Talk:Pulp Fiction/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Plot

what happened to the plot section ?? after cutting it down which was sort of necessary it was removed completely . what's that supposed to help ?? can anybody tell me why that was done and never changed?

First, please sign your comments. Second, I don't know. We have more on Quentin Terintino's use of toilets in this film than its actual plot... Someone really needs to fix that. 71.253.199.245 04:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jules Winnfield

Who thinks Jules deserves an article of his own? I sure think he does, he's an awesome character.


I do. Go for it!!! 63.226.180.162 01:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree--66.237.11.10 00:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. JN322 15:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I made a legitimate article for this character and it just got deleted.

Agreed...repost the article

If the character of Vega warrants it's own article, then Winnfield clearly does as well 124.168.239.49 12:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ezekial quote

Has anyone else noticed that the two "Ezekiel" passages quoted are exactly the same even though the article says that they're "slightly different"? Just surprising to me, someone should change that paragraph around.

They are slightly different, watch the film again and pay close attention. I did edit but to show how the passages are really said (they got it slightly wrong, but now I fixed it.)

No, I mean that the first one quoted in Pulp Fiction is EXACTLY the same as the one quoted in "Karate Kiba." There are no differences at all.

wikiproject Film template

I re-evaluated the template above, assigning a top class and require an attention. I think most film buffs would agree that Pulp Fiction is somewhat of a landmark film. Also it's become a centerpiece in many film analysis. And considering the state of the article, I think it requires an attention. Speculations abound on the meaning of some parts of the film and many are merely speculation that often creeps back into the article after removal. I think it needs somekind of a rewrite or at least an expansion.~ Feureau 14:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it does need a bit of expansion, but I would hesitate to call it a stub. It has the essential parts.--Agent Aquamarine 07:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this page at Pulp Fiction?

A lot of symbolics which we can fine in this movie make it pretentious in that what it would be like to tell us .On the other way the group of people who can really understand this movie is relative small. Even older Heroin's addicts grown up on relation U.S.A - Europe can not to ketch up dadlly sniff and they are especially suspicious about injection of the Adrenalin straight to the hart ?? Maybe just in this part the creator of this peace wanted to tell us to much , almost everything.In the same time Vincent and Mia are prince and princes from the story , Romeo and Juliet in their forbidden love , dance of coca and heroin , dance of cosmopolite and local , old and new and the all these packed in a feel of uzaludnost what is the basic feel which this film take with it . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.244.194.63 (talk • contribs)

Right, so pulp fiction is a dab page linking here and to pulp magazine. How is that better than a top link on this page? Right now pulp magazine gets a one-line link on the dab page. It gets a one-line link here, too. Anyone searching for the magazine type instead of the movie has to make an extra click either way. Someone looking for the movie has to go through the dab page when there is no other article by that name. Doesn't make sense to me. -Anþony 12:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the archived discussions at Talk:Pulp_Fiction/Archive_1#Move_article and Talk:Pulp_Fiction/Archive_1#Title and the discussion at Talk:Pulp_fiction. --duncan 21:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw Talk:Pulp fiction, but I missed the archive here. It seems a lot of this is based on some poorly chosen wording in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films):
Where a film or book title is unique or virtually unique, let the title of the article be the same as the title of the film. But where it is the same as a subject in science, a novel, or whatever, unless the film title is far and away the most common accepted meaning of the word or phrase, title the film article like this: Film Title (film).
That seems to imply that the title should be dabbed if there is another topic of the same name, even if that topic does not have an article on Wikipedia, such as in this case. I don't believe that's entirely appropriate. Also, the RM discussion did not address my earlier point: adding the two-item dab page doesn't make pulp magazine any easier to find, but it does make this article harder to find. -Anþony 22:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Pre-disambiguation of film titles to change the wording in the guideline. Your input is appreciated. -Anþony 02:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I understand the thought behind using a disambiguation page, but it seems in this case pointless, seeing as there's a disambiguation link at the top of the article and I'm guessing that 95% of the people who search for "pulp fiction" without the capitals want the movie. If you're looking for "pulp magazine", you probably wouldn't search for "pulp fiction", at least not without expecting to see the movie first. It seems silly to me. Butterboy 20:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Information, not analysis

There used to be a large amount of interesting analysis of this movie including motifs, themes, and such. I was inquiring as to why it was deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebben4 (talk • contribs)

me too. Goddamnit, there's always a lot of interesting things on Wikipedia that you learn from, and when you go back to see them some old stuffed shirt has taken them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.50.101 (talk • contribs)
Encyclopedias do not exist for the purpose of analysis and interpretation; they exist to diseminate information. Offering analysis and interpretation of a film, book, individual, etc., would be a violation of Wikipedia's rules against POV-pushing and OR. And, Mr. Anonymous User who has made no contribution whatsoever, you can call us "old stuffed shirts" if you like, but some of us are actually devoted to creating a decent encyclopedia. ---Charles 15:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Royale with cheese"?

I've never been to Paris, but I've been to Montreal, where, despite using the metric system, they call a Quarter Pounder with Cheese exactly that: "Un Quarte de livre avec fromage." -- Pacholeknbnj, 3:49 PM EST, February 27, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.228.37.21 (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

That's because although Canada offically uses the metric system, most people are pretty common with the imperial system. --Ted87 22:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In France (at least in the McDonalds in Canet-Plage and Coquelles) they're called "Royal Cheese"...81.168.40.167 13:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Medieval" quote

...is never, ever, going to amount to more than a stub, so let's merge it here, shall we? Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. Has no significance whatsoever --Ted87 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely support. No reason for that to be a separate article. ---Charles 03:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per above --Merbabu 11:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per above--Manwithbrisk 23:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OGG Files

I have miserlou, royale with cheese, and Ezekiel 25:17 in mp3. I can email them to someone if they know how to convert them for use with wikipedia. Or if someone could tell me how to do it myself that would also be appreciated. Andman8 17:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not equipped to assist with this, I still want to comment and urge caution. I can see the point of having a short sample of Dick Dale's Miserlou on Wikipedia, on the Pulp Fiction (soundtrack) page, maybe on this article and for sure on the "Miserlou" article, but samples of the dialogue "Royale With Cheese" and "Ezekiel" wouldn't be long enough to be useful. If the entire audio passages were here, it would replace the market role of the film and the soundtrack album and be a copyright vio, pure and simple. — WiseKwai 17:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
i can see how royale with cheese and 25:17 would be copyvio but miserlou would still be a good edition. Is there a page telling you how to make ogg files?Andman8 17:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
There is Wikipedia:Media. Also, check out Wikipedia:Music samples, which describes how long audio samples of copyrighted material can be. — WiseKwai 17:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

In an effort to kill the trivia section I want to know if anyone thinks the continuity errors are encyclopedic or important. Some are quite minor, as in a cigarette changing hands, but others are slightly more important. In the end I don't think any of them are important enough to warrant mention. Yea or nay?--Supernumerary 01:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea to you... Remove them (unless you find something totally notable... or at least important enough to mention). Cbrown1023 01:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Remove them. --GHcool 03:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
the only important continuity is the four bullet holes in the wall before the shooting but I think that can be incorporated into the production section. Andman8 04:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
The other one that was borderline was the extra bullet that is used to kill the guy coming out of the bathroom in the apartment.--Supernumerary 23:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"When Butch decides to help Marsellus, he passes a wall with Tennessee license plates. Butch previously mentions on the phone with his brother that he is from Tennessee and is planning to return. He remembers his father's ordeal in Vietnam and how men are supposed to help each other in tough situations." This quote sounds like analysis that might be mentioned elsewhere. If we find a source it can be added back in.--Supernumerary 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Great job getting rid of the trivia. The one bit about Samuel L. Jackson's character possibly being in Kill Bill is pure speculation, though. I think I'll remove it. His Kill Bill character, Rufus, was much older than Jules would have been in the Taratinoverse, though admittedly it's hard to pin down exact dates and decades when it comes to Taratino movies. However, he says he played with Rufus Thomas, Archie Bell and Drells, the Drifters, etc. "If they came through Texas, I played with them," he says, putting the character in Texas probably sometime during the R&B heyday of the 1960s. — WiseKwai 15:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

leave it for now, there are bigger fish to fry. the "other production details" is the same as "trivia" just with more lipstick slathered on. look at Psycho (1960 film) or Alien (film) or any other nicely constructed production section to see how bad pulp's currently is. The three parts (briefcase,homage,25:17) are nice but much less important than the script, shooting, etc.

