>
>>>>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?