At the time that Pulp Fiction was released, I was about 18-19. And I remember going to see it when it first came out...in a nearly empty theater (this was pre-Oscar hype), and being one of the only ones laughing almost the whole way through.

Which was probably part of its appeal to me at the time. It was like being in on a big inside joke. I saw the movie in theaters twice during its inital release...Then post-oscar i got a job @ a movie theater and got to see it 2 or 3 more times. Then saw it in a discount theater later the following year just so I could catch it one last time on the big screen.

In other words...I loved the shit out of this movie.

But watching it now...even after not having seen it in a couple of years, I just dont think its aged well. It definitely FEELS like its from the 90's....maybe its because so many people fed off of Tarantino's style. maybe its because tarantino's style fed off of a lot of other (better) filmakers who I wasnt as aware of at the time.

I dont know. I actually think 'Resevoir Dogs' has fared a lot better with age.

Thoughts?
<<<self portrait of a music nerd.
myspace: http://www.myspace.com/illstateofmind

http://www.myspace.com/soulmatic

great. excellent. i watched that IFC special about Pulp 10 years later or whatever, then watched the movie. it still blows me away.

>I dont know. I actually think 'Resevoir Dogs' has fared a lot
>better with age.

disagree. and i didn't like RD that much to begin with.

are because EVERYONE and their cousin knows Pulp Fiction. Very few films have received exposure during and after its theater run as this film (insert O_E hype comment here).

Its quality doesn't go down. But you get that feeling of familiarity, which sometimes for certain people makes things feel less fresh. I only watch it maybe once or twice a year and I ALWAYS dig it. I also rarely talk about it, including on these message boards.

*shrugs* That's what I'd guess you're feeling, cuz I feel that way about some popular movies that are still good. I dunno.

>(insert O_E hype comment here).

maybe it will give the film a new lease of life for some

It doesn't really feel dated to me.

It fails to inspire me, but I don't think that answers your question in anyway what so ever.

Mech

Note: You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to completely disagree. Not personal.

You're right about the inside joke part. Pulp Fiction was an inside joke.

The inside joke was that Tarantino could make a movie about absolutely nothing, with hidden maguffins, camera angles, tribute shots, suitcases, and obscure references, and pass it off as an intelligent movie to fund his mediocre, bland, uneventful film career.

The inside joke was that he could pass off a decidely bland, simple, unfunny movie, and it could attain this "underground", "alternative", "indepedent", "hidden gem" status that causes people to forcefully manufacture reasons to like the movie, solely because its the "intelligent" thing to do, not because these people can ever actually point out to me, or anyone else, what the hell it was about.

Its ironic-- The most intelligent guy(as in like, real genius) I know is the only person I've ever known who openly admitted to me that he didn't understand a single fucking thing about that movie. Tons of idiots, on the other hand, love to school me on its profundity.

I'll change my opinion the minute someone can actually tell me what the film was about. I know its alternative, but alternative-ness dosen't mean the film can be a collection of scenes about nothing.

Pulp Fiction completely fucked up movies, because it ushered in this era of films that were made to be DISCUSSED and not WATCHED.

I think its no coincidence that coffee shops started to become more popular after its release.

And film would be a better place without Uma Thurman, hands down the least sexy sex object I've ever seen.

Keep it moving.

>At the time that Pulp Fiction was released, I was about
>18-19. And I remember going to see it when it first came
>out...in a nearly empty theater (this was pre-Oscar hype), and
>being one of the only ones laughing almost the whole way
>through.
>
----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

>Its ironic-- The most intelligent guy(as in like, real genius)
>I know is the only person I've ever known who openly admitted
>to me that he didn't understand a single fucking thing about
>that movie. Tons of idiots, on the other hand, love to school
>me on its profundity.

Then your friend is a complete moron. Even the stupidest of people recognize a PLOT in the movie.

>
>I'll change my opinion the minute someone can actually tell me
>what the film was about. I know its alternative, but
>alternative-ness dosen't mean the film can be a collection of
>scenes about nothing.

I did, you ignored it. That's it.


>Pulp Fiction completely fucked up movies, because it ushered
>in this era of films that were made to be DISCUSSED and not
>WATCHED.

Oh yes. It was the ONLY movie meant to be discussed. (Begin sarcasm) Art films were meant to be watched, and those certainly had plots and characters and arcs and all that good stuff narrative film has (end sarcasm). You're retarded for thinking this.

>Then your friend is a complete moron. Even the stupidest of
>people recognize a PLOT in the movie.

Yes and that plot is razor thin and uninteresting.

And I wasn't moved by the alleged redemption 'theme' that is allegedly apparent throughout the movie. That "theme" was about as well fleshed out as Alicia Silverstone's Batgirl in 'Batman and Robin'.

>Oh yes. It was the ONLY movie meant to be discussed. (Begin
>sarcasm) Art films were meant to be watched, and those
>certainly had plots and characters and arcs and all that good
>stuff narrative film has (end sarcasm). You're retarded for
>thinking this.

This paragraph didn't make any sense.

I'm still waiting for you to explain what is good about the movie.

Some Einstein below gave me the revolutionary idea that "Its fucking enjoyable."


Your favorite film sucks.

I know 90% of you have charted your entire film careers around trying to be like Tarantino, but I warn you that is a bad idea.

Just look at the crocks of shit he's put out since(other than 'Jackie Brown' which was straight, not good, but straight).