  • Pulp Fiction (Bfi Modern Classics Distributed for the British Film Institute)
  • Quentin Tarantino: The Cinema of Cool
  • Raised by Wolves: The Turbulent Art and Times of Quentin Tarantino

these would all be great hard copy sources we could use Andman8 17:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that continuity errors (of sorts) are quite important in Pulp Fiction, as some of them seem to have been fabricated into the film intentionally (remember that it is called Pulp Fiction), e.g. when the Wolfe is shown for the first time, he is seen wearing a smoking and appears to be at some sort of party, however, it cannot be later than lunchtime (given that Vincent and Jules raided the flat early morning). I am sure there are more of these, and they are definetly worth mentioning. 82.10.178.69 17:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wolfe is hosting an all night poker party My names Rubberchix And I eat Buttons 20:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Structure

This article could benefit from a restructuring. I really don't see why the cast is ahead of the plot (but am willing to leave it there for the moment to see what might come of it). I think that we could collapse the "Themes" and "Analysis" sections into one. "Impact" could be moved into "Reception." "Homage as style" is a toss up. I don't think it merits its own section, but am willing to be persuaded as Tarantino has been known to load down his films with an excessive amount of allusions and homages. If it stays fairly small it can be moved into "Production." It might also be a good idea to wikilink to the appropriate section on Tarantino's article that discusses his style.--Supernumerary 04:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"analysis" is a bad title for a subsection and the info should be moved to a new part of the article. the themes and impact sections are important though as they appear in nearly all FAs. Andman8 04:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see the homages and other bits, like the Ezekial section, kept in the article but being grouped under "Production", and being under yet another subsection of that called "Origins". What does anyone think about that? — WiseKwai 08:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Cast

The cast section needs to not reiterate the plot like it does now but talk about the characters ideals and or how the role changed the actor's career. Andman8 04:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

So it should be more of a casting/life after the film deal?--Supernumerary 23:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I think so. The Blade Runner article seems to focus on the actors and avoid the plot or describe the ethos/logos/pathos of character. Andman8 01:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot Length

I did some work on the plot, cutting it down to 2,131 words from 2,592 words. This is not that much of an improvement since the guidelines state, "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reasons such as a complicated plot." I'll say that the plot qualifies as complicated, but I don't know if it should be over say 1,500 words. Any ideas on what could be condensed?--Supernumerary 00:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The plot says that Marvin is an informant for Marsellus, but the cast says that Marvin is just a thief. Which is right?--Supernumerary 00:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Marvin was the inside man in the briefcase deal. Jules and Vincent were upset that Marvin didn't warn them about the guy in the bathroom with the "hand cannon". And after the deal was done, Marvin rides away with Jules and Vincent, but is then accidentally shot, and Jules and Vincent are disappointed. I hope that makes sense. — WiseKwai 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It does. Thanks!--Supernumerary 19:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot down to 1540 words, can it really be brought lower?

I don't think the plot can really be brought down to any fewer words because a lot of the plot is in the details.

I don't think we can really ask for more. It's as short as it's going to get except for the few words that tweaking and revising will take out, but we're at the point of diminishing returns.--Supernumerary 02:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems the recent Plot deletions were made on a much older version of the article, undoing many edits to its body size, grammar, and punctuation since then. After undoing this effective revert and combining the deletions made, the section is now ~1200 including the introductory paragraphs. However I believe that style guidelines would have us combine or move the majority of those introductory paragraphs into the lead paragraphs of the article, allowing us to cut the plot to an ideal 900 word max for a complex, pseudo-anthology film such as this.--Hondo 09:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I added some details to the plot summary before reading about the attempts to shorten it. I still feel that the details I added are important, but feel free to delete them if you feel it makes the section too long. Chocaholic 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

Even though it's on IMDB, I still do not believe this: "When the film was initially released in the United Arab Emirates, local distributors thought they had received a "mixed-up" copy of the film, so they recut the entire film, placing it in chronological order." I'm going to remove it until a source can be found for it. I personally don't see how someone wouldn't just call someone else and sort it out before recutting the film.--Supernumerary 05:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading something about this somewhere, possibly on one of the pop-up trivia nuggets on the DVD. I'll give it another watch and see if anything comes up. — WiseKwai 15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Noir/ neo noir

I've made a minor edit, linking the non-linear structure to neo-noir (noir) conventions. Although the Homage as Style section mentions the relationship between the movie and gangster films, there is much material out there to warrant inclusion here of a small section on the film's neo noir credentials with sources. I'd be happy to write this if required. :) High Heels on Wet Pavement 18:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do.--Supernumerary 23:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do it this weekend-- have been busy since I wrote this but I didn't forget. When I've written it, I'd like to have it checked over by someone on the team for appropriateness to the site... if possible. thanks. :) High Heels on Wet Pavement 19:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC) hmmm.... now I'm weighing up neo-noir v postmodern noir... referring to textual sources. any thoughts appreciated in meantime High Heels on Wet Pavement 21:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiss Me Deadly?

The glowing briefcase is an intentional echo of the 1955 film noir Kiss Me Deadly, in which a briefcase glows from its nuclear contents. When Tarantino learned of the similarity, he said it was purely accidental but that he liked the idea.

"Intentional" or "purely accidental" - which is it? The two are mutually exclusive.

Shot To The Heart

I've removed the line:

The specific shot in which Vincent injects the adrenaline into Mia was filmed backwards.

This is wrong - to quote from an interview with Greg Nicotero - one of the SFX guys for Pulp, in Ultraviolent Movies: From Sam Peckinpah to Quentin Tarantino (Laurent Bouzereau, 2000), regarding the scene in question:

In our meeting I said we should do a reverse shot where you take the syringe without the needle and you put it on Uma's chest and you yell, "Action!" and you pull it away. Then you reverse the shot and you get an incredible blow and impact. But that was never shot" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawfulhippo (talk • contribs) 11:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Spike Lee criticism

Spike Lee heavily criticised Tarantino for being a white guy using the N-word so much in this film. Jackson came to his defense. Surely this should be mentioned within the article. RoyBatty42 18:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Structure

The Structure section lists the Gold Watch sequence as being first chronologically, which is true if it means Christopher Walken talking to Butch, however the entire subplot with Butch retrieving the watch can't be lumped together with this sequence as Vincent dies during it, making it obviously last to occur. Eightball 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Some Thoughts

I just finished making a bunch of edits and I have some thoughts as to how to improve the page further.

- The opening paragraph before the table of contents is pretty long and includes some information that either already exists elsewhere or would be better placed elsewhere. The second paragraph about the non-linear structure is repeated many times in the rest of the article, and the bit about the movie being based on pulp fiction strikes me as vague and probably untrue. Also, the third paragraph is pretty much the same as the opening paragraph of the cast section, so one of them should probably go.

- The bulk of the edits that I made were on the plot summary, which had some poorly written pieces and some incorrect details. However, I think it could be pared down massively; in some of the sections it is describing the movie scene-by-scene and even shot-by-shot. I don't think it would be too difficult to get it within the suggested guidelines.

- The whole characters section seems unnecessary, it mostly repeats stuff already said in the plot section. Same with the structure section.

- The homage as style section has a paragraph about Tarantino's made up brands, which doesn't seem like it fits under the definition of homage. Also, perhaps somebody in the know could explain exactly what significance, if any, the setting of the clocks to 4:20 has to drug culture. More generally, I think that of the sections explaining various parts of the movie (homage as style, briefcase, bible passage, etc.) could be compressed and combined into one section called "Analysis," or something. I saw that another user didn't like that idea because it goes against the neutral-POV rule, but I don't think that necessarily has to. The shot through the heart section, the bible passage section, and the briefcase section are all purely informational, and the toilet motif isn't really analysis so much as observation, it doesn't seem like its meaning could be debated. The redemption and conversion section is certainly a matter of opinion, but I feel like a lot of critics have pointed this out and it should he mentioned. Maybe analysis is a bad name for it, I just can't think of a better one . . .

- A lot of stuff is mentioned many times throughout the article, particularly the bit about non-linear structure. I think that one mention of the wierd structure, either in the opening paragraph or in the "analysis paragraph," plus the listing of the true chronological order of the stories.

- Throughout the plot section, lines of dialogue are quoted, probably because it is so good and people couldn't resist putting them in (including me). I propose that we create a quotations section, like on the Casablanca page, and remove the quotes from the plot section. This would also help with making the plot section less detail oriented.

Finally, I may have gone overboard with some of my edits, but the majority of them I think were mainly good. If you feel like you have to revert it, please try to do it manually to just the parts that you liked better the old way, as opposed to the whole edit, because I spent a lot of time on this and I would really hate to see it go to waste.

Please tell me if you think my suggestions are good; if people are in agreement I would be willing to do most or all of the changes myself.

