Talk:Pulp Fiction

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Desilet, Gregory (2005). "Postmodern 'Noir' Melodrama: Pulp Fiction". Our Faith in Evil: Melodrama and the Effects of Entertainment Violence. McFarland. pp. 299–305. ISBN 078642348X.

FAC withdrawn

My attempt to nominate the article for FAC has been withdrawn, given that I am neither a regular contributor to this article, nor did I consult the editors who were. Well, let me do that now. Do any editors think this article merits a Featured Article, or Good Article nomination? Ilov90210 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mistake made in discussion about the weapon used in the Vincent Vega killing

Not just here,but all over the web,people seem to believe that the submachine gun found and used by Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis) to kill Vincent Vega(John Travolta) while he is on the toilet in Butch's apartment is a Czech Vz61 "Skorpion".Vz.61 This is incorrect. The weapon used looks more like an Ingram MAC 10/11 .Mac 10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.143.68 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost, you need to provide a reliable source that refers specifically to the weapon in the film, not just your opinion about what it "looks more like". Secondly, the links above don't work. Cresix (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

They do now. GRAPPLE X 23:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

NY Daily News mentions it. It is also mentioned in a footnote - Pulp_Fiction#cite_note-193 - though the footnote is not sourced. What Tarantino wrote in the script was "What he sees is a small compact Czech M61 submachine gun with a huge silencer on it, lying on his kitchen counter". SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Raped/sodomized

In this text:

Maynard is joined by Zed (Peter Greene); they take Marsellus to another room to rape him, leaving a silent masked figure referred to as "the gimp" to watch a tied-up Butch. Butch breaks loose and knocks out the gimp. He is about to flee when he decides to save Marsellus. As Zed is raping Marsellus on a pommel horse, Butch kills Maynard with a katana. Marsellus retrieves Maynard's shotgun and shoots Zed in the groin. Marsellus informs Butch that they are even with respect to the botched fight fix, so long as he never tells anyone about the rape and departs Los Angeles forever.

It's repetitive to use the word "rape" three times in one paragraph. So I varied the wording and made it more precise by changing it to "As Zed is sodomizing Marsellus on a pommel horse". And it is precise. There is no ambiguity of the act being performed. See the film, e.g. on Youtube. If you dispute that, you must also dispute there was any rape at all. Please have an excellent rationale if you want to revert this again. Barsoomian (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, you convinced me. I won't change "sodomizing". Cresix (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I noticed someone briefly reverted it on the grounds that "sodomize" doesn't imply "rape". However, as we still say that he was raped twice, that is already clear. Barsoomian (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pulp Fiction/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 21:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll be looking at this over the next few days, and then I'll start to make some comments. SilkTork *^YES! 21:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Reverts

There has been a minor edit war over the rape scene, but that appears to have been resolved. There is a lot of IP vandalisim, so I will semi-protect. Semi-protection means that unregistered accounts will need to leave a message on the talkpage if they wish to make an edit. SilkTork *^YES! 13:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Images/media

All images/media have appropriate fair use rationales. There is a larger than usual use of fair use images, though each use appears to be both appropriate and very useful, with clear explanatory text that brings out the importance of the images. My quibbles are that the captions tend to be long, and that the captions in the stacked images in The mysterious briefcase section are not immediately clear. Is there a way to a)move the bulk of the text to the article, and use more succinct captions and b)to present the captions in The mysterious briefcase so that they read continuously? SilkTork *^YES! 13:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Prose

The prose is of a high quality. Readable, informative and precise. There are occasions, however, when the words chosen could have borne Plain English more in mind - such as "pivotal" instead of important; "evokes" instead of recalls; "allusions" instead of references; "portentous" instead of - I'm not sure, as the line is not quoted, so I don't know if pretentious, awesome, scary, thrilling or foreboding is meant. I like the prose, but then I am well read and well educated; I wonder if it is slightly more difficult for the average reader than it needs to be, and so not meeting the use plain English suggestion of MOS:CLEAR which is part of GA criteria 1 (a). SilkTork *^{Tea time} 14:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just looked at theprevious GA review. That also brought up the question of the prose. I note that, other than structural reorganisation, there has been little significant work done on the article since that review - and little that I can see which pays attention to the prose. However, I am not quite clear what exactly the previous review found wrong with the prose other than it "does not read well enough as an encyclopedic article", so I'm not sure if those issues have been dealt with, or if the previous reviewer's objections are the same as mine. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why is Marsellus quoted as saying "I'm 'a get medieval on your ass," rather than the script version of "I'm gonna git Medieval on your ass"? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead

