why do some hate pulp fiction?
 

one of my monthly reports at the broadcasting institute of maryland is to write a 1 minute review of a movie showing both points of view (those who love it and those who hate it)
its personally one of my all time favorite movies but i need to find some people that hate the movie as well.

I hate it because...

Oh wait, it's my favorite movie of all time. Scratch that.

I heard that some people were walking out of screenings back in 1994 because they couldn't stand all the rampant drug use in the film. I can see where they're coming from, although I would always disagree adamantly with anyone who claimed Pulp Fiction glorified drugs. Uma Thurman nearly ODs and John Travolta ends up in a bathtub riddled with bullet holes(unrelated to his heroin addiction, but still).

Who hated it? I think you would have an easier time with a movie like A.I.

Whether they admit it or not, I think most that hate it (especially here) simply hate it b/c it's an extremely popular & influential movie, thus they have to be that guy.

This movie was soooooooo stupid. I mean how could John Travolta be alive in the restaurant at the end after he was shot by Die Hard?????? WTF!1!!!?


Er, I meant to say, some people may not have liked the non-linear aspect of the film and found themselves confused at places.

Also, some people might not like the fact that all the characters are crooks, drug users and lowlifes- in other words that there's no clear hero to root for.

Or like the time I took my dad to see it in the theater (it was the third time seeing it for me) they may have come out of the theater with only one observation: "That movie was weird."

I dont nessassarly hate it - I do think it's an over-rated movie, but I have no hate for Quint or the film.

Pulp Fiction has to be the most overrated movie of all time.

Incorrect.

I like the movie but believe that Quentin Tarantino is much better BEHIND the camera than in front of it. His presence on screen is just so damned irritating. I really enjoyed the bits of the movie he wasn't in.

Of course any movie with Christopher Walken has to be good. Right? Right?

Oh yeah, he's just too cool for words.

"More cowbell."

I'm looking for specific reasons.

Quentin Tarantino said he may do a prequal to Pulp Fiction using the Vega Bros.

-ohbfrank-

The idea for Kill Bill started during the filming of Pulp Fiction. Look how it took for Kill Bill to come out. Since he working on Hell Ride for 2006, maybe he talks to often in an unconscoius stream of thought (ideas).

He has talked about anime prequel to Kill Bill, another Kill Bill film in the future, InGlorious Bastards and a Pulp Fiction prequel.

Take your choice.

The non-linear timeframe was probably the biggest turn-off for most viewers, I would guess though

thanks for the year old news. it should take QT another 7 years to get that started on it if it ever even comes to past. Also, it still doesn't provide our young friend here any reasons why people would dislike Pulp Fiction.

I say you get another film that wasn't so loved Rypro. People will hate Pulp Fiction simply to take a counter to popular stance on the matter.

I agree with jack, there are a lot better "Love/Hate" movies. Such as FH911 or Passion.

Let's just be honest here. Some people will say they do not like a movie simply because it has too much R-rated content in it.

I saw PF about 5 times in 1994 in the theater. I had family and friends that said it was 1. too weird, 2. too much f-word, 3. too much drugs, 4. too much humor involving drugs, 5. non-linear storyline bothers people.


I actually know one guy that told me (before I saw it) that "John Travolta dies man, and then he's like alive again. It was f'ing stupid" - LOL

So it's just people's taste I guess.

those prudes wouldn't know a good movie if it came up and stabbed them in the ass!

I'm one of those people who just didn't care for the move. No it had nothing to do with the R-rated content (I'm a big girl and can deal with it) I've just never cared for QT's films. I went into Pulp Fiction thinking "OK, I didn't like True Romance or Resevior Dogs so maybe, just maybe I'll like this one." Well no not so much.

I'm usually a fan of dark humor but I found it difficult to laugh at some guys head being blown off in the back seat of a car. Add to that QT's insistence on dropping N bombs throughout his movies and his piss poor acting skills and Pulp Fiction was the last movie of his I will ever see.

I wouldn't call it the most overrated, but it is a bit overrated
I like it enough that I bought it, but I don't watch it very often

Yep. This is a popular reason for teh haet.

I'm still miffed at Mr. Tarantino for messing up his Oscar acceptance speech.

He should have walked up on stage with a briefcase, opened it, shoved the Oscar inside, latched the case, and walked off.

It would have been perfect.

Overated? No way...not even close. This is arguably the most influential movie in Hollywood since Star Wars in "77". For sure one of if not the best film of the 90's...and Im not even a huge fanboy.