Chocaholic 04:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction about Jodi's Piercings

I would like to respectfully submit a correction for the information about the character Jodi, played by Rosanna Arquette. She is listed here as having sixteen piercings. This is, in fact, what it says in the script (found at IMDb.com and elsewhere). But in the film itself, she actually says she has seventeen. Specifically, "Five in each ear, one in the nipple of my left breast, two in my right nostril, my lip, my eyebrow, my clit. And I wear a stud in my tongue." The script says only one in her right nostril. I found a still from the film that clearly shows two piercings in her right nostril, but attempting to create a link to the photo failed. If you would like to view the still, I found it by searching Yahoo images using the terms "Rosanna Arquette Pulp Fiction". I did not want to edit the page itself without being able to link to a creditable source (besides which, I'm brand new here and totally unsure of what I'm doing), and every script available online has Jodi saying she has sixteen piercings. If there's anyone here who can help validate my correction, I'd appreciate it. I realize having seen the movie ten or more times doesn't quite cut it as creditable proof, but I cannot get my link to work. Can anyone back me up?Traceracer-X 12:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Different redirects

There is a problem with redirects. Pulp Fiction (film) is redirected to Pulp Fiction while Talk:Pulp Fiction is redirected to Talk:Pulp Fiction (film). Can someone figure out which redirect should be used and then correct this mess? --Crzycheetah 08:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Move requested. Chris Cunningham 15:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Moved. Chris Cunningham 08:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you moved the wrong page? The film should be at Pulp Fiction (Film) wasn't it? from the talk archive: Talk:Pulp_Fiction/Archive_1#Move_article.~ Feureau E.S.P. 07:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The current title (in title case) is unambiguous. Non-archived talk seems to favour the current title. Chris Cunningham 08:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"That's how you're going to beat 'em, Butch"

There is a fact tag next to this quote in the article, but I'm not sure as to why. I can confirm on the regular DVD edition, this quote is said at around the 1h 34m mark. JRHorse 01:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Plot section

Argh. This is now insane. I'm going to hack at this mercilessly until it barely needs a spoiler tag. It's almost as long as the film itself right now. Chris Cunningham 15:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've killed the whole section. This isn't a novelisation project. The article should focus on analysis and reception, not in describing the entire plot with a running commentary. Chris Cunningham 14:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but you missed a paragraph. I'll kill it. The problem is now that there is a section called Plot with absolutely no plot in it, just a limited analysis.--Fizbin 00:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) I think the new focus on analysis rather than narration should be good for the article. Chris Cunningham 08:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Butch-Bathroom Submachine Gun?

The article says it is a MAC-10, but provides no source for that statement. The gun looks like it is a smaller MAC-11. Does anyone have any info on this? SirBob42 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's DEFINATELY not a MAC-10, the gun is too large to be one. I'd say it's more along the lines of a MAC-11. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 21:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It really looks like a MAC-10 to me, and the IMFDb agrees. MAC-11s have wire frame folding stocks, MAC-10s have more substantial stamped steel folding stocks - from the still on the IMFDb it looks like a MAC-10. Crserrano 21:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Either way, it is the exact model number really relevant to this article? Would the movie be different if he had an Uzi instead? It's better to just say 'gun' or 'sub machine gun'. Model numbers is trivia. Ashmoo 09:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It's relevant that Snake Pliskin, from Escape From New York, uses the same model machine gun. Obviously Tarantino is a Pliskin fan. WikiTracker 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dumb and Dumber

Really, there is more homage to this film than all the others put together. Watch it if you dont beleive me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.163.65.186 (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm guessing that you're a troll, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are just ignorant. Dumb & Dumber was released two months after Pulp Fiction. It would be really hard to reference a movie that hadn't come out yet. SirBob42 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Dumb and Dumber came out in late 1994. Pulp Fiction was early 1995.

Pulp Fiction, Dumb & Dumber Compare the release dates. Then, sign your comments. SirBob42 05:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have heard from John Travolta's pool boy in law that Quentie-poo deliberatlyly made fun of the peple who like him by homoagaing Dumb and Dumber.172.172.239.122 02:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC) PROFIT OF POLING!!

Out of logic, please consider firstly that because two films are released at different times hardly means that one has paid homage to the other; Pulp Fiction began filming in early 1993 as per dvd-extras and, it's likely that there was no discernible crossover due to the fact that it's very unlikely that the films were produced asynchronously and released to pay homage to one another. I'm sure that for some, it seems like there is some crossover, but then there are very similar elements in many films, due to the fact that toilets are generally pretty much the same in similar situations.
Consider also Quentin's style; in his films, and indeed in real life, he is a film fanatic and is overly verbose. I'm SURE that if there were some "homage", he surely would note it, as again, in the DVD-extras, he refers back to other films that were released in the early 1990's -- "All these films where young kids are filming each-other with video cameras" with reference to an unused scene with Vincent Vega and Mia Wallace filming him in an interview style. Similarly, he also refers several times to "Intruder" and numerous other films which he DIRECTLY gives homage to and TELLS us.
Finally, at the time of filming and then at release, Tarantino also notes "I thought that someone would just get up and say.. "get the fuck out of here", but ... told me to calm down and he'd support me;". Now, let's note this -- at the time, Quentin was known for reservoir dogs, but still somewhat unknown in celebrity terms; IMDB says that he appeared in one film between the two in a somewhat minor role as a voice over (The Coriolis Effect (1994) (voice) .... Panhandle Slim... aka Kisses in the Dark (USA: video compilation title)) and it's likely that he wasn't really chumming it up with Peter Farrelly as he was literally unknown as a writer on Seinfeld in 1992, and it's VERY unlikely he'd be looking for comedy scripts, which he would then read, THEN give homage to. It's unlikely also, that he would RECIEVE them, as he was well known for being a "lover of violent films". To give homage to something, generally you accredit it.
I'm sorry for the lengthy repost, but i'm really quite fed up with this nonsense. The repeated vandalism that followed my reversion of his edits is proof positive that it's likely he's trolling. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 21:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This entry misses the main thrust of the movie

It's described in the first paragraph as a 'essentially a black comedy with lots of pulp culture references' (a discription that fits Scary Movie better) and then later there's some GCSE level analysis of 'redemption' being the main theme. Redemption is hardly enough to constitute a theme. Redemption by what means? Redemption FROM what? Most professional critical analysis of Pulp Fiction, such as the essays included on the special edition DVD or with the published screenplay, recognizes the role of 'pulp fiction' or pop culture points of reference in modern amorality as the main theme, what the film is 'about.' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.195.48.81 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

I actually agree. Would you be able to suggest changes? ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussions of the references/homages, and of the plot events, seem to be taking place in a vacuum; they should be informed by the same main theme. I suggest writing a succinct overview of what the movie is 'about,' with reference to published rewiews/critiques. It wouldn't need to be extensive, but i think it would be far more useful to the reader than detailed but dispirate explorations of plot elements and filming techniques.

Spoiler warning

Tha article needs one. 218.186.9.1 02:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

does any one want the soundtrack to be included with this?

Media:http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/7/10/122258/Pulp Fiction Soundtrack - Opening Theme.mp3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.67.163 (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Who moved this?

This was just listed as an uncontroversial move and shifted to a disambig page (breaking the archive link yet again), apparently based on an ancient piece of discussion. Before I waste time getting this moved back, can we agree that this doesn't need to be disambiguated? Gah. Chris Cunningham 15:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree; the disambig page actually just lists "Pulp Fiction" and any derivative works. If there aren't DIFFERENT applications (other titles, other uses) then there shouldn't be one, seen as the soundtrack is based off the same film. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I asked for the move and removed both disambig from Pulp fiction and Pulp Fiction (film) and the archive link is now fixed. This is per the move concensus you can find at the first archive. Also, I think the soundtrack should be merged into this article seeing there isn't much content on the soundtrack article itself and it's not that notable as a sountrack album. - Time Immemorial 13:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I've explained on the soundtrack talk page exactly why the article should not be merged, and I've provided new, sourced content on talk to expand the article. —Viriditas | Talk 14:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has turned to shit; revert to older revision, delete soundtrack article

Whoever started the article move has definitely had a detrimental effect on the article's quality.. it's gone horrendous. Wh o agrees that it should be reverted? ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 07:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Note -- Please re-add referenced material into this form, the other one was extremely messy and just made the article look very, very bad. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 07:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, can you add a link to the diff in the page revision history that you want to revert back to so we can see it? —Viriditas | Talk 12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)#
Hi; sorry, it's been resolved now. Thanks a lot :-) ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 14:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope I didn't dash your hopes with my latest restoration of deleted content. —Viriditas | Talk 20:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, i've not actually contributed content to this article; just reverted and de-vandalised :-( ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 20:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of "Trivia" re-creation.

Please refrain from adding a trivia section until the article has undergone it's restructuring and referencing. Although it's correct, it paves way for more and more trivia to be created and should generally be discouraged. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this. —Viriditas | Talk 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reinvigorating carreer?

While PF has been credited as reinvigorating the career of John Travolta, this paragraph seems to take it over the edge and sounds like OR or Speculation. I think it should be moved here and improved then when we have concensus, merge it back to the article.

The film had a significant impact on the careers of many of its cast members. It provided a breakthrough role for Samuel L. Jackson, who became an international star in a part Tarantino wrote especially for him.[1] It revived the fortunes of John Travolta, whose career was slumping at the time; Bruce Willis was able to move away from his typecasting as the action hero; and it raised the profile of Uma Thurman and led to greater recognition for character actors such as Ving Rhames and Eric Stoltz.

