>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