>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