- Time Immemorial 05:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh. It needs more sourcing, but it establishes the film's notability. The last line is probably superfluous to requirements. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dominic Wills. "Samuel L. Jackson Biography". Tiscali. Retrieved 2006-12-27.

Disambiguation

Could we stop this without any discussion, please? There's no need for disambig links on unambiguous articles. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The disambiguation should be move to the top of the Pulp Fiction (film) page. rewguy 1:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

STRONGLY DISAGREE - Just because it isn't ambiguous to you doesn't mean it isn't to others. The term "pulp fiction" was around (and popular) LONG before the film was made. And if someone doesn't happen to be a Tarantino fan or a film buff, the other meaning (pulp fiction) is a very likely target in a search. I can understand why some fans of the film might not realize the importance of the other use of the term, but I am completely amazed at the suggestion that this change should be made without discussion. Ward3001 00:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has naming conventions for a good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.51.246 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue was settled by consensus below. Ward3001 (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot

While I'm not sure exactly how many days the plot takes place over, I can count at least 3, the plot says two but I'm pretty sure it takes place over more than two days...

Error in Plot section -- The article states Mia and Vincent win the twist contest, yet this is not true. While they do take the trophy home, we later hear on the radio (as Butch is walking past the apartments) that the trophy was stolen. Ptkdude 02:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction in Popular Culture

A previous user deleted this section without transferring editors' work to PF in Popular Culture as per their own suggested home for it. I have reinstated that section so I could pick up the text ONLY, moved the text, and re-deleted the section. raining girl 13:56, 23 July 2007

It's such a shame that the information on Pulp Fiction in popular culture is lost due to the successful AfD. Can it be rescued from the deleted article, cut a bit and put into this article? I have no idea how to see text from a deleted article. Scarykitty 01:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Time Line

Although I appreciate 71.101.34.238's painstaking efforts at creating the "List of Events" and "Order of Events", I would have much preferred all that effort be put into a traditional plot summary divided into scenes (i.e., "List of Events" fleshed out into brief paragraphs), followed by a simple listing of scenes in chronological order. I think it would be easier to follow. Any other opinions? Ward3001 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there was one in the past - it might be worth a trawl in the history files. Girolamo Savonarola 22:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The time line was great, particulalry the realtime version. Why remove it? Leave it . . . --Fizbin 23:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. And as mentioned, there are previously existing plot sections that did the job well - nothing needs to be written. Just requires a little digging. Girolamo Savonarola

Okay, I've restored the last viable plot summary I could find (back to April!). It's obviously way too detailed, as the tag above it notes, but I think that I speak for most when I say that too much is better than none. Hopefully someone else more skilled can do a proper chop-job. I've also deleted the timeline wholesale, with the exception of the order of events - which is poorly formatted and overly detailed, but I think is a worthy section, and could also use a good cleanup. Girolamo Savonarola 23:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Dance Scene at Jackrabbit Slim's

When Travolta's character dances, his hand gestures with two finger extended reference the Batusi from the 1960's Batman tv series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.32.120 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Says who?—DCGeist (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

gun type

re the gun that kills Vincent: "The Gold Watch" says silenced MAC 10, "Bathrooms" says MAC 11. This should be made consistent. Fnorth 21:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please fix this in Vincent Vega (which says MAC-11) if necessary as well. kthxbye

Wow!!! Plot is mad!

This article has possibly the largest 'summary' I have ever seen on this site. It could easily be seen as copyright infringement as it goes into so much detail. I don't currently have a copy of Pulp Fiction in my collection, and don't like reworking existing plots. Please could someone do a major rework of this? If not, I will go out and buy the movie and give it a shot.-Localzuk(talk) 12:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary was recovered from an old summary that was deleted long ago. Prior to the recovery, there was NO plot summary. It was re-added with the rationale that a summary that is too long is better than no summary, and with the hope that, over time, editors would shorten it. So by all means, give it your best shot. Ward3001 16:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, with it being a copyright issue, no plot is better than an overly long one. Describing a movie in such detail detracts from the profitability of the movie, thus making it a copyright issue as far as I know. (I am trying to dig out which policy had this in).-Localzuk(talk) 17:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
A plot summary in any depth is not equivalent to infringing on copyrights for a visual work. In any case, everyone agrees that the plot summary is flawed as it currently exists (and it is tagged as such). If you feel like trimming the fat, by all means go ahead. Girolamo Savonarola 22:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are incorrect about the copyright issue. A visual work is a production from a script, from a story. That story is owned by the writer or the copyright owner. Reproducing it from a movie, even if it is not the exact same text as anywhere else would be copyright infringement. For example, if I went out and wrote a book based on the James Bond movie, Goldeneye, (but didn't name it that), I could be sued for copyright infringement.
When I find a local shop selling a cheap copy of Pulp Fiction I will have a go at shortening it.-Localzuk(talk) 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I'm familiar with from my research on copyrights. It might be easier for me if you could give me some references regarding your argument. I'll try to look for some with mine. (But just to note again, I am not defending the current state of the plot summary; merely noting that, as far as I can tell, it isn't a legal violation - just a style issue). Girolamo Savonarola 22:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Here - Copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. Girolamo Savonarola 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to dig up where I read this, but there are so many policy, guideline etc... pages now, it is taking a while.-Localzuk(talk) 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Also: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Fair_use: It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work [emphasis mine], or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation. In this case, the article is considered "the work", so an overly long plot summary standing alone might be exposed by that, but in the context of an encyclopedia article, it passes muster. The main thing is simply that the use of copyrighted material (ie the actual text, sound, and images) be small enough to be considered acceptable fair use.
Again, if you can find any other information that would contradict these, please feel free to bring it to attention, as it would be good general knowledge to have. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 23:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hemingway influence

I dont know if im the only one, but i feel that some some of Hemingways "the killers" can be seen in Pulp Fiction.. Perhaps some of the Pulp Fiction experts should read the short story by Hemingway and decide62.107.84.214 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Awards

The awards section notes that the film won many awards, listing the screenplay Academy Award, but then listing a number of personal awards given to actors at the BAFTA. Several Pulp Fiction actors won personal Academy Awards; this section should list all the awards from both festivals, or should limit itself to only awards won by the movie as a whole in both. Mixing it up is misleading--a reader might naturally assume that since John Travolta's Best Actor BAFTA is listed, any acting Oscars would also be listed, making this all a lie of omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.22.77 (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No actors in the film won "personal" Academy Awards.—DCGeist 23:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I seem to recall Samuel L. Jackson being, uh, vocal about losing the Academy Award to Martin Landau. WesleyDodds 10:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction is a genre

Someone want to explain why Pulp Fiction redirects to the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.174.31 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to. "Pulp Fiction"--i.e., both words capitalized--is a proper noun that is the name of the well-known movie and thus properly redirects to it. The name of the genre is a common noun, "pulp fiction"--i.e., both words lowercased. If you type that into the search box, it does not redirect to the movie.—DCGeist 05:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Archives

The talkpage archives here are slightly broken. Archive 2 is a complete mirror of Archive 1, except that the last 4 threads are missing. I'd suggest deleting the page Archive 2, and moving Archive 3 to replace it. --Quiddity 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"snorts coke in the john"

I've replaced my previous edit that was reverted, for reasons unknown, by DCGeist. In my opinion the entire section is unencyclopedic garbage, but my opinion doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact that the passage is poorly written and may be unclear to certain readers. Not everyone will know what "snorts coke in the john" means. My edit was intended to remedy a shortcoming and it did so, without altering a single word of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear what "unencyclopedic garbage" means. Could you please link the phrase to make it clear to me and certain readers? Thank you.—16:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)DCGeist
If I offended anyone, I apologize. Can you please explain why you insist on removing my helpful hyperlinks? Forgive me again, but please see here for some editing guidelines. I'll replace the links, and kindly request that you not remove them without a clearly outlined and justifiable reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wolf's girlfriend

The article says Raquel is Winston Wolf's girlfriend. I see no indication of that from the movie. In fact his flirtations with her seem to counter-indicate a close relationship between them. 164.144.240.25 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Aganon

It is clear from the deleted scenes on the Pulp Fiction DVD that Raquel is Winston's girlfriend. If there was no indication of this in the final release cut, it would be irrelevant, but in the final version of the film Winston in fact does say to Vincent and Jules, "I'm taking my lady to breakfast."—DCGeist 20:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

