Talk:Pulp Fiction/Archive 1

message: This article, to put it bluntly, sucks.  Aside from the obvious sources cited issue, it introduces so much speculation about perceived plotlines, "meanings" and other assorted bullshit that it completely bogs the article down in endless, meaningless drivel that does not inform responsibly--which is the whole point of an "encyclopedia."  Someday fanboys will learn to appreciate the difference between daydreaming on Wikipedia and creating a well-researched and solid article, but apparently not today--Kwan-Trill 21:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  God, This Article Sucks 

message: A long Thematical Analysis was removed here, which could be partly incorporated into the story lines.
Here's the text.
The plot weaves four different stories together, all of which are, at the core, stories of redemption, and center around the same general group of characters. Many people have attempted to definitively analyze the underlying meaning of this group of stories, however, without the consent of writer and director Quentin Tarantino, there is no one “true” explanation. However, this one is widely accepted.
The film, after a brief introductory scene concerning a couple robbing a coffee shop and the opening credits, begins with a few scenes that concern two very important characters in the film. We begin with the story of Vincent and Jules, two hit men who work for the mysterious mob boss, Marsellus Wallace. Vincent and Jules are “on the job” executing a routine mission in “the Valley” of Los Angeles; retrieving a briefcase from a few young men who appear to have stolen it or conned it out of the possession of one Marsellus Wallace. They have a discussion while entering the premise about their boss, Mr. Wallace, and how it is rumored that he threw a man out of a four story window for giving his wife a foot massage. Jules feels that it’s a preposterous rumor; however Vincent easily believes it, suggesting that he is easily swayed. After entering the apartment of the two young men, Vincent and Jules get to work, securing the briefcase from a cupboard in the kitchen. The camera distinctly shows the combination for the briefcase as being “666,” the sign of the devil. Before executing the final of the two young men, and after executing the first, Jules recites a passage from the bible that he has memorized; a modified version of Ezekiel 25:17. Finally, during the execution, a reddish, orange light flares over the screen and the story ends.
The next story is titled “VINCENT VEGA & MARSELLUS WALLACE'S WIFE,” starting with Vincent and Jules entering a bar in the early morning to meet their boss, Marsellus Wallace. In this scene, we only see Marsellus from behind. On the back of his neck, and large band aid can be seen, potentially covering something up, such as a scar or tattoo. There is a dialog between Marsellus and a man named Butch about rigging a boxing match, and the scene ends. 
Afterward, it cuts to a scene concerning Vincent buying heroin in a drug dealer’s house, paying extra money for “premium content” that he puts in his jacket pocket. Vincent heads out to take his boss’s wife, Mia Wallace, out on a date (as instructed by his boss to keep her company while he is away). Before going out, we see the eccentric Mia cutting and snorting cocaine in her house. They go, by Mia’s suggestion to “Jack Rabbit Slims” a 50’s themed restaurant. Vincent asks Mia if the rumors about the foot massage and her husband are true, and she refutes them. Also, Mia tells Vincent about a pilot she shot for a TV show called Fox Force Five. While eating, Mia enters them in a dance contest, which they will in turn win first prize. After returning back to Mia’s home, she puts on some music and begins to dance more while Vincent heads to the bathroom. While waiting for Vincent, Mia reaches into his jacket to find heroin that she believes to be cocaine. She cuts and snorts it to overdose and pass out and be found by Vincent. 
Vincent rushes Mia back to the house of the drug dealer and insists on having him give Mia a recovery injection. After lots of arguing, the injection is given and Mia is saved to be returned home and never speak of the incident again.
These two stories, about Vincent, Jules, Marsellus and Mia, hold an allegorical, hidden message about good and evil. We can conclude that the briefcase represents the work of the devil (by the combination 666), and that Marsellus is therefore the devil. The scar on the back of his neck supposedly covers up the sign “666,” as foretold to be on the back of the devil’s neck by many other works throughout history. Knowing this, we can also conclude that Vincent and Jules are Minion’s of the devil, and the two men that have been killed have betrayed him. The discussions they have prior to the retrieval of the briefcase are added to characterize them in a more humane way such that the viewer can relate more.  When Marsellus speaks to Butch, we see that light is only illuminating half of Butch’s face, and the other half is covered in darkness. This perhaps suggests that Butch has yet to pledge any sort of allegiance toward the Devil or God, and that perhaps he will betray the deal he has made with Marsellus. Moving on to the story of Vincent and Mia, the explanation of the “Fox Force Five” TV show that Mia starred in the pilot for was supposedly the scene that Quentin Tarantino and Uma Thurman came up with the concept for Kill Bill. Vincent, even after being told by Mia Wallace, still believes that the rumors about Marsellus throwing the man out the window are true, as suggested by his expressions and remarks. One can conclude from this that Vincent is easily blinded to the truth and is a static character.
