I just checked the box office profits for both and I'm amazed that IG took nearly three times what Pulp Fiction made. So I take it all back. Without seeing the figures I'd always assumed IG was a bit of a flop. Shows how much I know.

that is exactly right.

it was the huge megaexplosion of the "big indie". it was definitely the zenith of the indie film movement and a kind of watershed. bruce willis was in it. travolta made a comeback. samuel l. jackson became huge. the weinsteins made a fuckton. sundance was never the same after that. before pulp fiction, indies had proven they could be commercially successful (sex lies and videotape), but after that, the commerce took over and stuff started going to shit-- suddenly *every* fucking big studio had an indie division.

if we're going to compare with albums, reservoir dogs was bleach, pulp fiction was nevermind, and the shit that came after was... fucking nickelback.

inglorious basterds came after 15 years of consistent gentrification of indie film. it's not even an indie movie in any way-- it's a major fucking hollywood blockbuster-- in fact, kill bill was that already, they even made a benihana commercial based on it for fucks sakes. it was just like a summer blockbuster. no surprise there.

true that it's hard for tarantino to revolutionize film twice (few artists do that-- maybe picasso or matisse did the equivalent in their lifetimes) but while kill bill made me wanna vomit, (d)jango made me happy i watched.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to !@#$%! again.

Haha, straight to Nickelback then, no Bush transition phase? ;)

agreed completely !@#$%!, while I think that for Tarantino specifically Pulp Fiction is again his "Creep" and not yet exactly his OK Computer, I would definitely say that for indie film exposure in general and shifting the overall culture of big movies, Pulp Fiction is like the Nirvana of flicks. It elevated the entire indie film genre.

While I don't think Tarantino himself can do it twice, there are other greats who have pulled it off. James Cameron has done it twice. Stanley Kubrick has done it maybe a few more times than that. Scorcesse is always mixing things up on a monumental stage. Spielberg did it both in the 80s and then post-Shindlers' List. Coen brothers have tried, but I think like Tarantino they only really pulled off one revolution and both their mutual careers have just been an extension of that initial burst. Tim Burton definitely did it twice, first with is artsy/indie flicks and then with is stop-animation revolution. Love me some Tim Burton. We can sort of count John Singleton, who used to make really original and gritty films about authentic South Central Los Angeles, and later sparked off all the Fast&Furious bullshit blockbusters trends.. I would say on an indie level, the Hughes Brothers also had two revolutions, they introduced even grittier, MORE authentic versions of John Singleton films with Menace II Society and Dead Presidents (these are seriously groundbreaking movies) and then switched it up with From Hell and Book of Eli, however I don't think either of their revolutions ever translated into mainstream success.

lolol you gave me a red rep for quoting william blake! thanks for that! it cracks me up when i see it.

anyway it "elevated" but also destroyed it-- you ever been to sundance? i went once and-- holy shit, it's like hollywood boulevard on ice.

Yeah, quotes or not I didn't like the sentiments, but its nothing personal rare as red reps from me may be.. at least you got a good laugh from it :)

I agree with destroyed post-elevated, indie no longer exists either in music or cinema. DIY has completely replaced indie due to the accessibility of technology and internet media distribution. But in the microcosmic analysis of 1992-2005, I'd say there was a nice run of great, quality, authentic independent films thriving just like in the early-to-mid-1990s there were really great bands getting coverage and support. Now? The "system" has swallowed up all the talent and opportunity, much as systems always do, but surely there will be a new wave inevitably to come our way. In the meantime, much like how indie-musical innovations make there way into even the shittiest pop music, I think that most "Hollywood blockbusters" now are a bit better made and more enjoyable having taken some indie influences than they were in the 1970s and 1980s were it was hit or miss, sometimes epic, sometimes utter shit.

You may be right. However, it seems to me that Tarantino suffered a bit more than people are choosing to admit after the release of Jackie Brown.

Yes, Pulp Fiction was his breakthrough, but he was still very much an outsider in Hollywood. PF getting an Oscar Nod was kind of a shocker, because at the time, the Beat Picture category was still pretty closed off to independent films (except for the token "disturbing to the point of being unwatchable" films like Wild at Heart, 9 1/2 Weeks, etc. which helped the academy feel in touch with the gen x crowd, I guess). Pulp Fiction was a serious contender, and that was unexpected.

So he had this incredible buzz going after Reservpir Dogs, and he followed it up with an even better film that was like the fucking Nevermind of movies. Then, with everyone watching, he released a very solid film that, despite standing the test of time very well, kind of left the world in a collective "WTF" state, and failed to break down any barriers, or revolutionize film-making or blah blah blah....

I remember watching the film and thinking that it was a damn fine genre ode to noir and blaxploitation, but that its irony was too subtle, and its charm too easy to miss. Audiences were expecting him to make another game changer. What did they get? A love story with two forgettable lead characters and none of the bravado of PF. For a while there, some thought he was a flash in the pan.