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

>>Oh yes. It was the ONLY movie meant to be discussed. (Begin
>>sarcasm) Art films were meant to be watched, and those
>>certainly had plots and characters and arcs and all that
>good
>>stuff narrative film has (end sarcasm). You're retarded for
>>thinking this.
>
>This paragraph didn't make any sense.

Yes it did.

You said PF ushered in an era of films that were meant to be discussed. No, it didn't. And you're retarded for thinking so. Art films, specifically the ones made in the 1960s (ex. Contempt, Blow Up, Wild Strawberries, etc.) were films that were meant to be discussed as they were simply art for arts sake and had no character arcs or really much of a plot. On top of that, PF takes much of its "macguffin" from Kiss Me Deadly, a film which is arguably as "discussable" as PF due to its similar device of a glowing weird object that nobody seems to know what it is.

Plain and simple, you can hate PF all you want...but your "it started making people discuss films in stead of enjoy them" is a moot point, so you should probably stop saying it.

>I'm still waiting for you to explain what is good about the
>movie.

What's the difference? If I tell you what I like about it, you'll just say you hate it, and this pointless thread will continue. I like it, you don't. That's fine and good, but you continue to make pointless statements about it that simply aren't true.

like, once you lose all the inside jokes, hidden references to other films (goodfellas, taxi driver & john woo films being the most obvious)...what are you left with?

there IS a plot, albeit a bit scatterd (and no i dont say that just cuz the movie's timeline is out of order)...and some really funny lines...but it just doesnt feel the same anymore.

kinda like, when you were in high school and you heard such-and-such music and thought it was SOOOO profound and meaningful, and now 10 yrs later you listen to it and its just corny genarlized lyrics that anyone could have written.

*shrugs* I still watch it...i still bought the dvd, but its more out of nostalgia than anything...on the other hand a film like 'goodfellas' i've seen as much as PF (if not more) and i still love every scene, shot, and line to death.

<<<self portrait of a music nerd.
myspace: http://www.myspace.com/illstateofmind

http://www.myspace.com/soulmatic

>like, once you lose all the inside jokes, hidden references
>to other films (goodfellas, taxi driver & john woo films being
>the most obvious)...what are you left with?

you're left with great writing. great acting. interesting compeling characters.

i mean... seriously?

Mech

>you're left with great writing. great acting. interesting
>compeling characters.

.....you actually might believe it.

What was well written?

Who did a great acting job?

Who, in the fuck, was interesting OR compelling(let alone BOTH)in that goddamn movie?

>What was well written?

the entire movie.

>Who did a great acting job?

everyone in it.

>Who, in the fuck, was interesting OR compelling(let alone
>BOTH)in that goddamn movie?

all the characthers. i'm done with you and your shitty taste.

You see, the difference between me and you is that I *didn't* see it in the mid 90s when the film had enormous hype and was this '90s-pop culture-the "in thing"-status symbol' that everyone liked just because if you were cool and hip in the 90s, you liked 'Pulp Fiction'.

I saw it well after that, where I could actually watch and evaluate the movie for what it was.

And it sucked.

The tributes are stupid, nerdy ways of biting.

The maguffins are just ways to try and outsmart the audience just so one can say "I bet they don't get this....I'm so cool, I'll set the clocks to this time and though the clocks don't make my shitty script or storyline any better, I'll be labelled a genius for paying attention to stupid, unimportant details"

The dialogue is way overdone, "let the characters talk about random things that people tallk about in everyday life" blandness.

For chrissakes, the dance scene was just a fucking dance scene. I'd rather watch Travolta in 'Grease' (no homo).

No this movie has not aged well because there wasn't very much to begin with.








>like, once you lose all the inside jokes, hidden references
>to other films (goodfellas, taxi driver & john woo films being
>the most obvious)...what are you left with?
>
>there IS a plot, albeit a bit scatterd (and no i dont say that
>just cuz the movie's timeline is out of order)...and some
>really funny lines...but it just doesnt feel the same
>anymore.
>
>kinda like, when you were in high school and you heard
>such-and-such music and thought it was SOOOO profound and
>meaningful, and now 10 yrs later you listen to it and its just
>corny genarlized lyrics that anyone could have written.
>
>*shrugs* I still watch it...i still bought the dvd, but its
>more out of nostalgia than anything...on the other hand a film
>like 'goodfellas' i've seen as much as PF (if not more) and i
>still love every scene, shot, and line to death.
>
><<<self portrait of a music nerd.
>myspace: http://www.myspace.com/illstateofmind
>
>http://www.myspace.com/soulmatic


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

>like, once you lose all the inside jokes, hidden references
>to other films (goodfellas, taxi driver & john woo films being
>the most obvious)...what are you left with?
>

Easily.





----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

this is yet another example.

>this is yet another example.

With her weird, funny lookin' ass.

She make good music tho.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

i never said Bjork was a sex symbol. i said that she's amazing and i'm a huge fan.

>i never said Bjork was a sex symbol. i said that she's
>amazing and i'm a huge fan.

Fuck outta here.

You know what you really said.

>Fuck outta here.
>You know what you really said.

i sure do. the Bjork comments you are talking about come from my sig ranking my FAVORITE white girls. not sexiest, not prettiest, but FAVORITE.

but you never let the truth get in your way.

I mean you seem to have broken it down, right?

Lol.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

when you're pointing out the obvious

he needs the attention

>he needs the attention

Lol.

You're the biggest attention whore on this piece, gawd.

You are ephemerally sophomoric, in fact.

LMAO!!!


