Talk:Pulp Fiction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

God, This Article Sucks

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)

Briefcase

I believe there is an error in the analysis of the "Soul Theory" as it says that Marcellus Wallace does not have the band-aid on the back of his neck when he begins looking for Butch. This is not true as the scene directly after the fight with Marcellus shows him with his band-aid, prominently portrayed, and sunglasses. Marcellus is first sign without the band-aid and sunglasses when Butch sees him on the street in Fabienne's car. Thus, while I think the Soul Theory is legitimate, this error should be recognized as it is not as clear cut as seems. User:LaxPlayer21 18:04, 19 May 2006

Also, he is not wearing sunglasses in the bar scene. Atltais 04:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Too much importance is given to the briefcase in this article, hence my cutting of two unecessary sentences. --Marmot

The briefcase plays a central role in the film: it is one of the things tying it together (all of the characters are involved with it or Marcellus), and has been the focus of a lot of speculation since the film's release. Maybe people latch onto it in search of some as-yet-unknown, more spectacular key to the film. You don't think this warrants at least two or three full paragraphs?
Tarnas 22:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the briefcase is really important. Yeah, it's a MacGuffin, but it's the most intriguing MacGuffin in movie history. And the theories about it are definitely worth recording, and to record theories, you need sentences. :-)  It looks like my contribution to the "It's Marsellus' soul" theory hasn't been reverted yet, so I hope it's satisfactory to all parties involved. (Personally, I don't remember any light "flaring across the screen" when Brett gets shot. There's a fade-to-white, though, IIRC. But I left that part in, pending verification.--Quuxplusone 00:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC

God evening, the briefcase may be, as you say of significance, however I do not believe it warrants 700 words.-- Marmot

And so what? Does this article aim to "cut down" on words, like as if it were wages? Knock it off. Let it be as long as it can be. Sheesh...beurocracy..."pending verficiation"...it's speculations allright, they don't NEED verifications...--OleMurder 29 June 2005 22:30 (UTC)

I'm going to reverse part of my opinion above, seeing the direction this article is going. Sure, it's a fun movie and it's fun to speculate emptily about it, but please don't put completely random, unverifiable junk in this article. I've removed the "Tinkerbell" speculation from this section, as neither the Disney-reference-in-every-Miramax-film theory nor the Tinkerbell-in-the-briefcase theory specifically seem to have any supporters online. And I strongly suspect that the weasel words in the original "Sankara Stones" paragraph were indicators of a lunchtime conversation followed by an ill-conceived Wikipedia run — but I've left it in anyway, for the moment. To potential editors: Please read the Snopes link before adding any more of your own pet hypotheses to this article.--Quuxplusone 7 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

I see lots of opinions on the briefcase on the discussion page. May I say that the briefcase is really a homage to an older movie and the director and writer intended no such reference as Marsellus's soul or anything as described in the section briefcase. I am afraid people are imagining things. I recommend that the entire section on briefcase be removed since it is only a small part of the movie and does not warrant in any concievable manner enough worth to have an entire section on the main page devoted to it. I make this recommendation since, the page is trying to say facts and not mere speculations. The theories about what the suitcase contains are also not worthy enough to be presented on the main page.--coolmallu 2005 July 7 15:29 (UTC)

• The briefcase theories are important to mention because they're a significant part of watching the movie, and of the discussions about the movie. To leave out the discussion would be to ignore it, it's not just imaginary: whether the briefcase is actually very meaningful or not, it's still garnered a lot of attention for a plot device. Tarnas 8 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)

The briefcase is a significant part of the movie. But it is only as significant as "Marsellus crossing the street", "The Jack Rabbit Slim's" etc.. we do not have sections on that. The point I want to make is that having a section on "Briefcase" means that it is significantly more important than other parts of the movie, which would not be true. It should not be forgotten that his movies are homages to earlier movies and it is true about the suitcase. Hence, if the suitcase did not warrant any particular attention in the old classic, it should not in pulp fiction also. When the writers made the script they did not know themselves what the briefcase contained. If they intended that the suitcase contain something or if it is verifiable then the section should be included. This is MHO.--coolmallu 2005 July 8 14:18 (UTC)

