|
Without hesitation.
I can say that, and I've been around klan members and creationists and schizophrenic people.
I mean, wow.
>I guess that's true to some extent - except that it's ONE >opinion, vs. however many have been made about Pulp Fiction.
So basically, because a lot of people share a viewpoint, it must be right and valid.
Hmmm.
That is the stupidest, illogical, nonsensical thing I've ever heard in my life.
Actually, consensus says nothing about the validity of a point. All "consensus" tells us is that viewpoint is popular.
"Popular" does not equal "correct."
Hence majority of Americans believing that Darwin was wrong.
Hence the majority of Americans thinking W was fit for the job in 2004.
The majority of the world thinks Soccer is more exciting than American football or basketball.
Hence many countries believing women shouldn't go to school.
Hence most Americans thinking starvation, environmental degradation, and the HIV pandemic aren't worth their time, money or attention.
All of those viewpoints are incorrect (if not out right wrong)
All of those viewpoints extremely popular.
Now, I wouldn't have to explain this if you thought, at all, about anything.
>If one person says something is art or highly artistic, maybe >it is, maybe that person’s full of shit.
>But when the general CONSENSUS (among both critics and viewers >alike) says something is art or of high artistic quality, it >almost certainly is. That’s how art works. Sorry if you can’t >grasp that.
That doesn't make a grain of motherfucking sense.
Not one.
General consensus says nothing about the legitimacy of something's validity.
And to further ether you on this point, how about this:
Vincent Van Gogh died broke, alone, obscure, having sold ONE PAINTING HIS ENTIRE MOTHERFUCKING CAREER.
There were plenty of artists in the day of Van Gogh who were VERY popular.
MORE popular than Van Gogh.
The CONSENSUS during his day was that Van Gogh was more SOULPLANE than Pulp Fiction.
Guess what?
We know now that the people who created the CONSENSUS might have been WRONG.
And the same could very well be true now, because consensus has nothing to do with anything, and doesn't legitimize art.
>You, however, somehow continue to argue that Pulp Fiction was >a terrible movie, and that the overwhelming consensus of >opinion on Pulp Fiction is entirely fabricated on hype - a >ludicrous and unfounded bullshit argument that has absolutely >no merit or evidence whatsoever.
All I ever ask for is for someone to tell me what its about, in clear terms. I've received no less than 52 explanations, all of them bullshit.
>Yet, you can't resist repeating your insane "Pulp Fiction is >all hype" argument, despite the fact that it is completely >unfounded and full of shit.
Calm down
>Where did the hype come from, and why? If it's marketing, why >not do the same for Grindhouse, or any other movie? It can't >be done.
Not sure what you mean here, but you haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.
>You simply can't manufacture the level of critical and fan >acclaim that Pulp Fiction has attained. If you could, every >studio would be doing it.
Actually, you can.
Ever hear of Britney Spears?
Not talented.
More popular than say....Smokey Robinson ever was, who was ultra talented.
One had more hype than the other.
Not sure what the fuck your point is.
>Yes, you can argue that hype and advertising had a hand in the >success of Pulp Fiction - maybe that's true - but if it wasn't >already a brilliant and amazing work, it wouldn't have worked. >Period. You can’t market something with no appeal.
So, we know it was genuinely, really, good simply because it became popular?
Again -- you're using popularity as a gauge for "essential goodness" which is, well.....stupid.
>And I'm done talking about that particular point, because >you've become like Bill O'Reilly - spewing the same loud and >incorrect "point" about something that is obviously not true >to anyone with a brain.
Says the mean who can't separate popularity from essential quality.
>Besides, I've already refuted it here: >http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=365316&mesg_id=365316&listing_type=search#365819 >So, the consensus / majority opinion is that Pulp Fiction is >an excellent movie and of high artistic quality.
Which says nothing but that its popular.
See the evolution statistics for more detail.
See the outcome of the 2004 election for more
>You can provide exceptions, but the MAJORITY of both critics >and viewers view it as much.
Which says nothing for the validity of the argument.
See the evolution statistics for more detail.
See the outcome of the 2004 election for more.
>Opinions to the contrary - yours for example - are minority >opinions. There will always be minority opinions about >everything - nothing is universally loved.
But the fact that they are minority doesn't necessarily mean they are any more right or wrong. It simply means they are less popular.
If you can wrap your head around what the difference between popularity and essential goodness is, or at least concede that quite often they are completely independent of each other, than....wow.
>Bullshit. That's a lie. I've seen plenty of discussions on >this very board about the movie that don't involve the >"philosophy of art." You are blatantly lying here. Do you >watch Fox News?
Yes, I watch Fox News because it has illogical people who think the popularity of W in 2004 is synonymous with him being an essentially better person.
>What makes it so great? Everything. Every fucking thing was >great.
Oh, okay.
Glad someone finally told me.
>You always claim that no one can ever give you reasons why >they love it, but I have.
“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."
Okay, so 'Pulp Fiction' is like...I dunno.... ...The Last Boyscout? "Cool and entertaining?"
Of course, the Last Boyscout was about 5000X as good, but I am seeing your point.
At least your not arguing a simple film in the ilk of last boyscout deserves true artistic praise... ....are you?
>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?).
"visceral coolness."
Jesus H. Christ.
You didn't actually name a single reason. You cut and pasted buzz phrases from reviews.
>Shit, what's not to like?”
Lots. The messy, confusing, convulated story.
The dumbass, think characters.
The "look at me, I'm so smart" hidden camera tricks.
The super duper metaphorical storyline.
The dumbass narcissistic tarantino-isms.
“the dialogue in PF is better, cooler, more enjoyable, >better written, etc.” >I’m comparing it to Last Boy Scout (a movie that you claim is >better), but really, that quote applies to MOST movies. The >dialogue in Pulp Fiction is practically second to none.