The lead perhaps doesn't quite organise itself to present the most important aspects of the film in the first paragraph. We get the Oscar nominations of the supporting actors in the first paragraph, but have to wait until the final paragraph to discover that the film was "the inspiration for many later movies", "had a sweeping effect on the field of independent cinema" and is considered "a cultural watershed". We learn little about Tarantino from the lead, as to where the film appears in his work, and the film's importance in projecting Tarantino into the public conscience. Though the body devotes a lot of attention to the plot and the main characters, these aspects of the film are not adequately dealt with in the lead. Production details are not in the lead, and we don't get a mention of Miramax for whom this was an important film, and who promoted it agressively. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Cites

• While the article as a whole has a deal of inline cites, there are still places that would benefit from a cite. There are some footnotes - Pulp_Fiction#cite_note-193, Pulp_Fiction#cite_note-170 for example, and some statements in the lead, that while fully cited when explored in detail in the main body, can provoke a reader - "its consequent profitability had a sweeping effect on the field of independent cinema" and "Considered a cultural watershed". WP:LEADCITE suggests citing such statements. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Spot checks on the cites will take a little time as most of the sources are print which are not available to UK readers on GoogleBooks. Sources cannot be "accepted in good faith" by GA reviewers. looking at the sources will also clarify the original research and POV aspects of the GA criteria.
• I'm not fond of the citation style used in this article, as it makes checking details and sources difficult. Notes are mixed with citations, and it's not clear which texts are used the most. I've ordered the Dawson and the Polan from Amazon as well as two books on Tarantino from my local library. These should all be available within a few days. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• There are a number of dead external links. Toolserver may be consulted for which links are dead and need updating. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Focus

The Critical_analysis section is fairly detailed for a general encyclopedia entry on the film as a whole. It goes into essay detail. This depth of detail would be more appropriate for a sub-article. Criteria 3 (b) suggests such material be split into sub-articles and a summary left behind per WP:Summary style. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nominator

The nominator has been blocked as an account created by a banned user. The GA review is, however, still viable, and I will proceed with the review. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

On hold

There is an impressive amount of material in this article, and the critical analysis section in particular makes for a very interesting read. This is a well written and erudite article. The quibbles are to do with the Wiki guidelines that the GA criteria refer to, which are intended to make articles readable and approachable by a wide range of readers. I'll put this article on hold for seven days, and contact significant contributors, nominator and WikiProjects to the issues, which can be summarised as:

• Prose - copyedit to make the language more accessible per MOS:CLEAR, paying attention to Wikipedia:Use plain English
• Develop and organise the lead per WP:Lead
• Cite strong statements in the lead per WP:LEADCITE, and also cite footnotes which contain statements or assertions which are likely to be challenged, as per WP:Cite
• Split out The Critical_analysis section into a sub-article per WP:Summary style
• Pay attention to the image captions per WP:Captions

Meanwhile I will do spot checks on sources, and do some quick background reading to ensure that the article meets broad coverage, POV and OR. Hopefully this shouldn't take long as I've already ordered books. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Closed

No work has been done (other than an edit war over the template) and nobody has left a message here or tried to get in touch with me. Closing this GAN as not listed. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox gross