Moving on, the Story “THE GOLD WATCH” begins, which depicts a young boy receiving a watch from a friend of his dead father from a POW camp. The boy turns out to be Butch, who we learn wins the fight he was paid to throw by Marsellus. He escapes all of Marsellus' men into a cab that takes him to a hotel room where his girlfriend awaits. They talk about how they will need to leave to escape the mobsters, but they are very rich now. However, the next morning, Butch finds that his girlfriend has left his precious golden watch behind at their apartment. Accepting all risks , Butch returns to his possibly trapped apartment to find no one there. He gets the watch and then finds a gun on the kitchen counter. He then notices someone using the bathroom and it is is one Vincent Vega. When Vincent exits the bathroom, Butch kills him with his own gun, that is, the gun provided by Marsellus Wallace. 
Upon is departure and drive home, Butch sees one Marsellus Wallace crossing the street. He attempts to kill Marsellus but fails, and initiates a chase into a pawn shop, where they are both surprisingly bound and gagged by the clerk, until a man named Zed arrives. Zed arrives, and initiates a ridiculous torture scene involving Marsellus, leaving Butch attended only by a bound, bondage prepared figure called “The Gimp.” Although he has an opening to escape after subduing the Gimp, Butch runs upstairs to grab a katana from the shop, kill one of the men, and save Marsellus. Marsellus declares that he has redeemed himself, but must leave LA and never come back. Butch then steals Zed’s motorcycle, returns to his girlfriend and does just that.
The final story, entitled “THE BONNIE SITUATION,” involves Vincent and Jules, and takes place before “VINCENT VEGA & MARSELLUS WALLACE'S WIFE.” Right after killing the “last” man in the apartment, another one leaps out from the bathroom with a gun and fires multiple rounds directly at Jules and Vincent. Surprisingly, none of them hit and he is promptly killed. Jules, Vincent, and their informant, Marvin exit to the car where Jules declares that their survival was divine intervention, a work of god. Vincent does not believe Jules, sticking to his character and siding with the proposition that it was just coincidence. He asks Marvin for his opinion and accidentally shoots him in the face. The two men seed to a friend of Jules’s house where they call in a man named “the Wolf” to help dispose of the body before Jules’s friend Jimmie’s wife arrives. They dispose of the late Marvin successfully and go to get breakfast in a coffee shop. Alas, it is the same coffee shop from the opening scene that is to be robbed. Jules declares that he is giving up “the life” that he has lead because God has given him a second chance to do so. Vincent says he’s crazy and leaves for the men’s room. While on the john, the couple from the beginning of the movie begins to rob the entire restaurant. When they reach Jules and ask him for his wallet, he hands it over, however the man holding him up wants to see inside the briefcase. Jules caves and shows him the contents, which we do not see, during which the man is overwhelmed by its beauty and Jules pulls out his gun. Now there is a Mexican standoff, and Vincent returns from the bathroom, holding the same book he reads when in Butch’s apartment. Jules begins to recite the same passage from the bible that he did before, Ezekiel 25:17, but instead of killing the couple, he explains how he never really knew what it meant, however it cold be applied in a dark and light sense, and that now he is trying to live up to the light sense of it. He then lets the couple go with his and everyone else’s wallets, as he has “bought” their lives. Vincent and Jules then exit the restaurant and the film ends.
These stories further the same allegories from before. Notice the two uses of Vincent and Jules’s guns; in the end Jules uses his to resolve conflict as he has disbanded himself from the Devil, Marsellus, and now enacts the work of the Lord, while Vincent is killed by his own gun in Butch’s apartment and is metaphorically betrayed by Marsellus as he is a traitorous, uncompassionate employer. Jules “buys” the couple’s lives by letting the get away with all of the money, under the condition that they abandon their old ways and start anew with their newly earned resources. Jules in turn creates new life, good life, and destroys life, evil, sinful life, which is considered as the work of the Lord. Butch in turn does the same, although not definitive, he returns to the struggling Marsellus to save his life with the prospect of changing his ways. He is then rewarded by having Marsellus show compassion for him and let him go. His actions are considered the work of the Lord for he does not let one man die by evil hands without being given a second chance at a life of good. In short, Butch does for Marsellus by rescuing him what God did for Jules by locking the bullets in the apartment. 
The essence of Pulp Fiction is not just in its themes, but in the experience of watching and pondering it. Immediately after viewing, the viewer does not necessarily know what exactly the meaning of the movie is, just that it was a series of interesting stories. After further contemplation, one will realize the underlying message of the movie, although it is well disguised and entertaining without it. The fact that the themes of the film are so cleverly disguised just enhances them; we live on terms of good and evil, in our every day lives, and that although our actions may seem voyeuristic or excessively pulp or mundane, they still have a greater meaning although it might not be blatantly evident. Pulp Fiction can be seen as two tings; a comical, intense, violent movie, or a meaningful, allegorical, deep film. Just the fact that it can be considered both enhances its overall meaning.--Wikibob | Talk 01:00, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
:I propose the entire Thematical Analysis section be deleted as a breach of WP:NOR - "no originial research" - as it is appearently a subjective analysis without any references. Any ideas? Poulsen 23:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thematical Analysis