I see your point about the briefcase being a point of discussion. I believe that the article about the movie should be objective and should not contain mere discussions. I suggest that the section be removed. But we do mention about the briefcase but point to another source, where the discussion on briefcase is more through. Placing a section on briefcase on the mainpage creates an impression that the briefcase is particularly important part of the movie. Briefcase has indeed recieved lot of speculation, but that does not change the actual content of the movie. --coolmallu 2005 July 8 19:41 (UTC)

I am separating the speculation stuff from actual worthwhile stuff in the section briefcase. I hope none will consider my step impudent. --coolmallu 2005 July 9 00:44 (UTC)

Just keeep the briefcase, but avoid gettin' it balooned. It's a fairly of unknown purpose/no purpose but get's an interestin' viewpoint as alot of people go trough shit for it, and shit happen's 'cuz if it, then, and later, and just by being there and then and coming into situations because you are in that area at that time for the briefcase. But it's only important for Jule's and Vincent's side of the story, and a lil'bit of Butch's, too.--OleMurder 11:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Silly theories like the 'Soul' theory should be dismissed outright, if you choose to acknowledge them. They reflect the fanciful imaginations of people who don't understand the movie. Both Jules and Vince are aware of the contents of the case. We know this, because Vincent gazes at it, knowingly, and replies, 'yeah, we're happy.' If the briefcase contains Mr. Wallace's soul, not only does this shift the genre of the movie to a whole different kind of fantasy, but it implies by simple force of logic that Vincent knows he's on a metaphysical mission involving God and the Devil and their work on earth. So his subsequent dismissal of Jules's miracle theory makes no sense.

The central quality of Vincen'ts character is his dismissal of the greater significance of events in his life--whether they are metaphysical or simply remarkable in other ways. It is this quality that sets him off as a foil to Jules, who allows himself to be transformed. How would any of this make sense on any level if he knew he was on a metaphysical mission?

Furthermore, if it's a soul, Pumpkin's remark, 'is that what i think it is?' becomes suspect. How would he know what a soul looks like?

I fully agree that way too much emphasis is put on the case. Any reasonable critic would see it as a simple MacGuffin. All the fun speculation belongs in a separate pop conspiracy theory section, or something like that. paulraph

Okay, it's now an acceptable length. That's my IP it tagged Yesterday. But jeez, people, how did a tangent like that get in this article to begin with? Mikeguy 01:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This Sucks

The entire "Jules and Vincent Escape Death and so Jules Resolves to Become Cain from Kung Fu" theme is nowhere to be found in this article. That is the whole point of the damn movie. Somebody please fix this.

Fixed. Added the section 'Theme'. Clearly elucidated the meaning of the movie.--coolmallu 2005 July 7 15:29 (UTC)

Script

In case it helps with structuring this article, this Roger Roberts Avery script (With errors) describes three stories about one story and has these sections with title cards shown in uppercase:

• Prologue
• Vincent Vega & Marsellus Wallace's Wife
  • VINCENT VEGA AND MARSELLUS WALLACE'S WIFE
• The Gold Watch
  • THE GOLD WATCH
• Jules, Vincent, Jimmie, & The Wolf (Includes "the Bonnie situation")
  • JULES VINCENT JIMMIE & THE WOLF
  • NINE MINUTES AND THIRTY-SEVEN SECONDS LATER
• Epilogue

--Wikibob | Talk 01:00, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Thematical Analysis

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)

The "N"-word

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)

• Huh? So how sympathetic somebody is depends solely on the number of times they say 'nigger'? That doesn't make any sense. Whatever, it's not really important for the article, but this argument is really odd.--Junes 17:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

no their "sympathetic"ness is determined like this: jules is black he can say it is using it as a friendly term Marsellus's use is actually kind of offensive since he uses it as a word meaning slave basically or submissive person in "you my n*****?" but he's black and is talking to a white person anyway Lance is moderately offensive Maynard and zed are redneck rapists who are probably racist anyway jimmie seems just to be cashing in on the fact that jules is the one needing a favor to drop the n bomb in front of a black guy

The Bible passage

Should the 'Bible passage' be included?

