Talk:Pulp Fiction/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Plot

message: 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)
thread_title: Jules Winnfield

message: 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)
thread_title: wikiproject Film template

message: 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)
thread_title:  Information, not analysis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Royale with cheese"? 

message: ...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)
replies: text: Support. Has no significance whatsoever --Ted87 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely support.  No reason for that to be a separate article. ---Charles 03:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Support per above --Merbabu 11:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Support per above--Manwithbrisk 23:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Medieval" quote 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: OGG Files

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yes.  Remove them.  --GHcool 03:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: 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)
replies: text: So it should be more of a casting/life after the film deal?--Supernumerary 23:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cast

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It does. Thanks!--Supernumerary 19:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Plot Length 

message: 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.
*Al Fecund 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Plot down to 1540 words, can it really be brought lower? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please do.--Supernumerary 23:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noir/ neo noir 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shot To The Heart 

message: 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)
thread_title: Spike Lee criticism

message: 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)
thread_title: Structure

message: 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)
thread_title: Some Thoughts

message: 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)
thread_title:  Correction about Jodi's Piercings 

message: 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)
replies: text: Move requested. Chris Cunningham 15:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moved. Chris Cunningham 08:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Different redirects 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "That's how you're going to beat 'em, Butch" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Plot section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Butch-Bathroom Submachine Gun?

message: 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)
replies: text: I actually agree. Would you be able to suggest changes?   ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entry misses the main thrust of the movie 

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

message: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.67.163 (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  does any one want the soundtrack to be included with this? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who moved this? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Hi; sorry, it's been resolved now. Thanks a lot :-)   ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 14:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope I didn't dash your hopes with my latest restoration of deleted content. —Viriditas | Talk 20:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, i've not actually contributed content to this article; just reverted and de-vandalised :-(   ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 20:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has turned to shit; revert to older revision, delete soundtrack article 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm in agreement with this.  —Viriditas | Talk 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of "Trivia" re-creation. 

message: 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. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reinvigorating carreer?

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pulp Fiction in Popular Culture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Time Line

message: 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)
replies: text: Says who?—DCGeist (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dance Scene at Jackrabbit Slim's 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hemingway influence 

message: 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)
replies: text: No actors in the film won "personal" Academy Awards.—DCGeist 23:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pulp Fiction is a genre 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  "snorts coke in the john" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wolf's girlfriend 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  DCGeist 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with DCGeist on this issue. Ward3001 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tag team reverting 

message: * Should  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)
replies: text: * As long as the === notation is used, the contents are generated properly. <eleland/talkedits> 23:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * 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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: * 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  RfC: Ellipses 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#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): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
Comments:
#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.
#Minor stylistic concern, but why are the category headings under "Awards" not centered?
#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.
#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."
#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.
#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.
#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. 
#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.
#"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.
#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.
#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)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What kind of machine gun? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bathroom v. John 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gay pulp fiction wikilink 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Which one? 

message: 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Back room or basement

message: *Disagree - the list of characters article is too long and would make this article much too lengthy. --P shadoh (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[List of Pulp Fiction characters]] proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Protection of Children 

message: 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)
thread_title: Script

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: "Be cool this is a robbery!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with both comments here above. I am amazed it is not at least GA. Ceedjee (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article?