a triumphant point, what the fuck ever. i could open any book and find metaphors within sentences that convey a basic idea but don't stand up to scrutiny from all sides

the hilarious thing is you can't even provide that scrutiny. the point about the criminal underworld using metric, is not important, but all your criticism of it didn't actually "refute" anything, you're just really jolly about yourself for being a "scientist'. it was a spin off point of what was already a spin off point (which i SAID, quote, was "going too far" the first time i brought it up). you latch on to anything that you can say somehting about, without stopping to think if your criticism actually MEANS anything.

and your "colder, narrower, more scientific' comment continues to make you look like an idiot. look, in getting so caught up in explaining these improbable metaphors (which you actually using as EVIDENCE, jesus) you forgot that colder & narrower were separate points, and built narrower into the colder metaphor. you're full of shit

basically, you did the same shit in the other Pulp Fiction thread where you started a massive argument about the scientific usage of the word "emphereal," even though it's a SHADOW OF A SHADOW of any meaningful/useful discussion people were having. all this stupid "ball in orbit's court" stuff just shows you're one of those childish individuals who argue for the sake of arguing. you're ruined 2 Pulp Fiction threads now, well done

HAVE the gotdamn point about the metric/imperial metaphor (even though you agree it communicates something deeper, you just think we're wrong for figuring it out), i'm giving it to you like an adult who gives a child a toy so the grown folks can continue their grown up conversation

>the point about metaphors - I only brought that up because you
>made yourself look like you didn't know how metaphors didn't
>work, ie. no direct connection. when i point this out you bang
>on about how there should be a relative connection and try and
>make it into a triumphant point, what the fuck ever. i could
>open any book and find metaphors within sentences that convey
>a basic idea but don't stand up to scrutiny from all sides

No. You are wrong.

You said the the objects in metaphors don't need to be connected. You were wrong.

Metaphors compare objects that DO have a connection.

Typically one object is concrete, and we use it, and its relative describe-ability to discuss, and hopefully shed light on an abstract concept.

Period.

>the hilarious thing is you can't even provide that scrutiny.
>the point about the criminal underworld using metric, is not
>important, but all your criticism of it didn't actually
>"refute" anything, you're just really jolly about yourself for
>being a "scientist'.

No, asshole.

You were wrong for suggesting that the use of the imperial/metric comparison in 'Pulp Fiction' has something to do with the criminal underworld's embrace of the metric system.

That was a terrible, terrible point. Horrid in fact. I exposed it for the fraud that it was, and then you backtrack talking about:

"It wasn't that big of a deal."

"I didn't even mean it, Mr. Established."

You never should have SAID IT if you didn't mean it. Its typical of your ENTIRE ANALYSIS. you are INVENTING CONNECTIONS and MEANINGS from very simple, not-deep dialogue.

Like I said, stop trying to create a George Orwell.

You fuckers are trying to turn 'Pulp Fiction' into goddamn Ellison's 'Invisble Man'.

It really ain't that fucking deep, and shit.


it was a spin off point of what was
>already a spin off point (which i SAID, quote, was "going too
>far" the first time i brought it up). you latch on to anything
>that you can say somehting about, without stopping to think if
>your criticism actually MEANS anything.

Cop out, but we've already exposed that.

>and your "colder, narrower, more scientific' comment continues
>to make you look like an idiot. look, in getting so caught up
>in explaining these improbable metaphors (which you actually
>using as EVIDENCE, jesus) you forgot that colder & narrower
>were separate points, and built narrower into the colder
>metaphor. you're full of shit

Uh. No. I used them in the same sentence. Describing the same phenomenon. My metahpor is 100% sound.

>basically, you did the same shit in the other Pulp Fiction
>thread where you started a massive argument about the
>scientific usage of the word "emphereal," even though it's a
>SHADOW OF A SHADOW of any meaningful/useful discussion people
>were having.

And just like in that thread, YOU FUCKING PEOPLE SPEAK ON SHIT THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!!!!

START TALKING ABOUT SHIT YOU KNOW, AND I'll START RESPECTING NINJAZ, GAWD!!!!

You were trying to make retarded points about the criminal underworld and the metric system, and haven't, AT ALL been able to defend that point.

all this stupid "ball in orbit's court" stuff
>just shows you're one of those childish individuals who argue
>for the sake of arguing. you're ruined 2 Pulp Fiction threads
>now, well done

No, I actually can and do have intelligent discussions about film.

Unfortunately, they require actual intelligent people.

Not people who misuse SAT words, and not people who think that the Metric/Imperial comparsion scene in Pulp Fiction has something to do with the embrace of the Metric system by the criminal underworld.