message: There was a spate of revisions not too long ago in which the line "Tarantino and Jackson play moderately sympathetic characters..." was changed to "Travolta and Jackson..." and then to "Travolta, Jackson, and Tarantino...." To set the record straight, I kept a tally. Conclusion: Vincent Vega never uses the "N-Word" in Pulp Fiction. (As should be obvious to anyone who's ever seen the movie, right? How could Vincent use the word with Jules around? Their dynamic doesn't permit it. But anyway,) for the record, here's the "N-Word" tally:
*Jules (7 times)
*Marsellus (5) (I think in Butch's first scene, he asks, "You my n-?", but if I misheard, make that 4.)
*Lance (1) (The drug dealer. "Am I a n-? Are we in Inglewood?")
*Maynard (1), Zed (1)
*Jimmie (4) (This is Tarantino's character.)
Conclusion: "Tarantino and Jackson..." is the correct sentence. (Marsellus is ambiguous as far as sympathy is concerned; Maynard and Zed are definitely not "sympathetic"; and Lance is just a minor comic-relief character.)--Quuxplusone 19:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "N"-word 

message: "However, Butch double-crosses Marsellus, instead betting the money he received from Marsellus on himself (With, due to the fight's being fixed, presumably very favorable odds)..."
Favorable odds to whom?  This sentence does not make sense.--User:67.171.33.126)
:Favorable to the bettor (Butch). I think that's implied, isn't it? (Explanation: If a fight is known or suspected to be fixed, then hardly anybody will bet on the loser. Therefore the bookie offers good odds on the loser; Butch makes the bet at those odds; the "fixed" fight is upset; Butch collects a lot of money.) I'll agree the structure and wording of that sentence isn't the most professional, but I personally have nothing better to offer at the moment. By the way, did you know that by typing four tildes ~~~~ you can sign your posts?--Quuxplusone 02:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That doesn't seem right to me.  Firstly, the fight is unlikely to be known to be fixed by anyone apart from by Butch and Marsellus.  Secondly, Marsellus will want favorable odds, so he will want the favourite to lose the match, as he will be betting on the less-favoured boxer.  So Butch should be favourite to win the match.  So if Butch was betting on himself, he probably didn't get 'very favorable odds'.--duncan 06:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes. the point of that bet is that Butch has agreed ti throw the fight so that Marcellus can win big by betting against him.  Butch and his partner have made many bets that Butch will win.  Probably - though this is speculation - in a particular round, to increase the odds they are offered.  raining_girl 21:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Favorable odds

