>>
>>>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