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

if i help you improve your fractured vocabulary even a little bit, then all this would not have been a total waste

>if i help you improve your fractured vocabulary even a little
>bit, then all this would not have been a total waste

I actually know how to use them correctly in a sentence.

Unlike this one cat I know who likes nothing but Asian films.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

>I actually know how to use them correctly in a sentence.

tell me how to use them.

i'm not even being facetious. i told you before that English is not necessarily my mother tongue, so i'm really open to learning if i'm using the language wrong.

help me out, for real... each one teach one.

then again, i also asked you a couple of days ago to simply name for me a couple of films you claim to have seen, and i'm still waiting for that...

>Unlike this one cat I know who likes nothing but Asian films.

who?

still waiting for that English tutorial, prof...

.....A black man is trying to cut down on his use of the word "nigga", and so uses "ninja" because it sounds the same and can be used as a noun to describe the same set of persons that "nigga" is used to describe(friends, collegues, peers, cohorts).

"Ephemeral" means transient, lasting for a short amount of time, etc.

You don't throw a term like that around, though. Its to used to describe philosophies and ideas...typically abstract and/or grand things. TV Commercials are not "ephermal." Political regimes and ideologies in some countries, *are* ephemeral.


You have a quiz on Tuesday, bitch.

You're chilling with a D average right now though.







----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

>"Ephemeral" means transient, lasting for a short amount of
>time, etc.

good... i see you know how to use Google. that's a start.

>You don't throw a term like that around, though. Its to used
>to describe philosophies and ideas...typically abstract and/or
>grand things.

here's where you're wrong, buddy.

the original use of the word was within a biological context. for example, the lives of fruit flies are ephemeral because they last for a very short time.

the use of the word has expanded to describe ANYthing with a markedly short lifespan, eg "an ephemeral love affair"

i'm yet to see where i misused the word.

>TV Commercials are not "ephermal." Political
>regimes and ideologies in some countries, *are* ephemeral.

actually, this is incorrect. but it doesn't matter because i don't recall using the word in reference to anything remotely resembling a TV commercial anyway.

(i can produce scores of citational evidence for all of this, btw. i just don't expect your monkey ass to even bother reading it. but if you want it, i'll give it to you. remember: i WRITE AND EDIT DICTIONARIES for a living.)

>You have a quiz on Tuesday, bitch.
>
>You're chilling with a D average right now though.

no...you're failing badly.

now... "sophomoric." explain it to me. show me you're not full of shit.

>the original use of the word was within a biological context.
>for example, the lives of fruit flies are ephemeral because
>they last for a very short time.

Actually,

The original use of words often has little to do with their present use, Professor Etymology.

And the life span of Drosophila is actually a perfectly permissible context for "ephemeral." Oddly, I've actually studied Drosophila and have never heard any real Drosophila scientist ever describe its lifespan as "ephemeral." Me, and those Drosophila scientists would either define the lifespan in days, or merely say its "short relative to XYZ."

Damn, I'm nice.

>the use of the word has expanded to describe ANYthing with a
>markedly short lifespan, eg "an ephemeral love affair"

LOL.

No. Commercials are not "Ephemeral."

>actually, this is incorrect. but it doesn't matter because i
>don't recall using the word in reference to anything remotely
>resembling a TV commercial anyway.

No, but you generally misuse words like that, mostly because you are trying to appear more intelligent than you are, but if I had a dollar for everyone I came across like you, I'd be....you get it.

>(i can produce scores of citational evidence for all of this,
>btw. i just don't expect your monkey ass to even bother
>reading it. but if you want it, i'll give it to you. remember:
>i WRITE AND EDIT DICTIONARIES for a living.)

And you misuse words for a living too.

You sound like Darnell Jefferson from 'The Program'.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

the moment you are confronted with solid reason, you immediately try to derail the discussion towards sophomoric (ha!) insults.

i don't need your confirmation to tell me what i already know, son. definitely not instruction on the relationship between etymology and current usage. either you prove that i used the word incorrectly, or you do not.

and so far... you haven't done dick.

and don't make the mistake of thinking that you know me, or even anybody like me. (didn't get the Darnell Jefferson ref... i've never seen The Program, though i'm sure it's a good flick)

for the record, if we were to comb through both of our aggregate posts, i can assure you that we would find way more abuses of misuses of the English language in yours than in mine.

i know this because i have actually mentally catalogued a number of them. i just don't bring it up because i realize not all of us on this board are on the same level educationally.

a word of advice, though: it takes a man to be able to admit that he is wrong. i've never seen you do that.

You tried to get all fancy with your "actually, the history of the world 'ephemeral' is..."

and you got called the fuck out on it.

Get over it.

You're wrong.


>the moment you are confronted with solid reason, you
>immediately try to derail the discussion towards sophomoric
>(ha!) insults.
>
>i don't need your confirmation to tell me what i already know,
>son.
>
>and don't make the mistake of thinking that you know me, or
>even anybody like me.
>
>for the record, if we were to comb through both of our
>aggregate posts, i can assure you that we would find way more
>abuses of misuses of the English language in yours than in
>mine.
>
>i know this because i have actually mentally catalogued a
>number of them. i just don't bring it up because i realize not
>all of us on this board are on the same level educationally.
>
>a word of advice, though: it takes a man to be able to admit
>that he is wrong. i've never seen you do that.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

you didn't produce a citation (admittedly, neither did i... but i'm willing to)

all you said is "TV commercials are not ephemeral" and i'm supposed to take your word for it just because you say so?

nigga, save that revisionist shit for someone more gullible.

all of this is way beside the point, though... because whether or not TV commercials ARE ephemeral, how does that prove that i misused the word?