Jules' version: Ezekiel 25:17 "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

King James Version: Ezekiel 25:17 "And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them."--Bobcat 19:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added it. I think it's notable enough. By the way, I have an mp3 of the famous speech, and corrected a few mistakes in your version. saturnight 20:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Cool thanks. Jules recites the passage twice in the movie; I wonder if the two instances have the same wording?--Bobcat 14:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to a lot of Web sites, they don't - the first speech ends with "thee" and the second with "you", or vice versa. Some sites even list this as a "goof"! Apparently Honey Bunny's "Anybody move..." speech is also different between the first and last scenes, even though in her case it's supposed to be the exact same speech, given only once. (That's Tarantino for you.) By the way, I found a Web forum in which somebody had claimed to own an old Hebrew Bible with Ezekiel 25 actually containing that passage (i.e., the KJV had been corrupted in translation), but that seems highly unlikely to me; I'm pretty sure I've read an interview in which someone stated that Pulp Fiction's "Ezekiel 25:17" was made up for the movie. Also, it's not in the Vulgate, which is supposed to be straight from the Hebrew. Anyone with an old non-KJV Bible, though, feel free to look it up. --Quuxplusone 16:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update: Young's Literal Translation [1] agrees with the KJV. Looks like the "old Hebrew Bible" forum-poster was just trying to pull someone's leg.

As the article now mentions, this passage is actually an homage to an old Sonny Chiba movie, Chiba the Bodyguard.

Well, it's actually in the bible (That Ezekiel 25:17 is sure, that it's like that it's not) so it's loosely based on that, sure it exists, but Tarantino sure has done some "cooling" of the original text. It's neither entirely fictional or entirely "factious".--OleMurder 11:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Favorable odds

"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)

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)

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)

Um, little title doubt here...

There's no info on why the movie is called Pulp Fiction! It may not be clear for everyone what the poster really means, a pulp magazine cover! Please put this extremely vital info on the page, or I am undoubtedly forced to do it myself. Kreachure 28 June 2005 19:36 (UTC)

• If this information is so vital, put it up on the main article, not the discussion page. Be bold.--Khanartist 2005 June 28 21:49 (UTC)

• I will do just that, thank you.--Kreachure 3 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

This is what the title means, and it's obvious to anyone who has read pulp novels of the 40's or looks at the definition in the very beginning of the movie:

Pulp: Moist shapeless mass of Matter. Fiction: A magazine or book containing lurid subject matter and being characteristically printed on rough, unfinished paper.

Simply put: There is why the movie is titled "Pulp Fiction," and the movie itself reams of it.

Theme/Moral

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)

• 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)

Tributes

We should add a section tributes, where the director tries to pay homages to earlier movies, culture, etc... I will get it started as soon as I get some books from the library.--coolmallu 2005 July 9 00:59 (UTC)

Article restructuring

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)

Dancing Award

The article states that Vincent and Mia win the dancing competition, but in the scene where Butch goes back to get his watch, a television report can be heard in the background that states a fight took place at the restaurant and the trophy for the competition was stolen, presumably by Vincent and Mia.

If you listen to it, all that is audable is "...this is Jack Rabbit Slim's..." Nothing about a fight breaking out and a trophy being stolen is ever mentioned, nor could it in the time frame it takes Butch to pass the window. Unless I'm wrong. --Cammoore 13:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong. I heard it, as well.--A Link to the Past (talk) 22:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think Cammoore is right. It says something like "...five dollar shake. Visit the Jack Rabbit Slim's nearest you."