DCGeist

I have simply tried to make the summary a summary instead of a blow by blow account of the whole film, what is your problem with that, I realize that you have put a lot of work into this article, but it's not like I'm vandalizing the page or something. I just believe the summary section is too long and this HAS already been brought up, what is the point of changing the article back and forth between your's and mine? There is completely irrelevant info in that section and I'm trying to clean it up!--Dominik92 00:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the plot section is too long. It is no longer than most plot sections for major blockbusters like Pulp Fiction. It has subheadings for organization that may give the appearance of length, but I think if you did a word count it would be about average. And unless I missed something, the criticism of the plot being too long was for a very old plot summary that was exhumed from the distant edit history because there was no plot summary. That old plot summary was too long, but the current version is not that long. Check the very old history of edits to the plot section. Ward3001 00:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. In addition, the material that Dominik92 wants to cut is by no means "completely irrelevant," as he says. The conversation between Jules and Vincent in the car is one of the most notable and remarked-upon pieces of dialogue in the film (and, I dare say, in 1990s Hollywood cinema). For those who don't have the entire movie memorized, locating it in the film's sequence and introducing the phrase "Royale with Cheese" by which it is known is very relevant indeed to a good understanding of the film.—DCGeist 07:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added a well-sourced sentence on the dialogue's fame to the "Influence and reputation" section that should sufficiently evidence the "relevance" of indicating (a) where this dialogue appears in the film and (b) its most significant contents, as the plot summary has done and again does.—DCGeist 08:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tag team reverting

Bullets are terrible ways to break pages. It is inconsistent with the style of all the other articles. I've never even seen them used in this manner before, and for good reason. They screw up the rendering in several browsers and look entirely ridiculous in others. In addition, "the triple apostrophes ( ''' ) that make words appear in boldface are not used in headings. Nest headings correctly" (Wp:mos#Section headings). DCGeist, Ward3001, either of you want to explain why both of you insist on tag team reverting an inferior version of the article that doesn't even render correctly, and insist on throwing out accusations? 64.91.188.189 21:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with what you see as "terrible" formatting, but I'll let DCGeist provide his explanation since he made the edits. Your accusation of "tag team reverting" is uncalled for. We both happen to disagree with you; there is no conspiracy against you. Ward3001 22:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you provide an explanation? You aren't exempt from discussion. My accusation of "tag team reverting" stands, much more than your failed assertion of me violating the 3RR. 64.91.188.189 22:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The 3RR assertion is not failed. Read my comment on your talk page. And I have every right to disagree with you while allowing the original editor to explain the edits. Once again, please cool down and keep the discussion civil. Ward3001 22:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's centralize your defamation to my user talk page, where you can continue to falsely accuse me of violating the 3RR. On this page, I'd like you to explain the reasoning for your edits instead of relying on DCGeist to do it for you. 64.91.188.189 22:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you're making false accusations. I have not defamed you. Read my response about 3RR on your talk page. And, once again, please cool down and stop making false assumptions about me (or at least stop expressing them). I can agree with DCGeist without having to repeat back what he says. Ward3001 22:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Stop telling me to cool down when you are the one who has escalated the situation. Please cease your false accusations on this talk page. I don't mind you slandering me all you want on my user talk page, but please don't force it on others who happen to stumble upon this talk page. 64.91.188.189 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This is my last response to you on this talk page. I may have other things to say to other editors, but none of my comments will be directed toward you, so please do not interpret them that way. Ward3001 23:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
So much for discussion, eh? Interesting that you haven't yet responded or commented about Eleland's statements below, but continue to pretend to promote the very thing you avoid. 64.91.188.189 23:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Anon, I explained in my most recent edit summary why the version you and you alone prefer is inferior. I'm more than happy to see you come up with a formatting style that clearly and accurately indicates the structure of the film as the current format does for most (though apparently not all) common browsers. The style you wanted to introduce and repeatedly reverted to doesn't come close, I'm afraid.—DCGeist 22:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me add, the use of bullets is extremely common in Wikipedia, so common it can easily be considered standard practice. Ward3001 22:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
They are used, but never in this manner. I'm trying to keep with Wikipedia:Accessibility, as the inferior reversion both of you insist on keeping simply doesn't work in many browsers. Although neither of you have said anything against my changing of the bolded text. If you have nothing against it, why the hell didn't you do a partial revert? That'd be the civil thing to do. 64.91.188.189 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
We didn't mention them because they are part and parcel of your poor reformatting. The bolded text are not "headings" in the sense of subsection titles--the MOS topic you reference. They reflect the lead intertitles of the film itself and are essential to understanding the film's narrative structure and style. To format them as nested subsection headers would be incorrect.—DCGeist 22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
How can you so easily speak for Ward3001? Let him explain for himself. The bolded text are headings in the sense of subsection titles. They are clearly subsections of the plot. 64.91.188.189 22:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with DCGeist on this issue. Ward3001 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I agree that you're wrong. How's that for the discussion you claim to promote on my user talk page? 64.91.188.189 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely correct that bullets should not be used in this manner. Not only do they no show in some browsers, they do not create proper entries in the table of contents and they are useless for visually impaired people using screen readers. Their use here appears to be an attempt to replicate Ellipsis as might be used in a printed work, but this isn't paper and we shouldn't try to use typographical symbols instead of standard Wiki formatting. If it is considered vital to replicate the lead intertitles of the film, then do it with normal headings. <eleland/talkedits> 22:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Ellipses