How do you top Pulp Fiction? I don't even think Tarantino understood why it was successful! When he realized that people want style SO much more than substance, he responded with a hyperstylized throwback epic, defined by its homage to genre (pretty much EVERY genre) and its record breaking amount of gratuitous violence. What happened? "Tarantino's Back!!"

So I really think he's had to pay his dues twice over. He won over movie goers with Kill Bill. Then, he had to win over the critics and the film school douchebags again, and he did so in a huge way with Inglorious Basterds.

NOW he can do what he wants, and make Hollywood his bitch. Django was up for all kinds of awards, despite some mixed reviews and a fair amount of criticism.

Basically, I guess all I mean is, what about the years between PF and Kill Bill, when he was "executive producing" mediocre horror films, and generally acting like a bit of a ninny and a hermit? Pulp Fiction made movies better. Without it, I don't think Fargo would have turned the Cohen brothers into the most respected filmmakers in the world. It made it possible for little films to become massive hits, but it made things easier for the rest of the world. For him, shit- it probably made things pretty goddamn tough.
For the record, I think Kill Bill is brilliant. It's like some kind of social experiment, and for being a marriage of the Oscar Epic and the senseless bloodbath that puts asses in the seats, I think it's a tremendous film, and a hilarious concept, with some surprisingly powerful moments and two or three unforgettable performances.

RE: Django's excessive violence- I honestly havent thought much about it. Now that I think about it, I did have a hard time with the "Mandingo" scene, the dogs (do I need to be any more specific?), and the "pit" scene, short as it was.
Great movie, but I would have enjoyed seeing Jamie Foxx do a little bit mkre acting. His delivery was excellent, but I didn't see much personality in Django. Maybe this was intentional. Especially given the film's other main performances.

Something about his performance reminded me of Vincent Vega. That's fucked, right? Surely no one else felt that way. (?)

I don't think the mainstream audience "got" 4/5 of Pulp Fiction, as even LESS of Jackie Brown but both flicks were in the same vein. Both were to subtle and coy most Americans who lack enough flavor and whit to "get it"

I think what Tarantino did over the past years which killed it was he made "it" less subtle and too obvious as others have pointed out. For example, we never found out what the fuck was in Marsellas' fucking brief-case, something which most Americans either were probably pissed off about or even really didn't notice ;)

It feels like it had such potential, but then you actually watch it and you go "wtf happened with this idea". Too many WTF moments that mostly didn't work.

I take your point but still think Tarantino's power in Hollywood is more directly attributable to the success he had with Pulp Fiction. That was what gave him the green light to indulge himself with stuff like Kill Bill and the whole Grindhouse thing - neither of which I liked, I have to admit. I'm not a big fan of Inglorious Bastards, either, but I can't argue with its success. I just don't see that it's changed his status much within Hollywood. He'll always be an outsider to some degree simply because he'll never make the kinds of film that Hollywood largely associates itself with. They accomodate him, though, because his movies usually make a profit, but that's always been the case, from Reservoir Dogs onwards. Even Death Proof was a commercial success. Hollywood doesn't endorse directors so much as invest in them and if nothing else Tarantino is always a solid investment.

Since you looked up the box office, demonrail, you'd know better than I, but I thought PULP made well over 100 million. I think it was made for around 30. Anyone who more than triples an investment gets a big fat green light.

It is all thanks to danny DeVito who financed and produced Pulp Fiction. Thank Mario for Danny DeVito

Yeah, PF made about $200m worldwide on an $8m budget whereas IG made about $300m on a $70m budget. So PF is still the more profitable of the two. Either way, no studio will turn down figures like that.

You could say the same about Scorcese too to be honest.

I disagree, Scorcese had several distinct eras all which were successful on their own merits.

I meant he's pretty much a total outsider who somehow manages to make what he wants and how he wants.

And none of his best films were HUGE hits were they?

And to odd my tuppence about Tarantino-I've enjoyed all of his films to a certain degree (although I've still not seen Django) but at the back of my mind I'll always see him as a hack. He's manage to get a career out of doing "homages" as he like to call them when they really aren't. Every film is shockingly ripping something off without a shred of originality and it pisses me off.

I've got friends who think he's God yet when I try to show the lsit of films he's copied they brush it off.

In that context, I see what ya mean, and in this analogy I'd say with obvious parallels that Taxi Driver was his Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas was Scorcese's Kill Bill and Gangs of New York was Inglorious Bastards, and Shutter Island/The Departed was Django..

Just watched this pretty harrowing documentary on Vice about this new street drug in Greece called sisa, it's a derivative of crystal meth. Journalism at its finest.

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/vice-news/...he-poor-part-1

watched this last night with my wife. I enjoyed it. It was silly but quite biting and funny. I am a huge Galifianakis fan. he likes to make people I hate uncomfortable I give it a 7/10.

stupid meth. don't people just smoke crack anymore? shit is destroying the fucking world one life at a time :(