I have listened to the section numerous times on DVD, and while Jack Rabbit Slim's is clearly mentioned, I have never been able to hear anything implying that the statue had been stolen. I've heard this mentioned before on other sites but still haven't been able to verify it with my own ears. BinaryTed 20:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Then someone needs to really verify this. In this article the 10th and last item in trivia contradict each other - the 10th says the trophy was stolen, the last says that this is a false rumour. So what is it? Riflemann 21:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Some improvements

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)

Well, if that's your conception of the briefcase, all the more reason to give it such weight! The plot device that ties the movie together... that's a big deal. Anyway, it's now obviously a "plot device", and only a paragraph more is written about it than the Ezekiel passage: it's neither overly important in terms of article placement nor relative size. Why again would it bother you so much? -Tarnas 22:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Redundant Butch section

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.

1. Butch smokes Red Apple cigarettes.
2. Butch's boxing opponent was named "Wilson"?
3. Fabienne's car is a Honda.
4. Marsellus is walking back from the "Teryiaki Donut".
5. Goon's motorcycle is named "Grace".--68.62.17.196 20:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)--

Grace, The Chopper

Since I have not seen much of a reference to this before, I thought it important to point out that Butch rides away on Zed's chopper named Grace. Grace is exactly what he has given Marcellus and, to a large degree, what Marcellus has given him after his rescue. This is in the original script and, I believe, another piece reinforcing the redemption theme so prevalent in this film. Also it is interesting to note that Marcellus seems more interested in mercy and grace after, perhaps, and if, he has received back his soul, which some allege was in the infamous briefcase. Ultimately, in the film, responding to grace becomes important when Jules redeems Ringo in the dinner and walks away from "The Life". Vincent does not and ends up dead. Jules sees the miracle and grace and responds "trying real hard, Ringo, to be the shepard".-Kit Hill, M.S MFCC kithill@aol.com

Briefcase situation

"Too much on the briefcase; too little on Tarantino."--MARMOT 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Trivia

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)

I do. Write it into the article, and we'll see how it's treated by the other Wikipedians. If it's cool, it stays. If not: It doesn't. Just don't add opinions...only the facts.--OleMurder 11:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"The animated 1957 film Three Little Bops features the drawing of an animated square in mid air. So does an episode of The Flintstones"- what does this have to do with PF?

Mia Wallace does the exact same thing in a scene of the movie. --Setrajonas 16:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone should add a reference to the game Fallout 2, wherein the main character can arm-wrestle an NPC for a reward. the wager is "Lose and you're my gimp for the night", also, upon losing the main character has a ball gag added into his inventory--PhelanDarkmane 06:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Trivia section incorrectly lists Jules's handgun as a Colt 1911, like Vincent. It is in fact a Spanish Star 9mm variant of the 1911 design. Thus his statement "Mr. 9mm" is correct. Also both guns are nickle plated and pearl gripped, not ivory. Whoever wrote that should watch Patton to learn the difference (Patton rebukes a mistaken reporter that his pistol handles are ivory and that pearl handles are for "pimps").

Yet another possible connection to Reservoir Dogs

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)

I noticed that Mr. Blonde's name is actually Vic Vega, which isn't far from Vincent/Vince Vega.

That's because they are brothers. Tarantino said They were. --67.142.130.33 16:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't "pulp fiction" come here?

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)

I just realised my capitalization mistake. Nevermind. Albrozdude 06:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

..When Butch decides to go back and help Marsellus, he passes a wall with Tennessee license plates. Butch previously mentions on the phone with his brother that he is from Tennessee. He remembers his father's ordeal in Vietnam and how men are supposed to help each other in tough situations.

noen Killians Red witch a brellock Z talk to butch Kill (Z)ed

Fox Force Five

From what I understand, the music video for the Spice Girls "Say You'll be There" was actually derivative of the movie "Faster Pussycat, Kill Kill." The Fox Force Five, menewhile was inspired by the movie "Angel's Revenge" (which was also lampooned on MST3K).

Toilet/bathroom plot device

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....

Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?

Wetman

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)

Userbox

PULPThis user does not think Marsellus Wallace looks like a bitch.

