>
>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.