I guess Four Rooms is your loss, then. :(

so there wasn't any influential films between 77 and 94? wow.

You would have thought that Back to the future, the abyss, terminator 2, Jurrassic Park would fall under those aspects

Why don't you go back and read what I typed....did I say anywhere that it was the only film? And no the ones you mentioned were not that "groundbreaking" Its crap like this that starts arguments...I said "one of, if not the best..."

My advice to Rypro would be to read negative reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. Just by reading the blurbs he should get enough of an idea why some people dislike it for a minute review.

I don't remember.

then I disagree with the statement. there was plenty more films that made an impact that have effected the film industry more so then pulp fiction. did it spawn off a lot of copy cats? yes. But that fad is normal for any filmed that is loved at the time.

Then you do not recognize film history.....end of my discussion.

digitalfreaknyc doesn't like any Tarantino movie. Ask him.

What? BAW HA HA HA HAH AHA HAHAH AHA AH AHHAH AHAHA


oh man, that's some funny shit right there. Here let me make an unfound, unproven statement much like yours.


"Well then, You must be blind of anything that is remotely interesting in film history!"


Can I prove it? No. So it has to be true.

I almost hate Pulp Fiction. Bits of it are okay. But I can't really help, because I can't explain why I don't like it. Everything I can think of is not enough on its own... For example, yeah, the rampant drug use probably has something to do with it - but I have no problem with the same in other movies. The violence? No, no issues there. Tarantino backlash? I liked Reservoir Dogs a lot. Maybe I think the movie is too clever for its own good? In other words, I wasn't wowed and blindly dazzled by the non-linear structure thus I didn't think the movie was anything special? (Just like I found Memento to be an average film.)

Sod it, it's probably mostly because of Travolta.

I'm glad he said "arguably" the most influential. Because I'd certainly argue. If I had the energy...

No no no shill.. if you did you would be in the same boat I am in. That is lack any and all knowledge of film history.... end of discussion.

:lol: what a stupid thing to say.

No offense Jack, but to claim that Pulp Fiction wasn't an incredibly influential film from the 1990s and since Star Wars is silly.

The guy made a valid point, I'm not sure why you have to be so obnoxious in your replies to people's arguments especially when they're correct. I know you're going to rant about how rude I'm being saying that, but quite frankly you can be quite rude to many many people regarding their posts and come off as exceptionally arrogant.

His statement has a lot of merit...a lot more than claiming Back to the Future was more influiential than Pulp Fiction. So, anyway...blast away Jack. You've got a lot of good points but God...sometimes you have no tact and make debating you more like arguing with a three year old.

Regarding Pulp Fiction, it truly was quite a revelation and proved to be quite the influence in the types of films made, but also in the independant movement and in also helping Miramax find its footing and many other things. It really was a very important film.

To say that it was as big as say Star wars or was the biggest influence in film SINCE 77 is really a stretch. That is what I read into his comment and that is what I responded to. Being corrected is something I'm always open to if it is pointed out to me. To add further that I lack any knowledge of film history simply because I disagree or do not fully back that statement up is the real obnoxious aspect of it.

I mentioned a few films that were of influence to film since star wars. JP was clearly something of great importance to film or we wouldn't be were we are today with effects.

Now Miramax breaking down the door.. Yes, that was start of it all. Now can we say that LOST IN TRANSLATION is one of the most influential films of the 2000's? I mean this is the start of focus features run. Miramax has turned the way of the studios with the treatment it offers some of it's imports.

His statement has a lot of merit, but to go to the extreme and refuse any sort of discussion by simply "ending the discussion" makes debate with him pretty non existant.

As for the Back to the future. It was tossed in as one of those random titles that put time travel into a new light and like pulp fiction made it mainstream. It also offered a mainstream use of going back be the original and filming in some sort of missorder. ;) It's sort of like saying that Nirvana was more influential then the pixies were. You have to go to the source. Now am I saying BTTF was the source of anything? No. I'm saying that Pulp Fiction wasn't the end all most influentail thing since star wars. Clerks had the same sort of dialouge that QT offered. Can we say that Clerks was the end of all ends mega influential film for film scripts? No, it made it's impact and for it's budget it really hit the mark.

I put it up front that I'm always up for a debate. Have me be wrong or right I'll be glad to show my down falls while putting what I believe is something of merit. I see going "END OF DISCUSSION" "YOU KNOW NOTHING OF FILM" more of the act of a three year old.

