>Just because one dude (who disagrees with you) says you have
>valid points doesn't make it true.

No, I do have valid points.

You all don't know how to answer them, so you
get petty and bitchlike.


>I really, honestly don't see you making any valid points about
>the movie.

Of course, probably because you don't understand, and/or
are being petty and bitchlike.


>All throughout the post you're simply attacking people who
>like the movie... because you claim their reasons for liking
>it are bullshit.

And I attack them using logic and well constructed
arguments.

The fact that I use pejoratives in the process
doesn't change the fact that its still thought
out and valid.


>Yet no reason is good enough or valid to you. What you don't
>seem to understand is that while many people may share the
>same reasons, there's no "approved" or "acceptable" list of
>reasons for liking any particular movie.

No shit, sherlock.

I mean, you can say that for everything.

There's no acceptable way to do anything, outside
the laws of physics and biology, and even those
are malleable.

We debate because we can.


>So, I'd still like to see you make an intelligent, cogent
>point about the movie without assuming things about WHY other
>people (you've never met and don't know anything about) like
>or love the movie.

I've done that.


>But of course you'll claim that people only believe that
>because of the hype machine behind Pulp Fiction, right?


When I ask someone a simple motherfucking question:

"Why do you like Pulp Fiction?"


And I get 30 different answers, some people
extracting things that had nothing to do with the
movie, citing things that the director did not
intend, and things that did not even fucking
happen, than I have a write to raise a

*people's eyebrow*

at the bullshit.

My question in response:

"WHY ARE PEOPLE GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY TO
INVENT REASONS TO LIKE THIS MOVIE? WHY ARE
THEY CREATING THINGS and SEEING THINGS THAT
DID NOT FUCKING HAPPEN? WHY ARE THEY CREDITING
THE DIRECTOR WITH MESSAGES AND THOUGHTS AND
MEANINGS THAT WEREN'T EVEN IN THE FUCKING MOVIE?"


Why?



Why?



That is where "hype" and "culture" and all this
bullshit factor in: People do that because they
FEEL LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO. And even better,
people DON'T DO THAT WITH OTHER FILMS THE SAME WAY,
because OTHER FILMS HAVEN'T ACCUMULATED THE SAME
CULTURE AMBIANCE.

Its actually quite simple.

>Well, why is it okay for you to say LBS had better dialogue
>than PF, but if someone believes the complete opposite, then
>they're a victim of the awful hype machine?

No. That's your opinion.

I don't think the idea that LBS had better dialogue
is a law of thermodynamics.



>First, liking the soundtrack IS one of a huge number of
>reasons to like a movie. If that's the ONLY thing someone
>liked about the movie, then it's probably not a good movie.
>But liking the soundtrack is just ONE thing that someone might
>like about it.

See, this is what I mean.

That's bullshit, and you know it.

If you like the soundtrack, you like the soundtrack.

The only people who infuse that into their REASONS
for liking the movie are people who are trying
to be overly creative about finding reasons.

My 'Do the Right Thing' example works here:

The film has actually received as good, or
better, critical acclaim as 'Pulp Fiction'
(the two are in different galaxies in terms
of quality, to me). When you ask people why
they liked 'Do the Right Thing', you get a
host of answers:

Story, characters, messages, dynamics,
setting, cinematography, DIALOGUE(I mean,
you want to hear great exchanges? Watch THIS
movie).

Because 'Do the Right Thing' is actually a great
movie with REAL things to extract, we all don't
need to be Harry Potter about inventing reasons
to like it.

And so even though Spike Lee did an excellent
job using music in the film, we don't even
get to the use of music in the film, because
there are more actually cinematic items
to point to when discussing why we love the
film.

That is not the case in "Pulp Fiction' commentaries.

People get creative:

"It had great racial commentary."

"It used colors well."

"It was allegorical."

I mean, a motherfucker in THIS POST DESCRIBED
IT WITH THE TERM:

"Zeigeist"

I mean, are you motherfuckers serious?

You are CREATING shit that ain't there.

Even worse, THE OTHER HALF OF YOU WHO LIKE THE
FILM think that the people who found meaning in
it are "idiots(I think I'm quoting 'Soulhonky').


So what is really good?


>For instance, I loved the soundtracks to Pulp Fiction, High
>Fidelity, Judgment Night, Forrest Gump... etc. The soundtracks
>alone didn't make me like the movies, but they definitely
>contributed to my enjoyment.

Judgment Night is a perfect example.

That movie was corny as shit, and people love the soundtrack
and talk about it until today...further proof that the soundtrack
's goodness has little place in the discussion of the film.