  • Should <br/> tags and * * * be used to delimit portions of the plot summary?
  • I think the issue regarding screen readers for visually-impaired readers is valid, so I would be interested in comments from visually-impaired editors. But I have a question about table-of-content entries: Wouldn't the TOC entries be correct if the proper markup for subheadings (equal symbols) is used, with or without breaks? Ward3001 23:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As long as the === notation is used, the contents are generated properly. <eleland/talkedits> 23:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Headings should always, always, always be made with "==" and "===", with no exceptions. All modern screen readers allow the user to navigate between headings with a single key, and headings are an important way to define the structure of the page. For that reason, they should always be nested correctly. By default, most screen readers, including the most popular one JAWS, don't give any indication at all when you hit bold text, so the section title and the section text would run together which sounds very strange. The "***" trick sounds precisely like this by default with JAWS: "list of 1 items, bullet, list of 1 items nesting level 1, bullet, list of 1 items nesting level 2, bullet, list end nesting level 2, list end nesting level 1, list end". Everything separated by commas is read on its own line, so I have to arrow down nine times to hear what is basically junk. Graham87 01:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If you find a formatting trick that expresses the complexities of the film without sacrificing accessibility, then go for it. At the moment I can't think of one besides using subheadings. The current layout is unacceptable from an accessibility standpoint. I'll inform the people at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility about this conversation - I'll see if I can get some sighted people to help. Graham87 13:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Having read the article all the way through, I think I understand the issue a bit better now. You need some way to signify the relationship between the three concurrent storylines, the different scenes of the film and the film's non-linearity. I personally don't understand how subsections hinder that goal - if the subsection names were made more descriptive, would that help? I have only engaged properly in about half a dozen films in my whole lifetime - not being able to see doesn't help, as well as the fact that I have trouble following plot lines generally. So I'm afraid that this is way out of my league ... Graham87 14:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Whichever way we do it we shouldn't use breaks and bullet points - it's ugly, unprofessional, and goes against our MOS. Using subheadings might not be ideal but until a decent alternative is put forward we should use them. I've put HRs in there to help towards a compromise - can we now have the discussion on this page rather than edit warring? violet/riga (t) 15:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the horizontal rules - they do read in JAWS as "dash dash dash" under the default settings but they sound much better than what was there before. Graham87 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. That has no bearing on where Pulp Fiction should redirect (probably here, with a dablink to resolve any residual issues). Dekimasuよ! 00:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction (film) → Pulp Fiction — the uppercase entry should be the film —Ewlyahoocom 05:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support The main entry at Pulp Fiction goes back and forth between a redirect to the film and a disambiguation page (see its history). Moving the page should settle the matter once and for all. Ewlyahoocom 05:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - The issue was discussed a bit previously, here. I'll repeat part of my previous comment. Pulp fiction should be a disambiguation page, and the capitalized words (Pulp Fiction) should redirect to the disambiguation page. People older than about 50 know that the term "pulp fiction" was around (and popular) LONG before the film was made. In fact, the film derived its name from the older term. And if someone doesn't happen to be a Tarantino fan or a film buff, the other meaning (pulp fiction) is a very likely target in a search. To assume that most readers would be looking for the article on the film is a rather self-centered position. Let's be a little more broad-minded and let the reader decide which article he would rather go to. Ward3001 02:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for providing an illustration of the problem if someone is not familiar with one of the uses of the term. If I was interested in Bedtime story, but entered Bedtime Story to search, I am presented with an article about a Madonna song. If I'm new to Wikipedia, I may be a bit confused ... but there's a link to another article on the same page, but that takes me to an article about a film. And on the film article there are no more disambiguation links. As a newbie, I might then conclude that there is no article about Bedtime story. All of the confusion could be avoided with a disambiguation page that briefly explains the meanings and lets me choose. Ward3001 03:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I've adjusted the dablink at the top of Bedtime Story to address the problem you describe. I'm not sure that has any bearing on what to do with this article. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, rules have been ignored on both sides of this issue -- hence the re-un-re-reverting going on with this link. Perhaps a little discussion can help bring some closure? And I can't vouch for the readers, but given the links to "Pulp Fiction" the editors appear to have made up their minds that it's supposed to be the film. Ewlyahoocom 03:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that we need discussion to avoid the "re-un-re-reverting". But I disagree with your premise that the article with the most links to it should be where Pulp Fiction goes. There are MANY articles with similar names that are first found on a disambiguation page, regardless of which one has the most links to it. And this is an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be convenient for readers. Editors opinions are important, but making Wikipedia convenient, readable, and easy to navigate should be a more important concern. Other encylopedias don't ignore the "useability" to the reader so that editors can be happy. And we're talking about one click of the mouse to go from a disambiguation page to the article on the film. Ward3001 03:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Right now it appears to be one editor representing each side of the argument. I think we need much more opinion for consensus. If other editors don't weigh in within a day or two, we need to post a request for comment. Ward3001 03:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Even as a film buff, "pulp fiction" refers primarily to the original namesake. It just so happens that there is a film named after it. Reginmund 06:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The name with title case should be the film, with appropriate hatnotes to other pages. older ≠ wiser 12:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with all of the points Ward3001 has made above. In addition, I think it is best practice to have any and all films whose titles are common nouns or phrases formatted in this way--with the entry title including the clarifying and restrictive "(film).—DCGeist 15:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pulp Fiction, the film, got its name and style from the concept of "pulp fiction" novels. This should stay the way it has. I had actually closed this, but someone reverted it. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    You might try discussing your points rather than deciding that you are possessed of infallible knowledge to interpret Wikipedia guidelines (ALL of which allow exceptions by both WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE). The title of the movie in Title Case is distinct from the generic term. older ≠ wiser 00:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    And the generic term is far more notable, older, and more important than a cult movie. This is a nobrainer decline. Also cease the personal attacks please? ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Difference of case of letters is often not enough distinction between titles. Leaving "(film)" appended is clearer. Anthony Appleyard 22:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  1. In terms for stability, has the RfC for the stylistic issues been resolved yet? No commentary since October 13, so I don't see a reason to outright fail for stability, just curious if you feel that consensus has been reached on the MoS issues.
  2. Minor stylistic concern, but why are the category headings under "Awards" not centered?
  3. The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. Specifically, it needs to touch upon or summarize all the major points made in the article. Since the article itself is so long, this will necessitate the lead being longer than usual. For example, there's nothing in the lead currently about the plot or the production/development of the film.
  4. There are a lot names used here without proper explanation of who they are and why they are qualified not only to have such a detailed opinion of the intricacies of film, but why their opinion is notable enough to be included in this article. Under "Overview," for example you mention "Critic Geoffrey O'Brein..." Critic for what? Obviously people can click on the reference to find out, but about half a sentence should be devoted to quickly explaining who he is. For example, "Geoffrey O'Brein, a published critic of film, argues otherwise..." Later in the section, names are listed without any explanation of who they are; Nicholas Christopher, for example. Even Foster Hirsch, who has his own Wikipedia page, should have a brief description of his "qualifications" so to speak, as per my example above. Another example under "Soundtrack" is Estella Tincknell. Who is she and why is she "qualified" to tell me about the music? Same with Ken Dancyger and Paula Rabinowitz under "Influence and reputation." Also Catherine Constable and many others under "Critical analysis."
  5. The plot to me seems excessively detailed although I do acknowledge, of course, that many subtle nuances are essential to a full understanding of the film. Moreover, on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot, Pulp Fiction (although ostensibly an earlier version) is given as an example (although not for plot length, but plot ordering. Anyhow, at the moment I won't insist that it is shortened but, given the already significant length of this article, I would like to hear your justification for including such a long and detailed (more than the recommended 900 words - 1185 by my count). Small example from the first section: why does it need to be mentioned that Vega is riding shotgun, for example. In fact, parts of the plot worries me that it's written a bit too unencyclopedically - is "riding shotgun" an encyclopedic term? What about "He is in his boxing colors and it is time for the fight that he has been paid to throw." Note in that last one, I corrected the use of contractions (originally it read "it's time for the fight that he's been paid to throw"), which is another sign that the section is being written more in "layman" terms than for an encyclopedia (and this was not the only time that I made these corrections). There are many more examples, but I think that these are good examples even if it seems sort of silly to mention. I suggest a trim (even a small one would help), although I'm open to arguments as well.
  6. There are some statements, including in the lead, that sound fairly POV without a direct citation. For example, under Plot "After their witty, philosophical banter..." I found it witty as well, but unless you have a source that uses that wording, it seems like more an advertisement or opinion, especially since this is a film, which people may subjectively enjoy or dislike. Calling banter "witty" or the diner "slick" may be very obvious to anyone who's seen the film and enjoyed it but, to those who haven't, it comes across as POV, especially since these adjectives are not particularly crucial to the article.
  7. The number of quotes detracts from the prose and makes the article read more like an essay than anything else. Rather than quoting directly, it is much more preferable, stylistically, to summarize their sentiments, or quote small parts in the footnotes. Block quotes that can be replaced by summaries are superfluous. If people want to see the justification of your summary or see the exact quotes, they can check on the references or footnotes. The exception is, of course, in the reviews section, but even there summaries can be helpful.
  8. Some statements require citations:
    "Tarantino's script was produced as Reservoir Dogs, his directorial debut; Avary's, titled "Pandemonium Reigns," would form the basis for the "Gold Watch" storyline of Pulp Fiction." (Development and Production)
    "The Vietnam War veteran. Walken delivers a memorable performance in a small role. He appeared in another small but memorable role in the "Sicilian scene" in the Tarantino-written True Romance a year earlier." (Christopher Walken). Completely POV without a proper citation.
  9. "For the costumes, Tarantino took his inspiration from French director Jean-Pierre Melville, who believed that the clothes his characters wore were their symbolic suits of armor." (Development and production) This needs expansion. What does it mean? How as it practically applied to the film? To the style of costumes? One sentence is not enough to fully explain an idea as non-standard to the layman as this.
  10. Be careful of using the exact same verb consecutively. In "Release and reception," for example, the verb "wrote" is completely overused, especially when there are many other verbs that could be used in its place.
  11. The "Critical analysis" section makes me wonder if the article is focused or not. It seems to go into highly specific interpretations that are somewhat irrelevant to the understanding of the film in an encyclopedic context. I suggest that it should either be removed, or given its own article under the heading of "Critical analysis of Pulp Fiction" or something along those lines.

Aside from these concerns, the biggest problem is the prose, which even after my editing of the article, does not read well enough as an encyclopedic article (which, as mentioned above for the Plot section, needs some work - also "building buzz" in the "Release and reception" section is another example — and there are many) I feel that this article would benefit from a partial rewrite and time spent reflecting, proof reading and perhaps having a fresh set of eyes going over it; a hold would not do it justice. For that reason, I am going to fail the article for now. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to WP:GAR. Once these concerns have been addressed, and the prose has been improved, it may be renominated. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 17:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Exclusionary Editing

