Film & TV Pulp Fiction question
- Thread starter PuffnScruff
- Start date
Nobody knows - except Tarantino, Travolta, Roth, the female actress that plays Honey Bunny & Jackson apparently, although I think a prop guy will know too 
It's been kept a huge secret intentionally to draw interest - just like the plaster on the back of Marcellus' neck? Does it hide the 666 mark of the beast?
That said, it appears twice in the movie incase you hadn't noticed.
It's been kept a huge secret intentionally to draw interest - just like the plaster on the back of Marcellus' neck? Does it hide the 666 mark of the beast?
That said, it appears twice in the movie incase you hadn't noticed.
CalcuoCuchicheo said:
It's been kept a huge secret intentionally to draw interest - just like the plaster on the back of Marcellus' neck? Does it hide the 666 mark of the beast?
That said, it appears twice in the movie incase you hadn't noticed.
That said, it appears twice in the movie incase you hadn't noticed.
sounds like you and my friend are on the same page
Myself & your friend are not 'on' the same page, we simply read a similar page.
Quentin Tarantino is a fucking dork &, true to his dorkiness, he saturates his movies with little personal jokes & 'secrets' & all that bullshit & then gives people hints, then people write about it & then people read about.
It's most likely that it was just a torch or some lighting device inside the case. What's important is what it was supposed to represent? (I say 'important' loosely)
It's really just bullshit. Tarantino did it to have a cool little set piece in his movie & then found that it become one of those 'cult' things, imo.
Quentin Tarantino is a fucking dork &, true to his dorkiness, he saturates his movies with little personal jokes & 'secrets' & all that bullshit & then gives people hints, then people write about it & then people read about.
It's most likely that it was just a torch or some lighting device inside the case. What's important is what it was supposed to represent? (I say 'important' loosely)
It's really just bullshit. Tarantino did it to have a cool little set piece in his movie & then found that it become one of those 'cult' things, imo.
See, now this is the type of shit they - Tarantino & his goons - like to hear.
Not dissing you Dogmatic187 because, on the basis of what we know of the film, that is a very probably opinion.
It's just the fact that nobody can ever be right in this situation that pisses me off.
It's like the 'Pac nut huggers who get stressed when they realize they'll never know what went down........the only thing to do is brush it off & realize that it really doesn't matter.
Not dissing you Dogmatic187 because, on the basis of what we know of the film, that is a very probably opinion.
It's just the fact that nobody can ever be right in this situation that pisses me off.
It's like the 'Pac nut huggers who get stressed when they realize they'll never know what went down........the only thing to do is brush it off & realize that it really doesn't matter.
CalcuoCuchicheo said:
Nobody knows - except Tarantino, Travolta, Roth, the female actress that plays Honey Bunny & Jackson apparently, although I think a prop guy will know too
It's been kept a huge secret intentionally to draw interest - just like the plaster on the back of Marcellus' neck? Does it hide the 666 mark of the beast?
That said, it appears twice in the movie incase you hadn't noticed.
It's been kept a huge secret intentionally to draw interest - just like the plaster on the back of Marcellus' neck? Does it hide the 666 mark of the beast?
That said, it appears twice in the movie incase you hadn't noticed.
Or so it's said.
The truth could be that some loser forgot to bring the diamonds to the bloody set &, with Jackson (fuck Travolta, his career was dead at the time) needing to wrap up so he could catch a plane to another movie set for his next movie role, some lowly fucking coffee boy saw a torch on set & said, "hey, Tarantino my fellow dork, use the light!!", whereby Tarantino - revelling in his dorkiness & movie knowledge combined - replies, "you mean the force, right?"....."naw motherfucker, he means use the motherfucking torch!" bellows Jackson. "Oh, right" says Tarantino as it dawns on him........he uses it, is later surprised as fuck to find out it becomes a 'cult' thing & then proceeds to bullshit at will in interviews.
Goodnight, case closed, game over, that's all folks, I've been Inspector Cuchicheo & you've been duped into wasting a couple of minutes of your time, so long!
The truth could be that some loser forgot to bring the diamonds to the bloody set &, with Jackson (fuck Travolta, his career was dead at the time) needing to wrap up so he could catch a plane to another movie set for his next movie role, some lowly fucking coffee boy saw a torch on set & said, "hey, Tarantino my fellow dork, use the light!!", whereby Tarantino - revelling in his dorkiness & movie knowledge combined - replies, "you mean the force, right?"....."naw motherfucker, he means use the motherfucking torch!" bellows Jackson. "Oh, right" says Tarantino as it dawns on him........he uses it, is later surprised as fuck to find out it becomes a 'cult' thing & then proceeds to bullshit at will in interviews.
Goodnight, case closed, game over, that's all folks, I've been Inspector Cuchicheo & you've been duped into wasting a couple of minutes of your time, so long!
