pulp fiction question

kraggy

can anyone help me with this?

i watched pf for the umpteenth time the other night and noticed something odd. i hope it isn't just something that's supposed to be as i saw it.

let me explain. in the scene where john travolta and samuel l. jackson's characters meet butch (bruce willis) for the first time, they are wearing the clothes that they got off quentin tarantino in his house after they cleaned out the car, which got destroyed when travolta accidentally blew off the black guy's head. however, this scene is much later on in the film so what are they doing wearing the t-shirts and shorts when they meet butch in the bar, when in actual fact they don't receive them until much later on?

i thought initially that it had something to do with the sequencing of the movie but that it not possible.

please help!

Raoul Duke

It's been years since I've seen this so I can't sequence it properly in my mind but why is it impossible?

ykt0di9url7bc3

kraggy wrote:

can anyone help me with this?

i thought initially that it had something to do with the sequencing of the movie but that it not possible.

please help!

its tarantino, changing scenes to fit stories, certain scenes will appear earlier or later with regards time but still keep the plot going telling the story

Pigman II

It's quite simple really. Back in 1994 in a bid to combat video piracy QT flooded the market with 'dummy' copies of Pulp Fiction in which all the scenes were mixed up in order to make the film practically unwatchable.

You were just unlucky enough to pick up one of these copies, so I suggest you get down to your nearest reputable video shop and pick up a 'proper' version of PF in which all the scene play in the correct order.

Gordon

I thought the masters of those had been destroyed in the Fire of London?

RainyDay

kraggy wrote:

i thought initially that it had something to do with the sequencing of the movie but that it not possible.

What makes you think that sequencing is not a possible explanation? Did you notice that Travolta gets squished by Bruce Willis in the middle of the movie and then reappears with Samuel in the Bonnie incident at the end?

seamus

Yes, the movie is purposely mixed up to tell the different stories.

The scene where Travolta and Jackson are talking about Amsterdam in the car is the morning of day one, and the earliest time index in the film. The scene where butch drives off on the chopper is the afternoon of day two, and the latest time index in the film.

Now it shoudl all make sense.

ixoy

Umm you've watched Pulp Fiction "umpteen" times and you're only noticing now that the scenes aren't in chronological order? You're not planning on being a detective are you? And, for your sake, don't try out "Momento" or "21 Grams"....

Zoton

seamus wrote:

Yes, the movie is purposely mixed up to tell the different stories.

The scene where Travolta and Jackson are talking about Amsterdam in the car is the morning of day one, and the earliest time index in the film. The scene where butch drives off on the chopper is the afternoon of day two, and the latest time index in the film.

Now it shoudl all make sense.

[pedantic]Actually the earliest scene is where Christopher Walken gives Butch his fathers wristwatch.[/pedantic]

seamus

Zoton wrote:

[pedantic]Actually the earliest scene is where Christopher Walken gives Butch his fathers wristwatch.[/pedantic]

We could get really pedantic here and argue that it's not really a scene in the timeline, it's a memory, so it's not incidental in the timeline of the story

Dave

Did you also notice that the film starts and ends in the same place with the same situation. That's a fairly big clue as to how the film isn't in chronological order.

callmescratch

ha, funny thread

mycroft

can anyone help me with this?

This is actually funnier than the time a mate of mine took three days to figure out the ending of the Usual Suspects......Three days later after much explaining, and diagrams where appropriate , he still hadn't got it, when out of the blue he turned to me in the pub and utter the immortal line

"so he wasn't a gimp after all!"

idiot.

i watched pf for the umpteenth time the other night and noticed something odd. i hope it isn't just something that's supposed to be as i saw it.

Seriously are you old enough to be watching this film? Did it make your brain hurt?

May I recommend you avoid the following films if the concept of non linear storytelling vesks you so;

Anything by Truffant and Godard
Citzen Kane.
City of God.
Amores Peres
Christ even Kill Bill might to dangerous for you........

koneko

Doubt this is a serious thread, you'd have to be fairly simple to not understand what was going on.

seamus

koneko wrote:

Doubt this is a serious thread, you'd have to be fairly simple to not understand what was going on.