According to the infobox templates' documentation, "Insert the worldwide gross revenue accrued by the film. This information is available for most pictures at Box Office Mojo and The-Numbers. If worldwide gross is not available, then indicate which region has grossed that amount." The worldwide gross is sufficient for the infobox. We shouldn't use the term "domestic" anyway as this isn't the American Wikipedia, so what does "domestic" mean? What about the international gross? Why not include that too? You can include a box office summary table in the box office section, like this, if the distinction from 'domestic' and 'international' is important. The infoboxes are already bloated. —Mike Allen 04:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Use the worldwide gross only. There infobox is not the place to try and place undue weight on the U.S. box office for the film, especially since "Domestic" is different depending on where you live. Total gross in the infobox, and let the box office section of the article break it down from there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope.Disagree. North American box office gross is the standard reported figure in the plurality of the Anglophile world that English-language Wikipedia serves. Check several high-quality sources and get back to me on that, if you actually wish to disagree on an evidentiary basis. The infobox "guideline" is what it is, and what it is ain't no good. Anyone who knows cinema journalism knows that to be true. And unless you forge an opposite consensus here, we'll continue to do things better and more informatively on the Pulp Fiction page.—DCGeist (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus has already been established which is how the guideline was born. You alone don't equal consensus. No one is deleting valued information, the information is already in prose. This is the English Wikipedia, you are correct, but not the American Wikipedia, so "domestic" is meaningless. If the infobox guideline is "no good" take it to the talk page, but don't use an article to push your point of view (that others obviously don't share). Thank you. —Mike Allen 05:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So, basically what you are saying is that somehow the U.S. box office is more important than any other box office gross, as far as the infobox is concerned? Wow, how American-centric you are. Glad to see that this changed to the American Wikipedia from its originally established "ENGLISH" Wikipedia. Regardless, not only does the infobox itself say different, but even WP:MOSFILM states not to use terminology like "domestic". As I said, that means something different to different readers and you cannot say "it's a standard" because the average reader is not a cinema journalist. They're just an average reader. As for even breaking it down by "U.S." and "Worldwide", again you're showing bias to the U.S. market in the infobox. Considering the film premiered in Cannes, which is not in the U.S., there isn't even a presidence for that. Matter of fact, the film premiered all over the world EXCEPT for the U.S. . for about 5 months. As for consensus being "changed" here....well, that depends on how you consider consensus. If it's based on weight of argument, then I would say that that favors those who want to limit it to just WorldWide, because there are guidelines and policies (if you include NPOV, which I do) that say otherwise. You don't really have a significant argument to ignore the rules in this case. If it's based on numerical opinions, then that again favors the removal. So, what exactly are your criteria to "change consensus" on this page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the point of having just the worldwide box office gross is to ensure the universality of the overview of the topic. We then break everything down in the article body. While it seems that the American gross is noteworthy here, $100M for an independent film, it helps to have context for that. It seems better to take a global approach with the infobox and to note the American milestone in the lead section. I'm surprised that the lead section lacks any box office information, especially with the milestone being a great highlight to include with context. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's amusing how he tells you to "take it to talk page" and then ignore everything editors have to say. As what Erik is saying, the significance should be noted in the lead, not stuffed in the infobox with no context. Why is that so hard to comprehend? —Mike Allen 22:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The infobox should ideally only include information that will be of interest to all English-speaking readers, and there is a substantial portion of readers who the US gross holds no significance for. As other editors point out, national box office breakdowns can be covered in the appropriate sections. The point of incuding the worldwide gross and the budget is to give an indication of the relative financial success, and the US total has no bearing on that. The general view in this discussion is to adhere to the guidelines, and a valid reason why the US gross is of sufficient prominence hasn't been put forward. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

meme

The frase "English, motherfucker, do you speak?" is a meme in Russia. [1]

Gold Watch prelude

The info about hiding the gold watch in his ass for two years at a POW camp is incorrect, it is actually five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.58.53 (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Spelling error

"defended, mystified, male interiority" shouldn't this be "defended, mystified, male inferiority"?

Absolutely not. Read the sentence carefully, in context, and you'll understand what the critic is getting at.—DCGeist (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Content of the briefcase

I, personally, think the briefcase contains Twix and I vote that this thesis should be put into the article. 86.177.254.230 (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a copy of the script as was published in book form in the 90's. The script specifically states that it is Marcellus wallace's soul in the case. It was extracted through the back of his head which is why he has a sticky plaster on the back of his neck

"Accidental shooting" of Marvin

I object to this. Stating that Marvin was shot accidentally is a travesty. Careful viewing of the scene shows that Vincent pulls the trigger. There is no "bump" in the road. It is also reasonable to assume that Vincent killed Marvin as punishment for not telling them there was another person in the apartment - a person who came out with a "Hand Cannon" and attempted to blow them away. While Jules views this as a miracle - God's work - Vincent takes matters into his own hands and deals Marvin a reversal. Word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.172.92 (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Vincent clearly states that he didn't mean to shoot Marvin. He may have been angry about the apartment, but relieving Marvin of his head in a confined space, a car, as it's driving down the street in one of the most affluent neighborhoods in the country would do so much more harm for them than good. Further, if we were to believe Jules, one could argue that the gun going off was another, albeit bad, miracle, sent by God to punish Vincent for not believing in the miracle he witnessed.JIMfoamy1 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)