message: I am aware that the original thematic analyis section was deleted but the most important part of the movie, aka the idea the movie is trying to convey, is not mentioned on the page. I am going to add a brief section titled 'Theme' to the page just to complete the page on the movie. 
I am also placing the section above "briefcase", since that is where it should belong, IMHO.--coolmallu 2005 July 6 22:24 (UTC)
The analysis of the 'interventions' and 'redemptions' is subpar, and riddled with typos. Also, while there are various examples of these themes in the movie, some are omitted, and others need not be completely dissected in this entry. I may edit it soon.-Cory
:Please feel free to contribute in any manner possible. What I mentioned in the page are my own personal opinions but a whole lot of people have agreed with me. I would love to see what you have to add and remove. Thanks.--coolmallu 2005 July 9 01:01 (UTC)
The thematic discussion seems to be original research. I'm a bit wary of finding the 'hidden meaning' in fiction; for all we know Tarantino could have just tried to create a wonderful, entertaining movie. However, if you must discuss it, it's probably best to draw from the reviews by established movie critics (And source that information). A good example is at The Old Man and the Sea.--Junes 17:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Strongly agree with Cory and Junes. I've chopped down the themes section to cover "intervention" and "redemption", relegate "divine intervention" to the only such intervention actually mentioned in the film (No evidence that other interventions were "divine", a great topic for talk page analysis though), and take out a great deal of plot details already covered above in the synopsis. "Revenge" is perhaps the elephant in the room, however: with Pulp Fiction, Tarantino diffuses revenge through intervening situations and moments of redemption, whereas he goes on to let revenge roam free in Kill Bill.--Tarnas 04:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme/Moral 

message: I just made a first attempt at restructuring the seven sections between "storylines" and "cast". These sections looked like they were all running together, and I think they can be broken up into the two larger categories that they're in now, "plot devices" and "other details". "Other details" doesn't sound great, maybe there's a better term or phrase. The "mysterious briefcase" and "bible passage" sections are a bit less distinct now, which is not so great, but they don't run together too badly.     I also renamed "themes" as "thematic analysis", since it's more of an independent analysis than anything the director has set in stone. It's pretty relevant info, though, and doesn't stray far from the reality of the movie, so I wouldn't want to exile it as original research. —Tarnas 23:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article restructuring 

message: This article has obviously been improved substantially since a few months ago, but I still believe there is too much weight being given to the briefcase, which is really only a plot device used for continuity in order to tie together the stories and in order to justify the final scene. Erwin Walsh 12:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some improvements 

message: I removed the redundant Butch Coolidge section the other day, here are maybe the few distinguishing bits of information that can be salvaged from it if need be.
#Butch smokes Red Apple cigarettes.
#Butch's boxing opponent was named "Wilson"?
#Fabienne's car is a Honda.
#Marsellus is walking back from the "Teryiaki Donut".
#Goon's motorcycle is named "Grace".--68.62.17.196 20:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant Butch section 

message: "Too much on the briefcase; too little on Tarantino."--MARMOT 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the film about Tarantino, or the briefcase? I think of the two it's more about the briefcase.--Tarnas 18:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed there. If you want information on Tarantino, see his article. Unless, of course, you think the article needs more information on Jimmy.--Agent Aquamarine 16:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Briefcase situation 

message: Does anybody care Uma's character probably owes something to Modesty Blaise? Or that Travolta is reading a novelization of the (Awful) 1966 movie -- on the toilet? Or that surf music pioneer Dick Dale's classic guitar piece "Misirlou" runs under the titles?--Trekphiler 13:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: After watching one of the deleted scenes from Reservoir Dogs I noticed something peculiar. The scene involves Nice Guy Eddie, Mr. White, and Mr. Pink, returning from the location where Mr. Pink had stashed the diamonds. Nice Guy Eddie mentions that they will take Orange to a woman's house, he says "Bonnie will take care of him." and even mentions that she is a nurse, and says the words, "Bonnie Situation" after an arguement with White. But he says she lives in an apartment while in Pulp Fiction she lives in an house.
Interesting point of view. Let's get into character ;)
They're probably pre-cursor to the Pulp Fiction situation.--OleMurder 11:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another possible connection to Reservoir Dogs 

message: I typed in "Pulp Fiction" and was redirected to the article on "pulp magazines". Since "Pulp Fiction" is the actual title of this article, shouldn't that term lead here instead? --Albrozdude 02:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realised my capitalization mistake. Nevermind. Albrozdude 06:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, they say when they're getting the guns out that there are "three or four guys in there", and they aren't sure if they're counting their guy. And the fourth man waiting two shoot in a different room doesn't invalidate them at all. And Marvin's slumped in the corner, out of the line of shooting, where he has been the whole time. I don't think the lustre's gone at all... J•A•K 18:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why doesn't "pulp fiction" come here? 