(i believe what i said was "you are ill-prepared for even the most ephemeral intelligent discussion")

or "sophomoric" for that matter?

nigga, just admit that you were wrong and we'll forget about it. everybody is wrong sometimes... there's no shame to it.

just admit it, dude... have some respect for yourself.

Nigga, you flew in here with your "actually, 'ephemeral' was originally used in biolog to describe the lifespan of fruit flies" when that:

a)has nothing to do with how its properly used now, and

b)Is retarded because you are talking to a guy who has studied fruit flies and other organisms with shorter lifespans, and yet has never, ever, come across the term 'ephemeral' in regards to their lifespans. When I describe a short life span, I either c)define it by a length of time under a certain set of conditions or b)Simply say "short."

Very ironic. You not only misuse words, you misuse information. In what context the original meaning of 'Ephemeral' was conceived is completely unhelpful is *this* specific discourse.

You only brought that up to appear intelligent.

And it backfired, as usual.





>you didn't produce a citation (admittedly, neither did i...
>but i'm willing to)
>
>all you said is "TV commercials are not ephemeral" and i'm
>supposed to take your word for it just because you say so?
>
>nigga, save that revisionist shit for someone more gullible.
>
>all of this is way beside the point, though... because whether
>or not TV commercials ARE ephemeral, how does that prove that
>i misused the word?
>
>(i believe what i said was "you are ill-prepared for even the
>most ephemeral intelligent discussion")
>
>or "sophomoric" for that matter?
>
>nigga, just admit that you were wrong and we'll forget about
>it. everybody is wrong sometimes... there's no shame to it.
>
>just admit it, dude... have some respect for yourself.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

I wouldn't expect this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/047131188X/102-2545545-7717736?v=glance to contain such phrases.

Most awful example of dickriding this post has ever seen.

Apparently JRR Tolkien stole Tarantino's idea too.

Hemingway too.

They say Shakespeare bit Tarantino for that whole 'Hamlet' thing.

Yes you are eternally banned from getting my respect.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

in everyones eyes. I think I'll live.

just give up all this red herring bullshit and get back to the original point:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=83001&mesg_id=83001&page=4#87431

prove that i misused the word, or just let it rest.

or better yet, just man up and admit that you made a mistake. i'll respect you more for it (of course, "more" suggests that i even respect you to begin with... which is not the case)

as for the issue of the proper use of "ephemeral" in general, i'm quite ready to back up any of my statements about the English language with evidence. if you want to go there, we can do it... but you have to make sure you're prepared. otherwise, do not waste my time.

until then i'm retiring from this discussion because you are talking a whle bunch of nothing right now.

>just give up all this red herring bullshit and get back to
>the original point: prove that i misused the word, or just let
>it rest.

Why do that when I can point out how you misused the etymological origins of 'ephemeral' for the sole purpose of showing how much(or more appropriately, little) you know?

Unfortunately, the usage of that information was piss poorly placed and irrelevant. Again, you didn't place it where you placed it to strengthen your argument, you did it to appear intelligent. Its your M.O.

It jus don't work around O_E though. He can spot a fraud.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

i see your style now.

i'm really done talking to you.

>Note: You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to
>completely disagree. Not personal.

True enough. Just keep the personal attacks out of the replies, we'll do the same.


>The inside joke was that Tarantino could make a movie about
>absolutely nothing, with hidden maguffins, camera angles,
>tribute shots, suitcases, and obscure references, and pass it
>off as an intelligent movie to fund his mediocre, bland,
>uneventful film career.

Did you just crossover to talking about Reservoir Dogs or are you talking about Pulp Fiction? You know PF would never have happened without the indie success of Reservoir Dogs, right?
Pulp Fiction isnt really "about nothing"; you'd have to define what SOMETHING is in a movie. There are surely plots in the movie that seem to have little point,but those parts are there, I believe, to undersrcore the backdrop of the real crux of the movie: Jules' realization of hummanity, Mia's exposure as a fraud and Butch's ability to capitalize on his rage.

>The inside joke was that he could pass off a decidely bland,
>simple, unfunny movie, and it could attain this "underground",
>"alternative", "indepedent", "hidden gem" status that causes
>people to forcefully manufacture reasons to like the movie,
>solely because its the "intelligent" thing to do, not because
>these people can ever actually point out to me, or anyone
>else, what the hell it was about.

See above and I'll explain any of that to you if you want. And to call Pulp Fiction underground? Seriously, there is nothing underground about it anymore.


>Its ironic-- The most intelligent guy(as in like, real genius)
>I know is the only person I've ever known who openly admitted
>to me that he didn't understand a single fucking thing about
>that movie. Tons of idiots, on the other hand, love to school
>me on its profundity.

Idiots? And it just so happens that the one person that agrees with your opinion is who you consider a "real genius"...

>I'll change my opinion the minute someone can actually tell me
>what the film was about. I know its alternative, but
>alternative-ness dosen't mean the film can be a collection of
>scenes about nothing.

See above.

>Pulp Fiction completely fucked up movies, because it ushered
>in this era of films that were made to be DISCUSSED and not
>WATCHED.

bullshit. it ushered in movies that could be listened to AND looked at and not simply "watched", it brought back dialog that didnt simply frame what you could already see happening. You can watch just about anything, from Jerry Springer to an opera. If you cant listen to a monologoue and pick up on the nuance of a character or the details of an unrevealed event then maybe Pulp Fiction isnt for you.