Chernicky 19:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Lance

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)davey_jones72@hotmail.com

If you can find any resources to back up that assertion, request away. --Setrajonas 16:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Severe lack of references

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. --Malber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Like, anyway, y'know

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)

Butch back in his apartment for wristwatch

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)

Heroin Scene Trivia Question

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)

Second Macguffin for Plot Devices

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)

I'd argue that the Watch could be viewed as a MacGuffin (inconsequential object which moves the story along), but not the boxing match. That's just part of the plot.

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)

Reference in Boondocks TV Show

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)

Removed screwy para from 'Other details'

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)

Number of storylines

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)

I'm certain this is false

In the trivia section there is this statment;

In Kill Bill, Budd falsely claims to have pawned his Hattori Hanzō sword in El Paso, Texas. In actuality he took possession of Kiddo's sword after her attempted assassination, and in his alcoholic state, pawned it believing it was the sword given to him by his brother, Bill. This is the sword that Butch Coolidge finds in the pawn shop.

The problem is that: 1) Budd claimed to have pawned the sword before Kiddo attemted to kill him, 2) Budd handed the Sword to Elle Driver who then used it in her fight with Kiddo. This being the case I think it should be removed from the article.

Agreed, those are the three storylines.
the coffeeshop scene, Vincent and Jules, and the Bonnie Situation are all the same storyline.
paulraph

original research

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)

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)

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)

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)

Siskel and Ebert

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)

Two days

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)

TV Differences

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)

agreed ReverendG 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Done, per Reverend's agreement. Carl.bunderson 18:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Television Version Differences

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)

I just deleted the section, per my reasons above. I don't believe its worth fixing. Carl.bunderson 18:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Whack job on briefcase-soul theory

I'm cutting down the soul-in-a-briefcase theory to a few sentences. A piece of fancruft like this does not need multiple sections with their own headers to "prove" a theory. (Ethan Mitchell, forgetting to sign in)

the subtle paradox

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)

Wolf or Wolfe?

Both versions of the name are used in the article... f(x)=ax²+bx+c 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

IMDb says Winston "The Wolf" Wolfe. —Tamfang 02:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Title

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)

• I disagree. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)"Where a film or book title is unique or virtually unique, let the title of the article be the same as the title of the film. But where it is the same as a subject in science, a novel, or whatever, unless the film title is far and away the most common accepted meaning of the word or phrase, title the film article like this: Film Title (film). " EvilCouch 06:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Critics/Box Office

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)

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)

Move article

• Pulp Fiction → Pulp Fiction (film) … Rationale: the article Pulp Fiction and Pulp fiction points to two different page. The slight capitalization can cause confusion. The former is about a movie that takes its name from the latter. This also conforms to Wikipedia film title naming convention. Therefore, IMHO, the latter takes precedence over the former. I tried moving the article to the latter but it got reverted. … Please share your opinion at Talk:Pulp Fiction. — F3-R4 21:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree The other article is entitled "Pulp magazine" not Pulp fiction. So the brackets aren't really necceassary. Plus "pulp magazinne" also goes by other names. The movie is very prominate and the header at the top of the page is good enough in my opinon. --Ted87 21:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Pulp fiction, the genre, is distinct from pulp magazine. They should eventually be separated. In the meanwhile, we should use Pulp Fiction (film) like Casablanca (film); it's a secondary use of the name. Septentrionalis 16:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support per Septentrionalis. Dragons flight 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Anchoress 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, as per the guidelines "Where a film or book title is unique or virtually unique, let the title of the article be the same as the title of the film. But where it is the same as a subject in science, a novel, or whatever, unless the film title is far and away the most common accepted meaning of the word or phrase, title the film article like this: Film Title (film)."--duncan 01:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support per duncan. Duja 08:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support same reason as duncan. EvilCouch 09:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. There was a precedent decision at Penny Arcade (webcomic), which used to be at Penny Arcade. The Pulp fiction article should then become a disambiguation page, and the Pulp Fiction article should redirect to that. --DDG 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Where's the trivia?????

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)