message: Well, where the hell IS Marvin when the lead starts flying in Brett's apartment? And who is the "fourth man waiting to shoot", if he's not Marvin? FWIW, when I noticed this the whole shebang lost it's lustre....
: Well, they say when they're getting the guns out that there are "three or four guys in there", and they aren't sure if they're counting their guy. And the fourth man waiting two shoot in a different room doesn't invalidate them at all. And Marvin's slumped in the corner, out of the line of shooting, where he has been the whole time. I don't think the lustre's gone at all... J•A•K 18:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Toilet/bathroom plot device

message: Chernicky 19:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: im afraid not an explanation, rather a request...I feel Lance's character has been discussed the least yet he possibly plays an important part. Would anyone care to comment on the idea that Lance plays a 'Jesus' like character? Helping Vincent with an OD'd Mia, a sort of Jesus like help. The way he dresses too...facially very like interpretations of Jesus' form, he wears his dressing gown like a long robe and i believe he also wears sandals. I'm not sure of the significance of him being a drug dealer, perhaps as a giver of...well im not sure, 'good times' for want of a better word/term! I'm sure there are other things that could be picked up on, but i'm just not a good film critic.
Perhaps someone with more of a talent for it would be prepared to look into this claim at all, as it fits in with the idea of redepmtion, good and evil, etc......unless it does read like incoherent babbling, in which case get rid of it!
Ta, 82.25.5.239 14:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He isn't much of a jesus figure at all. He doesn't really help anyone, when he does help with Mia it's under threat of letting marsellus' wife die on his fucking lawn. He's cowardly, hedonistic, and of bad moral fiber. Though, I must admit, he does resemble the stereotypical representation of jesus. ReverendG 20:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lance 

message: This article suffers from severe problems of WP:NOR and WP:CITE. There is far too much fan speculation as to what things in the film mean. There needs to be some reigning in of the cruft here. -- 15:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Severe lack of references 

message: Can someone please remove or reword the whole "Anyway, Butch..." and previous in-article arguing about the plotline? The summary should record what happens, not debate it. Dysprosia 13:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like, anyway, y'know 

message: Somebody deleted this part of my contribution to "Butch" article:
(Question of Marcellus' presence in the apartment)
But one might grasp the situation other way around: If there would be both Marsellus and Vincent in the apartment, what would they wait for? It's hard to believe that they just liked the place that much to have a coffee there. They might have waited for Butch's (possible) return. But then Vincent in the bathroom should have realised that the incoming person could be Butch as well as Marsellus. But he did not do any precautions, so he probably didn't hear the noise Butch made. If the gun at the table was Marsellus', Vincent should have had his own gun in the bathroom. Why wouldn't he try to use it, facing the imminent danger? So - mabye the submachenegun was Vincent's and he was in Butch's apartment alone. Than forthcoming Butch - Marsellus encounter was just a coincidence. Anyway - Butch picks up the gun just in time to encounter Vincent coming out of the bathroom. The toaster pastries in the toaster pop up, startling Butch into firing the gun, and killing Vincent.
I am a newcomer, but I don't get why somebody's theory about the plot should be more valuable than mine. If most of you believe the plot should not be discussed within the article (which I'm able to underestand) you should erase the previous note "Signs of Marcellus' presence" as well, because these are just speculations.
Otherwise I'm going to readd my text into the article.
Well, first of all, you didn't cite a source for your theory, leading to allegations of original research. Second of all, the explanation that's already there has been confirmed just short of Tarantino himself. Don't forget to leave your sig next time. --Setrajonas 04:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butch back in his apartment for wristwatch 

message: In the scene when vince is shooting up there seem to be air bubbles in the bottom left of the needle (the tube, whatever you call it) i thought they might have been glass distortions until the dropper made one of them move. Wouldnt those have killed him? Maybe useful for trivia but really i'm just curious
As William Burroughs states in 'Junky', (though i'm paraphrasing) if injecting a few air bubbles killed you, there wouldn't be a junky alive today.
The scene is pure cinematic fantasy. Don't take it literally. 
-in real life, you can't poke a needle through the breast plate
-in real life the needle probably would have killed her anyhow, by messing up heart valves, etc.
-in real life, you don't inject adrenaline into the heart; you inject narcan into a vein. much safer. much less fun.
-back in the old days when they did do the epinephrine heart injection, it was done gently, from below the rib cage, up into the heart muscle. not like you're killing a vampire with a stake.
paulraph
yes, it states all that on the DVD Trivia Track Rubberchix 12:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heroin Scene Trivia Question 