Okay, it had cute dialogue in a bad movie.
I'm willing to entertain that.
>So your claim that “no one can give me reasons” is obviously a >gigantic pile of shit.
No, you didn't give me any reasons.
>I gave you a whole bunch of reasons in that post, which you >summarily ignored and rejected as I knew you would – because >as we all know by now, you are a gigantic asshole who doesn’t >want to actually discuss anything intelligently.
Because those are headlines from reviews.
Not reasons.
>Sanjuro--- “I just thought it was accepted as a popular, cool, >witty, ultra-violent gangster-flick with semi-original time >shifts and unconventional structuring… The structure and >dialogue are the most standout elements to that flick - both >GREAT, by the way, hence the reputation Pulp Ficiton has >gained.”
What's funny is that you're ethering your own point:
Part of the problem with Pulp Fiction hype is that people CREATE reasons to like it because THEY THINK THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO.
That's what all of you have done.
This is why there are 1,844 different reasons the film is great.
You wanna know why there's so many reasons?
Because no one can settle on one, because the film wasn't actually any good.
>Inventiveness: IMO there weren't many films like Pulp Fiction >out there before it came out.
As bad as it? No, there weren't.
>I thought the timeline and tone and talkyness >was new and, at the time, fresh. It's been done to death but >it was IMO inventive when it came out.
No, that had been done before. Hell, 'Do the Right Thing' had dialogue eons better.
And unlike Pulp Fiction, Do the Right Thing was actually about something.
>To me the dialogue was far better in Pulp Fiction than Last >Boy Scout. Lasy Boy Scout had some quality lines but I don't >think it compares to Pulp Fiction. Again, I think Pulp Fiction >is more comparable to Lethal Weapon. And dialogue was one of >the aspects I noted. I didn't say it was a dumb movie with >great dialogue. I liked the movie itself.”
Lethal Weapon is 452,991 times better than Pulp Fiction in every single way, so please, shush.
>The Damaja--- “Well, most famously the original and elegant >use of timeshift and multiple, interwoven storylines. Add to >that the foregrounding of conversational dialogue which >allowed the film to have wonderfully nuanced characters and >constant humour and many memorable scenes/lines. Not >forgetting the brilliant use of music (not score) and filming >techniques (like the special emulsion celluloid they used to >give the diner scene its richness). But most IMPORTANTLY the >textual (perhaps intertextual) and moral depth that underpins >the films status as a masterpiece of cinema.”
The Damaja is one of the least intelligent people on earth. He said the use of drugs in Pulp Fiction was a commentary on the "scales of justice."
LOL.
>Granted, some of these people didn’t think it was all that >great, but all of them thought it was a good, entertaining >movie - and they gave reasons. So get the fuck out of here >with your whiny bullshit about “no one can give me reasons why >it was good.”
They gave thousands of different reasons, because they created them, because again, you guys didn't want to left out of the arthouse avant garde scene.
People who think for themselves, like me, didn't feel the need to do that.
We thought it was garbage.
>Disagree with their reasons all you want, but that feeble >claim that “no one gives reasons” is clearly killed once and >for all.
No, people write things, but none of them are reasons.
>However, in the case of Pulp Fiction, MOST people liked it. >Critics, viewers, etc. You are in the minority. So unless the >majority of the people who viewed Pulp Fiction are all >fanboys, you have no point whatsoever.
Jesus H. Christ.
The "consensus" can often be wrong and awful, you know, even when it comes to art.
Remember 'Shakespeare in Love' defeating 'Saving Private Ryan' for best picture?
How's that for "consensus?"
>The fact that it was highly critically acclaimed SUPPORTS the >notion that it was a good movie, but is not THE REASON it was >a good movie. It’s merely EVIDENCE that it is.
How?
How does popularity support essential-ity?
How?
Actually use logic, for me. Try it.
Lol.
>A shitload of people loved it. That’s not hype; that’s because >it was a very good movie. Period.
A shitload of people love Bush and Britney Spears.
Not sure where we are going with this.
>And their cumulative opinions carry a whole lot more weight >than your own single one. Sorry, that’s how it is.
I'm glad Van Gogh disagreed.
Not to mention your opinions are a disrespect to every artistic movement, ever, most of whom were DEFINED BY TRYING TO GO AGAINST THE GRAIN, many of the artists not receiving praise or acknowledgment until decades after they authored their work.
>See above. You should never make this bullshit claim again. >But you will, because like Fox News, you think saying a lie >over and over again makes it come true.
No, because you guys keep copping pleas.
>THE MOVIE IS GOOD. PEOPLE SAYS SO BECAUSE IT’S TRUE. >It’s not the other way around, no matter how much you wish it >were.
Jesus H. Christ.
>One final question – do you fucking like anything? I don’t >think I’ve seen you praise anything on here – you are almost >100% negative about everything.
The Last Boyscout >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp Fiction
Mad?
>That’s fine, have fun. Personally, I’d rather praise the >movies I love than appear in every single post I can find >about movies and directors that I hate (I’m talking about you >here). Seriously, you chase them around like it’s your job.
No, its fun and easy.
>I really think you post just to try to make people mad, which >doesn’t work in my case, because I enjoy talking about movies >I love – that’s often why I’m here in the first place. >Although I have to admit that e-conversations with you are >particularly pointless, which is why I generally try to avoid >them... unless I’m bored enough to want to expose your endless >stream of bullshit for what it is (e.g., just now).
No, you are mad.
>Or maybe you post to make yourself feel good by deceiving >yourself into thinking you “won” an e-argument. Which would be >fucking pathetic.
No, you are mad.
>Now, go ahead and unleash a stream of “you mads” and BWAHAHA. >I’m done with you.
That was the longest, driest post I've ever responded to.
|