I remember when I first saw it, one of my mates who had seen it before said to me, "This is the *most* confusing film you'll ever see. It's all over the place."

I had no idea afterwards why he said that to me.

vibe666

mycroft wrote:

This is actually funnier than the time a mate of mine took three days to figure out the ending of the Usual Suspects......Three days later after much explaining, and diagrams where appropriate , he still hadn't got it, when out of the blue he turned to me in the pub and utter the immortal line

"so he wasn't a gimp after all!"

idiot.

*strangely enough, (apparently) because of the complicated plotlines up until he saw the premiere, Gabriel Byrne actually thought that his character in the movie was Kaiser Sosé, and was a bit confused when he realised he was wrong.

*I read this somewhere (possibly here) a while ago.

mycroft

*strangely enough, (apparently) because of the complicated plotlines up until he saw the premiere, Gabriel Byrne actually thought that his character in the movie was Kaiser Sosé, and was a bit confused when he realised he was wrong.

If you're a movie nerd I'd recommend you pick up a faber version of the screenplay, absolutely fascinating interview with the writer Christopher McQuarrie (sic) discussing the development of the script from the original idea to shooting.

Also and it's a steal, pick up the special edition DVD, it's quite cheap (on sale in HMV at the mo I think) double disc set, with a rare audio commentary from the editor (who also wrote the score the talented b*****d) which is a different point of view than the usual actors talking s***e, in the interviews they reveal that they shot two endings one with Byrne as Kaiser, and kept the actors guessing to give an edge to their confused and disorientated performances......

Roar

Well that gave me a giggle on a horrible monday evening. cheers Kraggy, ya mentalist

sceptre

mycroft wrote:

May I recommend you avoid the following films if the concept of non linear storytelling vesks you so;

Anything by Truffant and Godard
Citzen Kane.
City of God.
Amores Peres
Christ even Kill Bill might to dangerous for you........

Or Memento. Crazy sheeyat. They even forgot to put colour in bits of it!

DapperGent

May I also recommend Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive. They're both fairly straight forward.

mycroft

t's quite simple really. Back in 1994 in a bid to combat video piracy QT flooded the market with 'dummy' copies of Pulp Fiction in which all the scenes were mixed up in order to make the film practically unwatchable.

I thought this was very funny.

In hindsight we should have come up with the most improbable explaination for this and seen which one he'd have gone for.

ie. The Scene in the bar was shot on a Sunday, and Travoltas strict scientologist views forbade him from wearing black on the sunday.

or, It was the last day of filming and due to a tragic accident involving the wardrobe dept, the gimp costume, Bruce Willis' Katana and a bar of soap both travolta's and samuel l jacksons costumes where destroyed, so the only alternative costumes could be used.......

whosurpaddy

sceptre wrote:

Or Memento. Crazy sheeyat. They even forgot to put colour in bits of it!

theres an easter egg on the memento dvd which shows the film in order. not 1/2 as good/edgy

allyourbase

they could have released two versions of pulp fiction at the exact same time to the theatrs, one in oreder and one mixed up, many people would have gone to see both, and they could have doubled thier money with the same film and same advertising :eek:

mycroft

allyourbase wrote:

they could have released two versions of pulp fiction at the exact same time to the theatrs, one in oreder and one mixed up, many people would have gone to see both, and they could have doubled thier money with the same film and same advertising :eek:

Wow.

You're an idiot.

Blisterman

Stop ****ing with the guy, that's so cruel.
The Real reason is explained in the deleted scenes on disc 3 of the DVD.

Quentin Tarintino's character swapped his suits for their crappy clothes after John travoltas character was wounded by bruce willis's character, he then had them dry cleaned, and in the process foiled honeybunny and pumpkin's getaway from their earlier robbery. They then decided to rob the restaurant again.

The reason this scene was cut according to the optional commentary is that quentin wanted his charcter to be used only briefly.

Hope that clears things up for you.