When you ask someone:

"Hey, did you like 'Judgment Night?'"

And they say: "Yes"

And you ask them "Why is that?"

And they answer: "The story and the soundtrack"

You would laugh in their fucking face, and reply,
correctly that:

"Son, that the soundtrack was good has shit to do
with anything so stop copping pleas and come up
with some valid reasons."


>The dude's whole point was that he HAD NOT heard much about
>the movie beforehand. Maybe there was promotion for it and he
>missed it. To be honest I don't really remember much promotion
>either.

Oh, I see:

I suppose he just randomly walked into a motherfucking
indy theatre in an artsy section of the east village in
NYC?

Or did something he HEARD DRAW HIM to a MULTIPLEX
MAJOR CINEMA to see the movie?

It had HUGE ACCLAIM WAY BEFORE IT CAME OUT, which is
why it was so available for everyone to see.

I remember SEEING THE SCRIPT FOR IT like a year before
it came out.

It *did* have hype, so please, fall back with the
plea copping.


>Not everyone had the same experience you did, which was
>apparently overhype for a movie that you didn't like. That's
>fine. I'm not going to try to convince you that you should
>love the movie. It's your loss, IMO.
>But I don't see why you're such a crusader against it. So it
>wasn't for you. Move on.

No, this is more fun, thankx.


>You're not actually saying anything here. People who saw the
>movie when it first came out and LOVED the fuck out of it were
>completely justified in telling all their friends that the
>movie was fucking awesome. Because it was.

No, the people who saw it first are the ones who
helped create the bullshit culture out of thin air,
the type of culture that makes people compare Jackson's
religious shit at the end to Hamlet's "To be or not to be"
soliliquy. <---I actually heard that from someone


>So even if that built up the hype for the movie, I don't see
>how it's unjustified, given that it's simply people who loved
>the movie... telling other people that they loved the movie.

Well, I hold everyone responsible for judging things
fairly.

You didn't judge it fairly.

You built unwarranted hype for what is, in my opinion,
a bite-fest of incoherent babble and "look how smart I am"
pretentious dickhead writing.

>So knocking people for building the "pretentious bandwagon" is
>not a valid point here.

Yes, it is.



>Some people liked it and found it simple and fun crime drama.

>For others, the movie really resonated with them on a deeper
>level.

>The fact that people disagree about why they like the movie is
>not indicative of some pop culture conspiracy to unjustifably
>hype up a bad movie.

Wrong, and you're not getting off that easy.

The thing is this:

The people who liked it for simple reasons
DONT EVEN FUCKING UNDERSTAND all the complex shit,
and don't think its relevant.

And I am on board with them:

AT BEST, 'Pulp Fiction' was a sill 'B Movie'.

At best.

No, it was not a "smart" B-Movie.

No, it did not have "earth shattering" performances.

I'll buy that is "slick and fun."

That being the case, its in the 'Tango and Cash'
arena of films(nothing to be ashamed of, really)


>And who the fuck are you (or anyone) to tell either group of
>people that they're wrong?

I'm Orbit_Established.

Where you been?

>And I don't think most people would call Pulp Fiction a
>B-movie at all.

Quite a few people in here are, and call people who
consider it more than that "idiots."

And mind you: These are people who LIKED the film.


>People could give you reasons, but they already know it's a
>waste of time, since your typical "bwahaha" and self-fellating
>will begin before you've even finished reading it.

I do that because Damaja(or someone else on here...I think
it was him though) once told me that the use of drugs
and needles was a metaphor for the scales of justice and that
the use of europe as a discussion point in the first convo
between Travolta and Jackson was about the arbitrary nature
of laws.

^^^^Guys, I'm being dead fucking serious.

He actually said that shit.

To me.

I almost choked on my goddamn bagel when I read that.

That is, utter and complete bullshit.


And its sad and pathetic and it deserves to be laughed at.


>Personally, I don't think I'd call it profound - it didn't
>change the way I viewed the world or anything. It didn't teach
>me lessons about life. It's just one of the coolest and most
>entertaining movies ever, that's all.

Oh, so a cool B-movie?

Tango and Cash. The Last Boyscout. Pulp Fiction.


I can dig it.



>I love everything about it - the tone and style, an awesome
>interwoven plot full of all the elements I love (action,
>drama, humor), cool plot structure, great acting, the beloved
>dialogue, fascinating characters, good music... and it exudes
>visceral coolness (there's the "hype machine" talking,
>right?).

The Last Boyscout.


>Shit, what's not to like?

The non-story, the dimensionless characters, lotsa
other things.