message: I think its oft ignored that the entire boxing match is also a classic example of  MacGuffin. The fight is never seen but drives the entire plot after the briefcase is returned. --Cptbuck 04:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: a MacGuffin must be something that could be anything.  The watch qualifies, because what is needed is something Butch values enough to go back for it.  It could have been a scarf, a letter, a book, anything at all.  The briefcase does because what is needed is that something has been stolen from Marcellus and he wants it back.  Again, could be anything from a diamond ring to a helicopter.  The boxing match doesn't, because it is an essential point of the plot that Butch (a) defies Marcellus and so makes a mortal enemy, (b) makes a lot of money in the process so he can leave with his soulmate, (c) kills someone so he's on the run.  raining_girl 21:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Macguffin for Plot Devices 

message: In the Boondocks episode, "Date with a Health Inspector", Samuel L. Jackson guest starred as the character Gin Rummy. During a scene in the car, he goes into an exchange with Riley that is exactly like Jules' "Do they speak English in What?" exchange in the second part of Pulp Ficition, right down to the curse words (most were bleeped out, but are evidenced to be exactly the same). Would that be a useful trivia? --Chicobo329 03:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference in Boondocks TV Show 

message: Removed the following from the article:
:This may or may not also have a double meaning, as a hint that the character of Zed (played by Eric Stoltz from Roger Avery's Killing Zoe may be destined to die as a result of his exposure to AIDS blood in a fight in the film.
Because Zed isn't played by Eric Stoltz, he's played by Peter Greene. Eric Stoltz plays Lance. I'm too lazy to check to see which way it's wrong (if Stoltz was in Killing Zoe then we can't just put Greene's name in there instead), so I just took it out.--Anchoress 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed screwy para from 'Other details' 

message: One of the taglines clearly states there are three stories, and then the article mentions four main storlines. I guess Tarantino and Avery could have considered Pupkin and Honey Boney theme as supporting. Even if not so, in case the article structure is to be left as is, this three/four controversy should probably be reflected somehow.
: The three stories are most probably the three named stories "Mia Wallace", "The Gold Watch" and "The Bonnie Situation", thus one story is the suggested main theme of the movie itself - the miraculous salvation of Jules and Vincent and its final outcome of "enlightment" of one and "punishment" of the other. The article's four storyline division has nothing to do with the tagline anyway. Not sure if it has to be in the already too big article.Roponor 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of storylines 

message: removed the following theories. this is all unsourced original research, and reads more like someone's film studies essay than an encyclopedia entry: 
"Vincent had been "thrice redeemed" (once by Mia, once in the apartment, and finally through Marsellus' sending of "The Wolfe" to clean up Vincent's mess, having accidentally shot Marvin in the face) and failed to acknowledge as Jules did that something special had happened. His death can be considered a "judgment" of sorts." 
"Although it is never shown that Marsellus was at Butch's apartment, there are clues in the scene suggesting that Marsellus was indeed present.  First, after Butch leaves his apartment, he finds Marsellus walking across the street carrying donuts and holding two cups of coffee, presumably one for himself and another for Vincent.  This would also explain why Butch encounters Marsellus shortly after leaving the apartment.  Second, it would seem odd that a professional like Vincent would not keep his gun with him: the answer is that the submachine gun may have belonged to Marsellus. Otherwise, it might also simply have been an indication that, after three redemptive occurrences that are unacknowledged by Vincent, he becomes "lazy", losing his edge, not keeping his gun with him. This is in marked contrast to the Diner scene where he emerges from the washroom very prepared to act. In fact, his being in the washroom in each of scenes (Mia's, The Diner, and his closing act) indicate the washroom is a type of womb for him, keeping him out of harm's way. Emerging from the washroom should happen after the trouble is past or he is prepared to deal with whatever is in front of him. In this last situation, he emerges unprepared; perhaps one more interventive act on his part is no longer worthwhile, given he has "missed" all the others and their significance." --duncan 09:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Marsellus thing should be put back into the article, as it is not original research, but reiterates a theory revealed on the Pulp Fiction DVD.   But I didn't reinsert it since I am not sure where to put it; however, it does not belong where it was (not really part of the "plot"). Drdr1989 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it goes back, it needs to be heavily rewritten so as to sound more encyclopedic, as right now it doesn't.  and if it's mentioned on the DVD, then that needs to be cited as the source, otherwise this just reads as someone's personal theories. --duncan 21:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, for sure it needs to be toned down (in more ways than one).  Just not sure where to put the  final encyclopedic edit.  It doesn't belong in the plot.  Drdr1989 05:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research 