>I think its no coincidence that coffee shops started to become
>more popular after its release.

Poor attempt at a jab.


>And film would be a better place without Uma Thurman, hands
>down the least sexy sex object I've ever seen.

^^^mad homo^^^

shit, almost made it through an O_E response without an attack. Oh well, ducks on the pond....

Your bad opinions began there.

>Did you just crossover to talking about Reservoir Dogs or are
>you talking about Pulp Fiction? You know PF would never have
>happened without the indie success of Reservoir Dogs, right?
>Pulp Fiction isnt really "about nothing"; you'd have to define
>what SOMETHING is in a movie. There are surely plots in the
>movie that seem to have little point,but those parts are
>there, I believe, to undersrcore the backdrop of the real crux
>of the movie: Jules' realization of hummanity, Mia's exposure
>as a fraud and Butch's ability to capitalize on his rage.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Please tell me you are fucking joking.

I sincerely hope you are joking, because I've heard people manufacture better "Pulp Fiction is about" stories than you have.

"Jules realization of humanity"

Are you fucking serious? I hope to fucking god that was not one of the central themes, because if it was, it was done terribly, wasn't fleshed out well at all, and is overall just plain uninteresting. Jules walked around and said hip things and shot people. That is what he did. He didn't realize a gotdamn thing.

"Mia's exposure as a fraud"

Are you fucking serious?

Fraud from what? When was she not a fraud? When was her character sufficiently developed that I am supposed to give a fuck about her enough to be even marginally moved by the fact that she might be a fraud? Mia is a pointless character, and her exposure as a "fraud" is not apparent or done well.

"Butch's ability to capitalize on his rage?"

Are you fucking serious?

Let the gods of mal-originiality strike downeth thee.

75% of all action movies, revenge movies, redepmtion movies feature a male protaganist who "capitalizes on his rage." Hell, Bruce Willis does just that in OTHER MOVIES better than he did in 'Pulp Fiction'.

>See above and I'll explain any of that to you if you want. And
>to call Pulp Fiction underground? Seriously, there is nothing
>underground about it anymore.

You've done a lousy job explaining what its central themes were. I actually don't want your
opinion anymore. Sorry.

>Idiots? And it just so happens that the one person that agrees
>with your opinion is who you consider a "real genius"...

No, he's a genius for other reasons.

He could have loved 'Pulp Fiction' and still been a genius.

He just happened to think it was sucky and pointless, just like I did.


>bullshit. it ushered in movies that could be listened to AND
>looked at and not simply "watched", it brought back dialog
>that didnt simply frame what you could already see happening.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

WHAT THE FUCK WAS SO GODDAMN SPECIAL ABOUT THE DIALOGUE!!!

FOR CHRISTFUCKINSAKES ALL THE CHARACTERS DID WAS RAMBLE ABOUT NONSENSICAL BULLSHIT!!!!

HELL, I'LL EVEN ADMIT SOME OF IT WAS FUNNY BUT IT DIDN'T "FRAME" a GOTDAMN THING!!!!

ITS YOU ALL, THE FILM BUFFS, YOU TURNED 'NONSENSICAL BULLSHIT INTO:

"QT is not forcing the plot down our throats."

"QT is allowing the characters to grow without forcing the action through their words"

BULLLLLSSSSHHHHHIIIITTTT.


>You can watch just about anything, from Jerry Springer to an
>opera. If you cant listen to a monologoue and pick up on the
>nuance of a character or the details of an unrevealed event
>then maybe Pulp Fiction isnt for you.

No, I want a movie that isn't made for internet discussions and latte. That is what 'Pulp Ficition' was made for.

There are dozens of better, more thoughtful, more alternative films than 'Pulp Fiction' .

Like I said, you all like it because it makes you feel intelligent and powerful to say "Look, Vince Vega's steak symbolizes the Book of Kings in the Bible" and all that bullshit.



----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

so, have another rage-filled day.

>so, have another rage-filled day.

URRGGGGG!!!!

ME ORBIT VERY ANGRY.

Lol.

The movie sucks, and you can't defend your points.

Get over it, and keep it moving.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

no point to it.

Especially when I argue as effectively as I have been lately.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

>
>Especially when I argue as effectively as I have been lately.

stating, "it sucks because I think it sucks, fuck you, you a fag;no, you're wrong because i say so" is reasoning, not arguing; arguing would be defending your points with rationale observations.

I'll bill you later.



>Especially when I argue as effectively as I have been lately.
>
^^^Grammatical nightmare; but whatever.

>stating, "it sucks because I think it sucks, fuck you, you a
>fag;no, you're wrong because i say so" is reasoning, not
>arguing; arguing would be defending your points with rationale
>observations.

You wanna fight, bitch?

I'm seriousssss.



----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

"I know its alternative, but alternative-ness dosen't mean the film can be a collection of scenes about nothing."