I find it disturbing that certain contributors to this page exclude all contributions other than their own. If one looks at the history of the Pulp Fiction (film) page, it is obvious that one or two contributors remove all edits by other individuals. This creates a one-sided presentation of the material that contradicts the spirit of Wikipedia, which is that anyone should be able share his or her knowledge and present information from a point of view differing than that of others. The result of this exclusionary editing is that this page has become one person's view of Pulp Fiction, and does not represent a balanced perspective on the movie, and compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. No page should become the work of one person. Those editors who camp out on a page and bar other contributions should re-evaluate their motivation for participating in Wikipedia.CurtisJohnson 04:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think if you look more closely, you will see that many of the reverts or deletions are for vandalism and violation of Wikipedia policies (especially adding unsourced information). And I also think you'll see that some of these reverts are made by a variety of editors. Also, be sure that the edits you are concerned about are actually reverts or deletions, as opposed to additions. It is true that one editor has done the majority of recent additions, but that is because he was willing to put the effort into repairing an article with a lot a problems. If you can point out some examples of where it is "obvious that one or two contributors remove all edits by other individuals" that are not removal of vandalism or policy violations, please do so. Thank you. Ward3001 03:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This will be my only response on this issue; between my work and personal obligations, I don't have the time to get into an opinion conflict. For the sake of efficiency, I will use one of my own edits as an example of a non-vandalistic edit that was removed based entirely on subjective reasons. There are many others that readers can find in the history of the page. At one point, I added a brief bit of background on Susan Fraiman, who is quoted as an authority on "Pulp Fiction." Such background informs the readers and gives them a context in which to interpret the quote. Any good newspaper or journalistic magazine would give similar information. The lack of biographical information on other sources weakens this article and makes it less encyclopedic. My contribution was removed quickly. Personally, I think this article needs to be rewritten from the ground up, with an eye towards brevity. See the article on "Local Hero" for an example of a film article that is well written. CurtisJohnson 13:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I can see why you felt that the example you pointed out should not have been deleted, although my personal opinion is neutral. I can understand why you feel it is important, and at the same time I can understand why we need to avoid listing bio information for every source that is cited.
Please understand, I'm not denying that you have a point. I would simply like to see more than one example so that all of us can get some idea if a pattern or trend exists that would indicate exclusionary editing. Ward3001 16:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Addressing the specific case raised by CurtisJohnson, he is basically correct when he writes in reference to his edit adding biographical information on one of the many critics and scholars cited in the article, "Any good newspaper or journalistic magazine would give similar information." However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper or journalistic magazine. We might just as well observe that any good scholarly reference work does not routinely give biographical data on the many scholars it cites.
In sum, CJ is incorrect when he writes, "The lack of biographical information on other sources weakens this article and makes it less encyclopedic." What this article—and what good articles across Wikipedia—provide, is detailed information on the source of the critic's statement. Thus, the reader can immediately identify that the critic's work has been published by a reputable publisher; this is the information that is essential to the reader within the context of an encyclopedia article. Any ancillary information a specific reader desires may be accessed through the source. Someone who has turned to Wikipedia specifically to learn about Pulp Fiction is unlikely to be informed by the statement that a given critic is "an English professor at the University of Virgina and feminist scholar." The last comment in the description, by the way, raises a whole new isue of POV--Fraiman may be a relatively clear-cut example of a "feminist scholar," but does every critic's specific field of interest then need to be similarly characterized...and how? What do we learn from such a characterization that helps us to understand the article topic? And what about critics, like Geoffrey O'Brien, who are not primarily identified with academic positions? Do we describe them all as some variation of "the widely published critic"?
What's important to encyclopedia users, at any rate, is (a) what the scholar says and (b) that the scholar has been published in a reputable source that the reader can locate if desired. The rest is superfluous in this encyclopedic context, as it is in the context of most scholarly reference works. CJ's argument is also self-contradictory: he wants a much briefer article, yet the logic of the ad hoc edit he defends would demand that biographical data be added to the first mention of every single critic. Finally, it should be clear that is CJ is incorrect when he writes that his edit "was removed based entirely on subjective reasons." My reasons for removing the edit, just described, are relatively objective compared to CJ's choice of Fraiman alone for the addition of selective biographical data.
I do find CJ's grander opinion intriguing: "Personally, I think this article needs to be rewritten from the ground up." Well, let's take a look at that. It should take much, much less work than what went into the current version. The extensive research that supports any excellent Wikipedia article has already been done in this case. CJ, why don't you write the shorter version you'd like to see, sandbox it, let us know on this page, and we can compare and judge.—DCGeist 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
"... why don't you write the shorter version you'd like to see, sandbox it, let us know on this page, and we can compare and judge." Response - No. Too busy with job, family, outside activities, personal writing, obligations, friends, etc. In other words, my life takes precedence over this. CurtisJohnson 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll add my own $0.02. I stumbled across this article as a general user of Wikipedia, and found it incredibly informative, yet maddeningly non-encyclopedic; it reads like one person's essay about the significance of Pulp Fiction. I wouldn't remove the sections detailing the scholarly criticism of the movie, but I would clean up the style and let other eyes make substantial revisions to give the article a more "global" tone.
I'm not a Wikipedia-expert, and I'm not much of a writer, but I am a well-educated guy, so I suspect that my impression of the article is shared by others in the intended audience.-DZOP
When you say that "it reads like one person's essay about the significance of Pulp Fiction," I assume you are identifying what you feel to be the source of a problem with the article. And that problem--again, I assume--is what you perceive to be the expression of a personal point-of-view about the film, rather than a verifiable, neutral report on what reputable observers have observed about the film and its significance. Could you give a couple examples of where you see this personal POV in evidence? Thanks, Dan—DCGeist (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't mean that there's a perceived personal POV. Rather, I see a tone issue here. Why did the writer of this article choose -these- particular academic critics to cite? Are they leaders in the field? Do the cited scholars represent the entirety of the criticism of the movie? If not, why are others left out? Why are the chosen selected?
The assumption has to be that the reader will have no background in film theory or academic film criticism (like me), but nevertheless would benefit from a concise, thorough explanation of the extant criticism (also like me). Rather than citing particular authors, perhaps, the article should integrate their views and state the academic consensus without excessive quotation. This is not a journal article.-DZOP
Here's my two cents. The more integrating that is done, the more likely that the writing edges into POV and original research. In other words, if I integrate comments from ten reviewers, then you're more likely to get my opinion than you are the reviewers' opinions. As for the issue of how the particular reviewers' articles are chosen, where would that be indicated except by giving a citation and making a brief comment about who the reviewer is? If you give the credentials of every source that you cite, it is unnecessarily distracting to the substance of the article, and it lengthens the article into a bloated mess. If you look at the history of this article, in the past the plot summary was completely deleted because it turned into an overly long, meandering conglomeration. If there are citations in the article, the reader can check the sources if he or she is curious to determine how qualified the reviewer might be. If necessary, others can add additional perspectives if they feel that the article hasn't examined the major critics adequately. But we must be careful not to stretch the article into the massive size that it used to be. Ward3001 (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What kind of machine gun?

What kind of machine gun is that supposed to be, the one that is Vincent's, which Butch kills him with? 67.5.147.114 (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In the published version of the screenplay, it is identified as a "small compact Czech M61 submachine gun with a huge silencer on it."—DCGeist (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bathroom v. John

I don't see the reasoning behind using the word 'john' in place of 'bathroom' in the Bathroom (Notable Motifs) subsection. DCGeist points to Websters in claiming that it is appropriate usage, however almost the entire subsection continuously refers to it as the bathroom. Not the loo, the can, the head, the toilet, or anything else, but the bathroom. I imagine that another reversion would just be undone, so I bring it up in the talk page. Roscoestl (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A synonym is useful in the sentence in question in order to avoid three consecutive sentences with "bathroom" and maintain a certain level of euphony. (You will note that throughout the subsection, no three consecutive sentences include the word "bathroom.") As for the specific use of the word "john," it is the shortest standard synonym and, I believe, the most euphonious in this particular context. Please note, the leading Merriam-Webster's dictionary lists many words that it flags as "slang"; it lists "john" as standard. Merriam-Webster's also lists many words that it flags as "archaic" or "obsolete"; again, it lists "john" as standard.—DCGeist (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Despite Webster's not classifying it as slang, I believe a majority of those who regularly use the English language would consider using john in place of bathroom a use of slang. Roscoestl (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Bathroom

The Bathroom section under "notable motifs" is unnecessary and unbecoming of an encyclopedia article containing general information about the film Pulp Fiction.

I am suspicious of a particular source for much of the discussion. Susan Fraiman?-- the entry under "notes" is not helpful at all in determining where this in depth opinion comes from. I am moderately familiar with citation formats, and I can see that there are page numbers listed for a book that is not listed.

I would recommend that the entire bathroom section be deleted.

Thanks for your time,

76.165.236.111 (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your individual comfort or discomfort with a given topic--like, in general, personal opinions about what subjects are "becoming" or "unbecoming"--can not enter into our judgment here. Think about it a bit. The leading dictionary of American English, Merriam-Webster's, includes, among many other unpleasant terms, the words "shit" and "crap." Should they be eliminated from the dictionary because you or I find them "unbecoming"? You have also misrepresented the article content. It obviously provides much more than "general information" about the film. It conveys a wealth of detailed information, including a survey of motifs in the film that multiple critics have taken up as significant.
Among the five different authors (or sets of authors) cited in the section, you have declared your suspicion of one--Susan Fraiman. On what basis? You claim that you "can see that there are page numbers listed for a book that is not listed." Fraiman's book--Cool Men and the Second Sex, published by Columbia University Press--is in fact listed, as are the specific sources for all the other citations. Despite your claim to be "moderately familiar with citation formats," you appear to have entirely failed to grasp the one that is applied consistently throughout the article for book-based sources. In the note, the author's name, the year of publication, and the page number(s) are given. Under Sources, full publication information including title, location of publication, publisher's name, and ISBN number is given, following (just as in the notes) the author's name and year of publication. This citation format is used in many Featured Articles here, including, for instance, B movie, Film Booking Offices of America, Kinetoscope, Mutual Broadcasting System, and sound film. Brooker and Brooker's essay "Pulpmodernism: Tarantino's Affirmative Action" and Willis's book High Contrast: Race and Gender in Contemporary Hollywood Film are also cited in the section and in precisely the same manner. Denby's article "The New Disorder" and White and Thompson's article "Tarantino in a Can?" are also cited in the section. They were accessed online and are thus cited in the format consistently applied to that type of source.
I'm afraid you have provided no valid basis for your recommendation.—DCGeist (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Gay pulp fiction wikilink

Can someone, preferably the person who wrote it, please explain to me the logic in the phrase 'rape' wikilinking to gay pulp fiction. I understand the reference to pulp magazines from the title, I understand how gay pulp fiction is the gay variation, and I know the rapists are gay men, but I still do not understand what the point of the wikilink is that links gay pulp fiction to gay rape.