message: Can anyone find a way to mention the fact that these two devoted an entire show to analyzing Pulp Fiction back in '94, and that Ebert rates it as one of the great movies on his website? This may help substantiate the claims made in the opening paragraph, at least. Satchfan 06:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siskel and Ebert 

message: When it was on TV this weekend the on-screen summary mentioned that the movie takes place over "two days".  That was incorrect, it actually takes place over three days.  This article is lacking this kind of information.  If it was important enough for the on-screen summary to mention it, then I would (and did) expect it to be in this article.  Is there a good place to add it?  If no one has a suggestion, or doesn't do it themselves, then I will add it somewhere, though where exactly I'm not sure yet.  Thanks.  --luckymustard 16:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two days 

message: I'm not sure that this section is notable/important enough to include in the article. It seems rather trivial first off, and second, each tv version will be slightly different, depending on the channel broadcasting it. I plan to remove the section tomorrow, absent objections. Carl.bunderson 20:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed ReverendG 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, per Reverend's agreement. Carl.bunderson 18:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TV Differences

message: This section needs to be rewritten.  The version shown on UK TV I'm pretty sure isn't cut like this section describes.  Perhaps just a brief introductory paragraph clarifying, e.g. "When shown on TV a different version is sometimes used, with certain cuts:" + any other info --duncan 07:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just deleted the section, per my reasons above. I don't believe its worth fixing. Carl.bunderson 18:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television Version Differences 

message: During the (closing) diner scene, through the window we see someone go by on a motorcycle.  Looked like Butch to me, though of course Vincent was dead by the time Butch found the bike.  I'm a bit surprised to see no mention of that ... though perhaps this means I'm alone in thinking he looked like Butch!  —Tamfang 06:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the subtle paradox 

message: Both versions of the name are used in the article... f(x)=ax2+bx+c 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDb says Winston "The Wolf" Wolfe.  —Tamfang 02:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolf or Wolfe? 

message: Since this article seems to be bouncing back and forth between titles lately, I thought I'd better clear up some misunderstanding. The two topics Pulp Fiction and pulp fiction do not need to be disambiguated in their article titles, because one is written with initial capital letters and the other is not. The only reason this article would need to be moved to Pulp Fiction (film) would be if there were something else written as "Pulp Fiction", such as Pulp Fiction (novel), Pulp Fiction (opera) etc. This article is fine where it is, with a link at the top of the page for people looking for pulp fiction magazines. — sjorford++ 14:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the titles are not the same. One is named "Pulp Fiction" and the other is named "pulp fiction" - these are different titles. Compare with the following where disambiguated titles are not required: Alien Autopsy vs. alien autopsy, Clear and Present Danger vs. clear and present danger, Enemy of the State vs. enemy of the state, Public Access vs. public-access television, Short Circuit vs. short circuit, Vanishing Point vs. vanishing point...; but contrast with those that do need disambiguating: Independence Day (film) vs. Independence Day, Orange County (film) vs. Orange County, Bonnie and Clyde (film) vs. Bonnie and Clyde, Notting Hill (film) vs. Notting Hill... — sjorford++ 10:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I think there should be a section for the critical and public reaction to film. Quotes from various top critics. The box office grosses. The fact that it's usually ranked highly on most "Best Films" list. And any negative reactions as well. But I'm too lazy. MrBlondNYC 08:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics/Box Office

message: This article sucks... all the other movies have fun/interesting trivia.  This hardly has any at all.
:I've added in some new trivia, and have corrected some of the old stuff. D43M0N 07:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the trivia?????