>Note: You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to
>completely disagree. Not personal.
>
>You're right about the inside joke part. Pulp Fiction was an
>inside joke.
>
>The inside joke was that Tarantino could make a movie about
>absolutely nothing, with hidden maguffins, camera angles,
>tribute shots, suitcases, and obscure references, and pass it
>off as an intelligent movie to fund his mediocre, bland,
>uneventful film career.
>
>The inside joke was that he could pass off a decidely bland,
>simple, unfunny movie, and it could attain this "underground",
>"alternative", "indepedent", "hidden gem" status that causes
>people to forcefully manufacture reasons to like the movie,
>solely because its the "intelligent" thing to do, not because
>these people can ever actually point out to me, or anyone
>else, what the hell it was about.
>
>Its ironic-- The most intelligent guy(as in like, real genius)
>I know is the only person I've ever known who openly admitted
>to me that he didn't understand a single fucking thing about
>that movie. Tons of idiots, on the other hand, love to school
>me on its profundity.
>
>I'll change my opinion the minute someone can actually tell me
>what the film was about. I know its alternative, but
>alternative-ness dosen't mean the film can be a collection of
>scenes about nothing.
>
>Pulp Fiction completely fucked up movies, because it ushered
>in this era of films that were made to be DISCUSSED and not
>WATCHED.
>
>I think its no coincidence that coffee shops started to become
>more popular after its release.
>
>And film would be a better place without Uma Thurman, hands
>down the least sexy sex object I've ever seen.
>
>Keep it moving.

i don't believe it sucked or was awful but it wasn't nearly as deep made it out to be. i think because it had multiple plots of seemingly unrelated characters taking place it supposedly became complex. some of the acting was overdone, it's like everyone was the superlative of their particular character, they couldn't just be damn regular, too over the top. don't get me wrong, it was entertaining, but it was hardly a movie that made me scratch my head and think. he put a lot of people together and made a lot of things take place. so it was busy enough, but i think it became viewed a classic moreso because of the influence it had on things after it, not because it was so profound on its own.

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=88900&mesg_id=88900&page=

>http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=88900&mesg_id=88900&page=

n/m



----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

The guy who wrote the essays suggests that QT is attempting to make commentaries on the complexities of race dynamics in our society.

In reality, QT is not making commentaries on the complexities of race dynamics in our society.

So he's wrong.





----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

>In reality, QT is not making commentaries on the complexities
>of race dynamics in our society.
>

>
>>In reality, QT is not making commentaries on the
>complexities
>>of race dynamics in our society.

QT might have been commenting on the evils of globalization in 'Kill Bill'.

The problem is, there was nothing, at all, at all, at all, not even marginally, in that film that would lead anyone with a brain to that conclusion.

The same way there was no evidence, at all, at all, at all, even marginally, that QT was making commentary on racial complexities in our society in ANY of his films.

----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

There is absolutely nothing about racial complexities in his movies.

It's probably my favorite movie, so I'm biased, but I think it's aged very well. I think it can be watched every year or so and it is still amazing.

Reservoir Dogs is really great, but it's not fucking with Pulp Fiction.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
Brother's gonna work it out
Brother's gonna work it all out

at least the other people in this post on both sides of the fence gave some facts to back up their opinion.

<<<self portrait of a music nerd.
myspace: http://www.myspace.com/illstateofmind

http://www.myspace.com/soulmatic

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

kurly's Super-Duper Awesome™ DVD Collection:
http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=kurlyswirl

I be Scrobblin': http://www.last.fm/user/TasteeTreat/

'illstatedmodind915' should be glad I wasn't around to read that.

He should slap himself for that reply. Repeatedly.
______________________________________________________________________
i
get my kicks
on channel 6

I actually didn't see this until several years after it was released, but even then it felt very fresh and exciting. Nothing in the movie really dates it. It sort of defies time in the sense that it was innovative while at the same time being kind of a throwback flick. As far as 90s movies go, you could do a lot worse than Pulp Fiction. Reality Bites for example. I'm choosing that as an example because it came on TV a while back, and it was so painfully 90's that I couldn't sit through it all.


A couple of years ago I put it on for some friends who had never seen it, and they loved it just as much as I did the first time I saw it nearly 10 years ago.

I think the only way time has hurt this film is that it spawned virtually an entire era of knock offs, plus there's always a backlash when a movie gets to be such a sacred cow.

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.”

And I bet over half of them say Pulp Fiction. Not so much an arguement for it aging well but I can't see how anyone can deny it's a classic.

<<<self portrait of a music nerd.
myspace: http://www.myspace.com/illstateofmind

http://www.myspace.com/soulmatic

That's how I have always thought of it.

PF is a classic because its a very definitive moment in history. It also changed a lot in the film industry at the time, giving a big push to the "indie" film scene. AND its considered Tarantino's best film to date. That's what makes it a classic.

Its still a watchable film...i never said it wasnt. its just to me, its lost a lot of its youthful appeal.

<<<self portrait of a music nerd.
myspace: http://www.myspace.com/illstateofmind

http://www.myspace.com/soulmatic

than O_E and Pulp Fiction?

or is it just his way of lashing out at PTPers?

Little bit of both.

>than O_E and Pulp Fiction?

Its just that I actually, honestly do think that the film is that terrible. I really, really, do.

Its sort of like you feel like your losing your mind or something. When people say good things about that film, It feels like everyone is talking about Roseanne Barr is a dime, and I'm the only nigga on earth who seems to understand that she's....not. It honestly feels that way.

>or is it just his way of lashing out at PTPers?

Oh yeah.

These dudes have no Y chromosomes, at all.

And their views suck.

Mang.



----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

...or the supposed lack thereof?

I get that you're insulting the masculinity of the male ptp population, but are you also asserting that women are incapable of having good taste in films?



>These dudes have no Y chromosomes, at all.
>
>And their views suck.

I love how you constantly lump all our views together. It's always you vs the world (of ptp), eh? Gawd.


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

kurly's Super-Duper Awesome™ DVD Collection:
http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=kurlyswirl

I be Scrobblin': http://www.last.fm/user/TasteeTreat/

Just kidding.