I agree with your first part. it was incredibly influential.. but it's odd you ment no offense because...
that sounded pretty offensive. If you want to debate sure, but if you are going to toss in condecending jabs then don't bother because it will turn into a bigger personal attack. I read his response and frankly, if you are going to toss out someone's views simply because they disagree with you and make bold statements about everyone who disagrees with you then I would much rather laugh about it. So that is why I just toss in the comment at those who may share or take a even deeper stance against Pulp Fiction. You lump a group of people into film ignorants simply because they dislike or do not feel that a film had as much influence as you claim it does without any debate, discussion or statement to back your claims up then it's better just to laugh about it all.

I may have missread that cop out of "arguably the most influential" yet when I do try to bring up a discussion that I disagree with the statement when I read into it that it was the biggest since star wars that I got the child like response that I know shit about film history. I'm up for a debate. Especially if I missread it. Now the main issue is why is it since? I could think of a few films. I tossed out some that played around with time and all that aspect. Pulp Fiction used a film trick that worked. It's like saying Momento and it's backwards story telling is influential and is being used in every day film somehow.

It worked great in that film but after it's splash down it really just went away.

Jack you're the only one who does the BIG LETTERS LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS YOU'RE ALL MORONS I'M RIGHT!!! type of thing. Yet you you claim you're mocking it when you're the only one who does it.

No, his end of discussion wasn't childish. You were being rude, you said outright he was wrong, Pulp Fiction was not influential, and sarcastically mocked him as if he were stupid. Your tone is rude, insulting, and you didn't even bother to make an argument until after my post. I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to argue with that, it's just pointless sometimes. Now, you're not an idiot you have a lot of good points and you know what you're talking about a lot of the time. But if anyone is playing mister E tough guy, it's you. If you honestly think you were mature respectful one in that or our exchange than...well...ok.

I'm not intending to throw personal attacks. I just read your posts and it comes off that way a lot. I won't continue on this, I just wanted to point it out that in this thread, and quite a few others, that's exactly how it reads.

That's funny Jaeufraser, lets take a look at my original text:

I don't see any part of that saying "You are Wrong". I do see that I asked if there wasn't any other film in that time period that was influential.

When it was pointed out that he didn't mean that this was the only film SINCE I restated my side

Again, I'm not saying Pulp Fiction did shit for film. But I first disagree. this would start off a discussion of why I believe so. I then state that there was more films to do so. He comes back with


Pretty bold statement not knowning me or anything right? who's acting like a child here? I wanted to get into a discussion about it. Would my stance be as solid without any doubt? No, I'm sure if I listened to him stating why he felt Pulp Fiction was as influential as it was then I'm sure I could agree with a lot of what he said and also disagree with a lot. But it would have been a shit lot more interesting then "Well then, you don't know shit about film history."

Me Sarcasticlly mocking him came after he just tossed out any thought of telling us why he felt the way he did. My tone may be rude and yes, I like to joke around a lot like that on this forum. Much like Groucho's comments you need to realize what is a joke and what is not. I didn't make an argument because there was nothing to argue about. He left the discussion with "You don't know shit about film history" that's it. What is there to debate with that?

If it's pointless then why the hell are you still debating about debating? How silly is that? I can honestly say that I wasn't mature after the fact that he told me I know shit about film. I admit that clearly. Why should I be mature about it if he wasn't going to? He went to that level first. I would have gladly went into a discussion about the matter but after that I'll just enjoy myself with the fact that anyone who disagrees with it is blindly lacking any knowledge of film history.

as for this
I've explained many times now. When I see something like his statement to close out the discussion it reminds me of the typical "OMG!!11" type of internet comments. I then go into a sort of Something Awful mode and well I play it off as a mocking text simply because I find humor in that. I would much rather laugh about it then get pissy about it. I do that by exaggerating it out. Now if you don't get it that is fine. It really doesn't concern me who gets it or not. It is a way for me to not take it as seriously as the guy is trying to make it.

Honestly. to end a discussion by saying "end of my discussion." that is just flat out funny right? Especially when you have made nothing but a blanket statement. be honest. It's just a little funny right? ;) That is why I took the ball and ran with it in a mocking manner. Cause it was the start of the discussion. I was already. I just rephrased my statement and said I disagree. It could have been a pretty good discussion from then on but to cop out like that, I just had to laugh a little about that. Have it come off as rude or e-tough, fine. I just found it beyond funny.

I have never met someone who hated it?