Hmm... I get the feeling you don't like Tarantino much, but anyways
It seems you want answers, and can't get a straight one, so what? I liked he did that, it brought some creativeness to it, as well as some originality. It's like a movie that never shows what the monster looks like, till the end of the movie, or never at all, you invision what it is, and that's the best techinque. The patch on the back of his neck, is that were he soul was and when he apparently sold it to the devil, is that where it was taken? Did he just get cut? Is that his soul is the briefcase? is it gold? diamonds? Things like that keep you interested in the movie, after its over, the movie came out 11 years ago and people are still wondering what was in it, and I hope Tarantino never says what it really is.
It seems you want answers, and can't get a straight one, so what? I liked he did that, it brought some creativeness to it, as well as some originality. It's like a movie that never shows what the monster looks like, till the end of the movie, or never at all, you invision what it is, and that's the best techinque. The patch on the back of his neck, is that were he soul was and when he apparently sold it to the devil, is that where it was taken? Did he just get cut? Is that his soul is the briefcase? is it gold? diamonds? Things like that keep you interested in the movie, after its over, the movie came out 11 years ago and people are still wondering what was in it, and I hope Tarantino never says what it really is.
It's been speculated that the briefcase had the jewels from Reservoir Dogs. If you remember, there was a character in Reservoir Dogs by the name of Vinnie Vega, which some guess is supposed to be Vincent from Pulp Fiction. The thing with the band-aid on Marcellus's neck had nothing to do with the movie tho. If you've ever seen earlier Ving Rhames movies, you'll notice he has a really ugly scar on the back of his neck. He said in an interview that he was self conscious about how it looked so he covered it up, nothing to do with the movie at all
Nah man I don't care is my fricking point! I don't want a straight answer because I'm past it. And it wasn't that creative either. Also, the thing on Marcellus neck, if it's supposed to have a bigger significance than a cut (there was also talk that Ving Rhames just wanted an old scar covered up), then it has to be the 666 Mark of the Beast reference because that is common thought - souls being taken from the back of necks is not.
The last person that questioned my opinion of Tarantino:
http://www.2pacboard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130102&page=2&highlight=tarantino
Michael Madsen was originally meant to star in Pulp Fiction but other commitments meant he couldn't do it. His character in Reservoir Dogs was called Vic Vega & the character in Pulp Fiction is called Vincent Vega. Had Madsen been able to take the role, the charcter in PF would've been Vic Vega. As he couldn't, Travolta's Vincent Vega is supposed to be the brother of the Resrvoir Dogs character.
Haha, just noticed you've used the same thing I did about Ving Rhames' scar.
The last person that questioned my opinion of Tarantino:
http://www.2pacboard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130102&page=2&highlight=tarantino
Michael Madsen was originally meant to star in Pulp Fiction but other commitments meant he couldn't do it. His character in Reservoir Dogs was called Vic Vega & the character in Pulp Fiction is called Vincent Vega. Had Madsen been able to take the role, the charcter in PF would've been Vic Vega. As he couldn't, Travolta's Vincent Vega is supposed to be the brother of the Resrvoir Dogs character.
Haha, just noticed you've used the same thing I did about Ving Rhames' scar.
Calcuo, I was reading your Tarantino thread you linked, you'd actually put Stone and Eastwood (director-wise) in the same league as QT? Stone directed Natural Born Killers, my favorite Harrelson movie, and Wall Street was one of Douglas's top roles, but I think too many of his movies are bloated and weighed down, I know QT tends to refrain from cutting scenes, and likes to be overindulgent, but I never seem to mind, whereas Nixon, JFK, and even The Doors seemed just too grandiose for their own good (that was definitely Alexander's problem).
Eastwood has directed one amazing movie IMO (Unforgiven), QT has directed three (Pulp, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill 2).
DePalma's ok, two great movies IMO (Scarface, Carlito's Way), but aside from Raising Cain, average movies. Carrie was average, man. You're totally entitled to your opinion, and I would rate Kubrick in Tarantino's league, QT would probably be in my top 5, I don't know if I could place concrete ratings, one director over another. I definitely have a concrete 10, though.
I'm curious, what Scott would you put in Tarantino's league, Ridley or Tony? Both are pretty damn good.
Eastwood has directed one amazing movie IMO (Unforgiven), QT has directed three (Pulp, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill 2).
DePalma's ok, two great movies IMO (Scarface, Carlito's Way), but aside from Raising Cain, average movies. Carrie was average, man. You're totally entitled to your opinion, and I would rate Kubrick in Tarantino's league, QT would probably be in my top 5, I don't know if I could place concrete ratings, one director over another. I definitely have a concrete 10, though.
I'm curious, what Scott would you put in Tarantino's league, Ridley or Tony? Both are pretty damn good.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.