>HAVE the gotdamn point about the metric/imperial metaphor
>(even though you agree it communicates something deeper, you
>just think we're wrong for figuring it out), i'm giving it to
>you like an adult who gives a child a toy so the grown folks
>can continue their grown up conversation

LOL.

What grown up conversation?

Oh!

The one about how 'Pulp Fiction' is a commentary on race relations in this country?

Ha.

Hardy Har Har.



----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

your whole argument has come down to two things:

1. you zoom in on this one metaphor which was in a list of supporting points

2. you then zoom further in on the criminal underworld using metric point which I put IN BRACKETS, in a spin off of an extended metaphor which I had already SAID was going too far

I STILL STAND BY both those points as far as your criticism being pathetic

but I could have said "little differences like dutch drinking law" and this whole conversation would never have happened

if you actually wanted to have a discussion you would have bigger fish to fry, this stuff is so incredibly fucking unimportant.

Sure, QT might put little *wink wink* references from other flicks, or obtuse pop songs from the 70's, but...

the dialogue is just interesting and johnny on-the-spot convos. Hell, I've had convos that were MORE interesting.

The witty, and the subtle differences between characters resembles the realistic differences between....2-3 average dudes talking about the same ish. Honestly...I'll go as far as to say QT is the OPPOSITE of what this guy is saying.

QT's dialogue is the ANTI-"deep, inner-workings"/socio-babble. I think it's more realistic than what people want to give it credit for. They WANT to find some kinda b.s. to make him sound like he's not doing what he's doing...which is make realistically entertaining flicks. It's so simplistic, it makes people sick, 'cause he's winning w/out trying to write another bible of socio-babble in his flicks.

Prollem is, too many Crouchs and Damajas try to make QT into William Shakespeare or fucking George Orwell, and the shit is mad lame.

In fact, I think Tarantino's subsequent films should have told us that Pulp Fiction was NOT THAT DEEP. None of the films that QT has made since have been making a social commentary on a damn thing.

They have been, at best, hip, slick, and funny.

That's probalby what he intended Pulp Fiction to be.

Pulp Fiction does not = Animal Farm.

Its like our generation is trying to manufacture a George Orwell.

Shit gets on my nerves.

>Sure, QT might put little *wink wink* references from other
>flicks, or obtuse pop songs from the 70's, but...
>
>the dialogue is just interesting and johnny on-the-spot
>convos. Hell, I've had convos that were MORE interesting.
>
>The witty, and the subtle differences between characters
>resembles the realistic differences between....2-3 average
>dudes talking about the same ish. Honestly...I'll go as far as
>to say QT is the OPPOSITE of what this guy is saying.
>
>QT's dialogue is the ANTI-"deep, inner-workings"/socio-babble.
> I think it's more realistic than what people want to give it
>credit for. They WANT to find some kinda b.s. to make him
>sound like he's not doing what he's doing...which is make
>realistically entertaining flicks. It's so simplistic, it
>makes people sick, 'cause he's winning w/out trying to write
>another bible of socio-babble in his flicks.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

You managed to turn an attempt to be intellectual about film into another OKP pissing contest. Good job.

>You managed to turn an attempt to be intellectual about film
>into another OKP pissing contest. Good job.

It was a pissing contest the second Stanley Crouch decided to write the bowl of soupy feces known as that essay.

It sucked.

There was nothing intellectual about it.

At all.

Nothing.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

that this thread wasn't for him
i knew this was how it would end up
he wouldn't listen

Meaning, the thread is stupid, and has stupid thoughts floating around it?

Your right.

Its definately not for me.

Magn.

>that this thread wasn't for him
>i knew this was how it would end up
>he wouldn't listen


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

it's no wonder that black'n white snuff films from Germany with clowns crying and dead chickens hanging from ceilings are considered "beautiful". I'm officially renouncing this forum lol

It's a wonder if Crouch ever gets a single, slightly warm kernal of fuckin popcorn...having spending all his time masturbating in his own notepad...all kinda ideas about the mental inner-workings of writers, directors, and their secret connections with this damn near OCCULTIC bullshit.

"Travoltas attempt at convincing Jackson's character that eating pork is ok is a reflection on how Elvis was telling the blackman how doing black-americana arts for a majority white audience is ok. Travolat's excusing himself to go to the bathroom is a representation of the white man raplacing himself as an artist...into a "safe haven" of CEO status, while Jackson's character falls into a dangerous position of 'holding down' his new position, which he ends up giving a NEW, less-experienced white criminal his money VOLUNTARILY anyway! Roth's character is the 'white trash' minstrel character who falls in love with the black-americanan art only AFTER Jackson makes it popular with the white-audience that Travolta's character was referring too!"