Don't be mad, I'm just joking, and shit, gawd.

>I get that you're insulting the masculinity of the male ptp
>population, but are you also asserting that women are
>incapable of having good taste in films?

Most of you guys honestly seem like alright dudes. And I actually wish more women would post, so no, you're latter point is wrong.

>I love how you constantly lump all our views together. It's
>always you vs the world (of ptp), eh? Gawd.

Thas right.

I shall vanquish all sippers of caffeinated beverages with more than three syllables.



----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Of all the people I know that don't dig that movie, all but one is a female

But I've made my arguments time and time again and I'm stil drowzy from a nap.

Mech

yes pf is a genre film, this is why snobs don't want to give it any credit. that's fine by me.

pf will age like any film that depends upon expanding on certain timely attitudes. pf depended upon your conception of criminals, as did reservoir dogs and jackie brown. i think most of tarantino's movies do a decent job at seeming time-inspecific though. no hightech weapons systems or anything, lol. but understand that this kind of outside-in look at the criminal underworld (a fiction about something most of us know few facts about anyway basically) will be much more dependent on attitudes temporally attached to the specific timeframe (the nineties) than a more inside-out character study about qualities that we connect with that truly are timeless (love, betrayal, etc.)

pf is in the "cool criminals" subgenre along with just about everything david mamet has done. these movies are to a great extent about EXCELLENCE. they are about functional integrity in a world where we've been taught there is "no honor among thieves". in this way they are subversive but again probably less so with the passage of time. they are very modern in their moral ambivalence though.

but make no mistake, pf is about people not ideas. it's about behavior not feelings. and it's about society not humanity. so it will age faster than "deeper" films.

about criminal excellence and honor. Made both domestic and internationally. And most of those films did a better job of drawing more fleshed out real characters than pulp fiction did. (hell, i cared waaaaay more for the cats in Resevoir dogs than i did anyone in pulp fiction)

If tarantino wanted to make a movie about human characters who were empathetic sociopaths, he did a shitty job.

You made me remember this:

"You said PF ushered in an era of films that were meant to be discussed. No, it didn't. And you're retarded for thinking so. Art films, specifically the ones made in the 1960s (ex. Contempt, Blow Up, Wild Strawberries, etc.) were films that were meant to be discussed as they were simply art for arts sake and had no character arcs or really much of a plot. On top of that, PF takes much of its "macguffin" from Kiss Me Deadly, a film which is arguably as "discussable" as PF due to its similar device of a glowing weird object that nobody seems to know what it is.

Plain and simple, you can hate PF all you want...but your "it started making people discuss films in stead of enjoy them" is a moot point, so you should probably stop saying it."

To which Orbit never responded.

With which I proved the only point he thinks he had against Pulp Fiction (OTHER than his own damn opinion) was ridiculous.

Ah good times.

Stumbled across it during the big OE vs AFKAP debate. I felt like I was on a jury & being handed exzibits A-D. After the jury deliberated 4 several hours we came back w/ a similar verdict.

I'll end this entire shit right here, dunny.

*takes dick out* (no homo)

*continues to take dick out* (no homo-er)

*pisses on entire thread*

*holds piss in*

*pisses in PTP's Latte Maker*


*speaks*


Because the history of film goes back a long, long, long, way, and before that, the history of drama goes back even further, several centuries in fact, not even I would make the horrific suggestion that 'Pulp Fiction' was actually the first production of any kind that was meant to be discussed and not watched. As much as I appreciate the straw man, and expect it, it isn't exactly what I meant.

In fact, saying that 'Pulp Fiction' was the first production of any kind that was meant to be discussed and not watched would be giving such a mediocre film far too much credit. 'Pulp Fiction's' only "firsts" have to do with marketing, not aesthetics.

Half of William Shakespeare's works had a definate discussion-driven element to them. Shakespeare did it to increase the intrigue, so people kept going to the theater and kept spending their doe. I ain't mad at him, and neither are you, because well....a lot of his shit was type ill, son.

'Pulp Fiction', however, did not take place several centuries ago, and was not a 90s arthouse film.

Pulp Fiction's lasting legacy is that it it communicated the following thought process:

"Let's not actually communicate what the movie is about, but try to out-wit our audience into seeing this movie 17 times to actually take home a helpful point"

And it took this bullshit TO THE HOLLYWOOD MEGA MOVIE LEVEL, COMPLETE WITH BIG, POPULAR CAST MEMBERS, CATCHY MARKETING, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF ADVERSTISEMENTS, ETC. That 'Pulp Fiction' was ABSOLUTELY UNPRECEDENTED IN THAT IT brought independent flair to a large audience is ABSOLUTELY UNDEBATABLE, EVEN TO 'PULP FICTION' FANS!!!

If you deny what I just wrote, you are simply denying it for the sake of disagreeing with Orbit_Established, which is fucking pathetic, but understandable, afterall, my points are so strong, they probably have half of you scrambling and second-guessing your own appreciation for this film.

Half of y'all are in here like:

"wait...it really did suck...oh no it didn't...it was deeeeeeep....the little square that Uma Thurman made with her hand!!!! PROOFFFFOUUUNDD!!!!"

Mr. Orbit_Established knows very well that there exist hundreds, if not thousands of films that were made "to be discussed" and perhaps, consumed with hot drinks.


