Because you can't be serious with this silly
plea copping.

I mean, wow.

You usually on point up in here, but you seriously
jumped the shark.


>I think Pulp Fiction is much better than Last Boy Scout in
>it's inventiveness, dialogue, story, and acting. I think those
>elements were all done at a high level in Pulp Fiction and
>that's why it deserved an Oscar nod.

Inventiveness - What inventiveness? I thought a you
said a lot of thought and sophistication didn't
go into Pulp Fiction? That it was a simple cliche
that was witty and fun? Nothing about it was inventive,
or new, at all. It was a bunch of little tales
allegedly "tied(lol)" together through the loose
theme of "redemption(allegedly profound, when it
was not even done well, or meaningful in any way)"

Dialogue - The only reason why people quote PF
more than LBS is because its more popular, in part
because of the false legend surrounding its goodness. The
LBS was LOADED with great one-liners and
exchanges. At least as good.

And its funny how people cop pleas using the
dialogue argument: I've NEVER HEARD of a film
being liked SOLELY FOR ITS DIALOGUE until
'Pulp Fiction'. The thing is, that argument is
bullshit, because everyone knows that a dumbass
movie with great dialogue is still a dumbass
movie.

The reason people cop pleas with the dialogue
is because they NEED TO INVENT A REASON TO
TELL THEMSELVES THAT PF GOOD.

When they they get desperate, they resort to:

"Oh, the dialogue is sooooo, like, cool and shit,
dude."

^^^Bullshit. Just doing what they have to not
be left out of the dorm/office/coffee shop
conversations.


Acting - Lol. Bruce Willis was better in The Last Boyscout
than he was in Pulp Fiction. Much more range. Much more
complicated a character who had to deal with more things.
The difference is that The Last Boyscout was not hailed
as "profound" by the arthouse crowd, and so no one noticed.

I mean, there's no fucking comparison.

None.

And Sam Jackson?

Lol.

Sam Jackson in JUNGLE FEVER(in VERY limited action)>>>
>>>>Sam Jackson in Pulp Fiction.

Hell, Sam Jackson in 'The Negotiator' >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sam Jackson in Pulp Fiction.

AGAIN - The ONLY REASON PEOPLE HAIL that performance
is because Pulp Fiction is SUPPOSED TO BE GREAT.
Wasn't nothing significant about his performance.

What, a bunch of witty lines as a hitman?

Lol.

GFTOH, son.

That nigga was as convincing a crackhead as I've
ever seen in 'Jungle Fever'. And I'm not saying you
gotta be a tragic character to give a great
performance.

He's been clever, and cool, and smart in other
flicks too. Way more than in Pulp Fiction.


Lol.

>You claim I'm contradicting myself because of the Oscar
>statement but I never said that a film had to be deep or
>meaningful to earn Oscar nods.

>I think great popcorn flicks
>are worthy of Oscars as well.

Oh, so 'Pulp Fiction' is a "popcorn flick?"

Lol.

So why then aren't other B-movie "popcorn flicks"
REGULARLY nominated(remember the 'My Cousin Vinny'
uproar?)?

You wanna know why?

Because the Academy DID NOT NOMINATE PULP FICTION
BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A GODDAMN POPCORN
MOVIE.

They nominated it because it was SUPPOSED TO
BE "GREAT" AND "PROFOUND" and all the bullshit.

Fight it all you want to, but its true.

>Maybe you think a film needs to
>have some deep symbolism or make a statement to be great but I
>think that's pretty pretentious.

Lol.

No, I find it odd that allegedly B-movies and regular
popcorn flicks can be nominated, yet few in history
ever have.

I mean, 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High' had some good
acting.

So did '16 Candles'.

Hell, so did 'Friday Night Lights'

Shit, 'Bruce Almighty' was clever as fuck.


I mean, exactly what the fuck are you missing here?


All of the above were comedies and b-movies.

All of the above had good performances.

None of the above were hailed like
'Pulp Fiction' was.

You wanna know why?

BECAUSE THE GODDAMN ACADEMY does NOT think that
'Pulp Fiction' is in the same LEAGUE or GENRE as
these movies...it does NOT consider 'Pulp Fiction'
to be a "popcorn movie" or a B-movie. The academy,
and the majority of the film critic crowd, considers
it much, much, much, much, much, more, which is why
motherfuckers cross examine Pulp Fiction like they
do.

You don't see niggas doing that with 'Teen Wolf',
even though they are both, in your words,
"Popcorn flicks('Teen Wolf' a far superior one,
of course)


>In fact, the only evidence you've given to not liking the film
>is because of fanboys and because it had a lasting impression
>on film. So if anything, you are the one forming opinions
>based on what other people say rather than your own opinion.

Oh, no.

I think its a silly, irrelevant movie.

But I think pretentious dickheads like Tarantino
make it difficult for SOLID, STRONG, STORYTELLERS
to get their shine on, which is a practical concern.

I mean, I'm not even in the art industry. I'm a fan.

I'm just saying that I can sniff out and call bullshit
when I see it.

And the legend surrounding 'Pulp Fiction' is just
that:

Some bullshit.