Travolta = Elvis
Jackson = Black-Americana artists of the 60's, 70's, 80's
Tim Roth = Eminem.
MANHOODLUM = vomits

Crouch's mom shoulda left a nipple in his mouth an extra 4 months.

Great post.

And my guess is that Manhoodlum *DID* like the actual movie 'Pulp Fiction'.

Contrary to popular belief, I think everyone has a right to like any movie they want. Some really brilliant people love 'Pulp Fiction'. I happen to think its shit, and of course I'm right, but one can feel however they want.

My beef is Ninjas REASONS for liking a film, and everyone's OVER-ARCHING EFFORTS TO EXTRACT TOO MUCH MEANING FROM THE SHIT.

Again:

'Pulp Fiction' DOES NOT = 'Invisible Man'.

It isn't that fucking deep.

If its good, its good because its fun, witty, and slick.

Not because its a cross examination of race and pop culture and globalization and sexuality and Albert Camus.

Shit.

>it's no wonder that black'n white snuff films from Germany
>with clowns crying and dead chickens hanging from ceilings are
>considered "beautiful". I'm officially renouncing this forum
>lol
>
>It's a wonder if Crouch ever gets a single, slightly warm
>kernal of fuckin popcorn...having spending all his time
>masturbating in his own notepad...all kinda ideas about the
>mental inner-workings of writers, directors, and their secret
>connections with this damn near OCCULTIC bullshit.
>
>"Travoltas attempt at convincing Jackson's character that
>eating pork is ok is a reflection on how Elvis was telling the
>blackman how doing black-americana arts for a majority white
>audience is ok. Travolat's excusing himself to go to the
>bathroom is a representation of the white man raplacing
>himself as an artist...into a "safe haven" of CEO status,
>while Jackson's character falls into a dangerous position of
>'holding down' his new position, which he ends up giving a
>NEW, less-experienced white criminal his money VOLUNTARILY
>anyway! Roth's character is the 'white trash' minstrel
>character who falls in love with the black-americanan art only
>AFTER Jackson makes it popular with the white-audience that
>Travolta's character was referring too!"
>
>Travolta = Elvis
>Jackson = Black-Americana artists of the 60's, 70's, 80's
>Tim Roth = Eminem.
>MANHOODLUM = vomits
>
>Crouch's mom shoulda left a nipple in his mouth an extra 4
>months.
>
>


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

I'm lost...

Not Crouch lost, but...

Its a way that I poke fun at the sensitive dudes in Pass the Popcorn.

I'm convinced most of them don't have a Y chromosome, the "male" one.

>I'm lost...
>
>Not Crouch lost, but...

n/m

that this much COULD have been written about a bad essay about a bad movie...

Damn, I'm gonna post a critical essay about the socioeconomic subtext of Mallrats by Brent Staples and just wait for the replies to come flyin in, lol

My fingers are mad swole from the workout tho.

>that this much COULD have been written about a bad essay
>about a bad movie...
>
>Damn, I'm gonna post a critical essay about the socioeconomic
>subtext of Mallrats by Brent Staples and just wait for the
>replies to come flyin in, lol


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

This whole thread is like 1/3 your posts.

You've sure got a major hard-on for a movie and a couple essays that you hate. Most people don't post that many times about something they love.

Does this mean that you're officially a "hater"? If there was ever a concrete definition, I'd say 30+ posts about something you hate qualifies you as a hater.

>This whole thread is like 1/3 your posts.

And 99.9% of your posts have been a response to me.

So if I'm a hater, what's that say about you?

DOH!

>You've sure got a major hard-on for a movie and a couple
>essays that you hate. Most people don't post that many times
>about something they love.

No, I get a hard on for women with rotund booties.

Not movies.

>Does this mean that you're officially a "hater"? If there was
>ever a concrete definition, I'd say 30+ posts about something
>you hate qualifies you as a hater.

Perhaps.

Meanwhile you're close to 40 by now. Most of which have been direct attacks/replies to Damaja (plus a few for me, now)...


>And 99.9% of your posts have been a response to me.
>So if I'm a hater, what's that say about you?

It says that I thought you ruined a potentially interesting discussion by being a dick for no real reason. I was hoping you'd decide to leave once you realized how much effort you were wasting on something you hate. I guess that doesn't matter to you though.

Personally, I didn't really feel the need to contribute to the thread, but I was enjoying reading it.


>>You've sure got a major hard-on for a movie and a couple
>>essays that you hate. Most people don't post that many times
>>about something they love.
>
>No, I get a hard on for women with rotund booties.
>Not movies.

Thanks for sharing.


>>Does this mean that you're officially a "hater"? If there
>was
>>ever a concrete definition, I'd say 30+ posts about
>something
>>you hate qualifies you as a hater.
>
>Perhaps.

okay then