The problem is -- many of *these* types of films are:

a)Better than 'Pulp Fiction'

b)Attained little, or none of Pulp Fiction's commercial success

c)Didn't go out of their *WAY* to do things JUST SO THEY COULD TRY TO OUTSMART THEIR AUDIENCE.


Hell, fucking 'STAR WARS', a film where a lot of the action and plotline WERE EXPLICITY LAID OUT, yet actually had more WORTHY, FRUITFUL DISCUSSION WORTHY TOPICS that were NOT explicitly laid out, than bitch ass 'Pulp Fiction'. It did what 'Pulp Fiction' tried to do, in the context of forces, and swords, and dark sides and little green niggaz and shit.

The difference betweeen films like 'STAR WARS', that are good, and 'Pulp Fiction', which fucking sucked, is that 'STAR WARS' didn't *TRY* to confuse the fucking audience to be cute. It didn't need bullshit ass film *GIMMICKS* to sell coffee and make people think George Lucas was a wizard.

Think 'Star Wars' and 'Pulp Fiction' are an unfair comparison?

They actually aren't...I'm saying that a SCIENCE FICTION FILM with special effects, glitz and action had more PROFUNDITY than the allegedly PROFOUND discussion-driven film....but if you guys still have your panties in a bunch(which you do and will) let's take a film like 'DO THE RIGHT THING', far more comparable in many ways.


For one,


'DO THE RIGHT THING' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TARANTINO'S EXISTENCE ON EARTH

But that is not really my only point.

My point is that 'DTRT' was ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY MADE TO BE DISCUSSED!!!

It had some of the *MOST* profound social commentary ever communicated in a film, much of which *did* need to be teased apart in later viewing/discussions.

Hell, PTPs MODERATOR, Frank Longo, is writing a PAPER on DTRT RIGHT FUCKING NOW. DTRT has been been the beneficiary of discussion, and cross examination, and "breaking down", just like 'Pulp Fiction' has.


http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=126787


The difference between 'Pulp Fiction' and 'DTRT' is that Spike Lee didn't have interesting subtleties in his film JUST TO TRY AND MAKE HIMSELF SLICK AND SMART AND COOL. He actually WORKED INTERESTING SUBTLETIES INTO THE BODY OF AN EXTREMELEY PROVOCATIVE STORYLINE that actually TOLD A FUCKING STORY.

He didn't LAYER IT IN BULLSHIT ASS TRIBUTE SHOTS AND HIDDEN CAMERA ANGLES AND FUCKING STUPID IRRELEVANT MISDIRECTING DIALOGUE just so he could tell his friends:

"I bet they don't get this...he he he he..."

Like Tarantino did through the ENTIRE FUCKING movie 'Pulp Fiction'.


When I seen 'Pulp Fiction', I see a film where the director was fucking WAAAAAAAAY in love with himself, a man who suffers from some pathetic low self esteem, a man who both loves and hates black people at the same time, is a punk ass film dork who wants to be down and hip, and does so by creating a contrived piece of dookie poo.

Where the genius came in was in appealing to the unintelligence and lack of intellectual self esteem in the common man(the American film-going audience) so much that he actually got audience's to feel like him -- he needed to feel smart, so he made 'Pulp Fiction'.

You guys need to feel smart, so you liked 'Pulp Fiction'.


Real thug ass niggaz like me, on the other hand, think the Black man will never truly be free in America, think that intelligent design has no place in the classroom, think Bush doesn't care about black people, and think 'Pulp Fiction' is a bowl of thick, snoopy, snot.


Look deep inside your soul.


Y'all know I have a point.


You likely won't admit it though, so in the meantime:


*Climbs Top Turnbuckle*


*Raises hand like Macho Man Randy Savage*


*Flying Orbit-o Elbow to the PTP throat*


*Pins*



Hov.





----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

It's poorly thought out and executed. QT tries to be clever for its own sake, but don't even do a good job of that.

It also shamelessly rips off a shit load of much better movies, as does all of qt's work.

I saw it when it was in the arthouse here in atlanta back in the day, and i was like what the fuck is this shit? Watchin vinnie barbarino dance does not a good movie make.

I'm with OE on this one it's a pointless flick, and a poorly done one at that. People have come up with all kinds of meanings to the movie, but ya boy tarantino hasn't ever really come up with one has he?

And yes, I'll also assume uma thurman is a man, until i actually SEE her vagina.

the dialogue is pure crack. half the shit marsellus and jules say could go on a poster on my wall. i mean, yeah, the movie's not really about anything. i get that. but how can you deny the genius of two hitmen arguing, passionately, about foot massages on their way to a job? how can you deny the genius of the watch story, from set up to payoff? it's about the writing, b (backed up by some great performances-- sam jack shoulda got his oscar here). and to answer your question, yes, it has aged phenomenally well.

i didn't see it during its original theater run, as i was in an indier-than-thou mindset and assumed that people were going to see it again and again because it was the in thing to do, therefore, the movie sucks.

when i finally did get around to seeing it maybe a year or two later, i really loved it and felt stupid for ignoring it the first time around.

last year i picked up the DVD and watched it and commented to a friend that wow, it really is a great movie. QT's primary gift imo is directing actors, and PF shows that off immensely.

and to O_E: if you don't like the movie, okay, cool, but you're kind of sounding like a blind guy saying we're all fucking morons for talking about the sky and trees and how beautiful they are when they obviously don't exist. maybe you should just shrug and say you don't really get it, or it's not your thing, and KIM.

---
holler @ http://www.myspace.com/11468313

Instant archive material.

Ends this entire discussion.

Promise.






----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.