Certainly gay pulp fiction deals will rape (see the wiki article), but it goes far beyond that, and the wikilink implies, to me at least, that there is a clear link between (gay) rape and gay pulp fiction, and i really can't see that. I'd be interested in the community's opinion Ged UK (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that the person who introduced the link assumed that Tarantino was in some degree inspired by gay pulp fiction. Given your well-reasoned argument, that would appear to be just about the only rational basis for maintaining the link. I'll check my sources on the film and see if any reputable analyst of the film does make that connection. If one does, I'd add a sentence on it to the Critical analysis section and move to maintain the link. If not, I'd be in favor of cutting it.—DCGeist (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Any luck? If not, i'll take the link out in the next couple of days. Ged UK (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

perhaps the monologue should be added somewhere??

Well there's this passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. "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 the 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 I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you." I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never gave much thought what it meant. I just thought it was some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass. I saw some shit this mornin' made me think twice. See now I'm thinkin', maybe it means you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9 Milimeter here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. Now I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo.I'm tryin'real hard to be a shepherd. 151.199.16.223 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it could just have the chapter/verse reference, but I don't think wikipedia should really be quoting chunks of dialogue. Ged UK (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's just a paraphrase that takes some of Ezekiel's words in different verses and rephrases. But I agree that it's too much to include the entire quote. Ward3001 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a bit off topic, but could someone add a reference to the Cypress Hill song with this passage (Make a Move). Jules's monologue is on the beginning of the song, so I feel it would be fair to mention it... I did it twice already and it got deleted... 21:32, 13 January 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.171.9 (talk)
I'm afraid that doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article. All sorts of songs and TV shows and other movies have referenced Pulp Fiction in some way or another--we can't get into identifying them in what essentially becomes a trivia hunt. The article already discusses the widespread cultural influence of the film, and that's the appropriate encyclopedic approach.DocKino (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Which one?

"The part was written specifically for Keitel, who had starred in Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs and was instrumental in getting it produced."

Which is it, Pulp Fiction or Resorvoir Dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.254.155.48 (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reservoir Dogs, the only movie which could possibly be "it" given the structure of the sentence. (The only other grammatically possible "it" in the sentence is "the part.")—DCGeist (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Back room or basement

I count Willis descending at least seven steps as he goes down the stairs with the sword. Moreover, here are three sources which describe it as a basement.[1][2][3] Gwen Gale (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept your argument, although I don't have a lot of faith in the first review (which spells "elicit" as "illicit") and third review (anyone can write a review on IMDb, which is where it came from). I suggest waiting a few days to see if evidence to the contrary shows up here, and if not, go ahead and change it to "basement". Cheers! Ward3001 (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
My memory is also that there are a sufficient number of steps to qualify the area in question as a basement (or cellar!). If you have a copy of the film at hand, Gwen, and are referencing a specific viewing of this scene (that is, not your general memory, like I am), that's good enough for me.—DCGeist (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have the movie on my computer (and, no worries, I've got the legally purchased DVD!) Anyway, yes, I've been counting for the last couple of minutes and now I think User:Ward3001 and I are each "half right" (so to speak). Maynard clearly takes at least six loud steps up the wooden stairs when he goes back into the public area to open the door for Zed, but no way is it more than seven steps. This would be a "half-basement." Moreover, I don't see any evidence, from the body turns and gazes, that anyone is going back under the public area. Hence, both "back room" or "basement" are a bit off, but not altogether wrong. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Paying Jimmy

I think it's unambiguous Wolf is paying Jimmy for more than the linens: Wolf says Jimmy's "Uncle Marcellus" is "buying" him and Bonnie an oak bedroom set and starts quickly peeling off hundred dollar bills. Also, the expression on Tarantino's face is a bit too over-awed for someone getting repaid for some bed coverings. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean?! They're just really nice linens....
No, your interpretation is certainly correct. Good catch.—DCGeist (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your interpretation, which is obvious to anyone who has seen the movie, it constitutes original research, so may not be used. Just one of the stupid things about wikipedia. On the other hand, if you could find someone else who said it, you could use that. Go figure. Stupid wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.32.120 (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge of List of Pulp Fiction characters proposal

  • Disagree - far too long for one page, should be kept apart. Jonesy702 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree - It would be too long, but equally the cast section in the main article needs to be drastically cut down, as the detail is in the other article. Ged UK (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree - This page is long enough as it is. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Protection of Children

Having taught Pulp Fiction in college since it was available, and having seen the film at least 30 times, I have come to see one argument stand out before all others: the protection of children. In all three stories, we can infer the problem of violence for children. The argument also indicates a surprising conservative, family-values background for the film.

In Butch's story, Fabienne wants a pot-belly and pregnancy, and Butch fully redeems himself when he retires from his criminal life to, we can assume, have a child with her. An innocent, she passively civilizes him and makes him gentle, and his rescue of Marcellus fulfills that, if bloodily. Especially fine in his story is the evocation of children when he goes after his watch: the ice-cream truck bells and the children's voices in the apartment courtyard--slaughter is coming, we fear--and our relief that it does not happen is a fine turn of Aristotle's catharsis.

In Jules' story, he is, famously, "the finder of lost children". Note how he focuses on Marvin, the lost child, when he first repeats his execution speech; the second time is to Ringo, another lost child. Jules saves, or attempts to save, them both. Marvin's lack of opinion in Vincent's miracle dispute requires his death in the simple tragedy of the film, for opinion is what we need to have, though not necessarily agreement with either Jules or Vincent. That we are intended to agree with Jules shows the essentially conservative nature of the film and reflects the abiding family-values argument.

For Vincent, his refusal to recognize the divine sign that Jules accepts warrants his death, as does his negligent killing of Marvin; again, the conservative agenda is asserted. Aside from Marvin, children figure in his story in two ways: he and Mia are teenagers, wed at Jack Rabbit Slim's, although tragically, given their lives; implicating her as well, Mia's tomato joke, with Baby Tomato squashed by an angry father, reflects Vincent's failure to recognize the ethical error of his ways.

Tarantino and Avary appear not to have intended the child motif. I have found nothing to indicate that they consciously chose to include it as any kind of story at all. It is unmistakably there, however, and the film is not only richer for it but incapable of being fully understood without seeing it. Whether Tarantino and Avary are family-values conservatives is another argument, but certainly no one would object to their condemnation of violence, ironic though it is.

David Heinimann (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does looking out for children make you a "family-values conservative". Many FVCs support corporal punishment. Many favor restrictions in education. Many are simply patriarchal and repressive. I find your straining for an original interpretation a bit desperate. Magmagoblin (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Script

I don't think the script and the film are the same work, but akin, hence, any plot elements or character descriptions from the script which are not specifically identifiable in the film don't belong in a description of the film. However, perhaps a section on the script would be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Be cool this is a robbery!

Has anyone ever noticed that the dialogue changes slightly when it is repeated during the robbery scene? In the first one she says, "I'll execute every motherfucking last one of you," and the second time, "I'll execute every one of you motherfuckers."...or something like that. Anyway, I know trivia is discouraged, but my question is: could a filmaker as obsessed as QT really miss something like this? Plus, dialogue is his thing. It seems almost self-referential in a way- In order to discuss the error the viewer is forced to use the vulgar language. I always assumed it was an accident, but this movie is so perfect in every way...i'm not convinced anymore. It might be notable enough for inclusion...unless it's already in the article and I missed it! JohnnyCalifornia 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple commentators have noted that, but I'm not sure there's been quite enough discussion to warrant its inclusion in the article. It is almost certainly not a mistake, and does seem very much in tune with the rest of his self-aware playing around with standard storytelling. The idea that in order to discuss it that one is forced to quote the vulgar language is an interesting one.—DCGeist (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
In the published version of the script, the lines are written as they appear in the film. This would lead me to believe QT intended for there to be a slight difference.Adiosmofo (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I took it as different POV's - ie, it was 'remembered' slightly differently depending on where you (the viewer and/or participant) were sitting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.56 (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article?

To DCGeist or anyone else, is there any intent to nominate this film article as a Featured Article? I've noticed that it has been of quite good quality for some time and think that the recognition is warranted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, when I read this page a couple of days ago I was amazed it wasn't a GA. In fact I recall I was planning on passing it, when it was GAN a while back, but someone beat me to it and failed it. But this is certainly at least GA class. Gran2 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both comments here above. I am amazed it is not at least GA. Ceedjee (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pulp_Fiction/Archive_2&oldid=1169925578"