Pulp existed for 12 years before we got famous. Now, you could say that was just lack of imagination, but it's some kind of quality isn't it? Tenacity. You could also say it was sloth.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I can remember when 'Pulp Fiction' came out. I was, like, 10 years old. But I remember the impact that it had.
In retrospect, 'Pulp Fiction' isn't just the template for everything Tarantino has done but the yardstick by which everything else he does is measured one way or another.
There was an enormous revival of pulp fiction that started in the '60s and continued into the '70s, which in large part gave rise to things like 'Star Wars' and 'Indiana Jones,' among others. But I developed an appetite for the original stuff at the time, and that appetite has never really abated.
Every new medium has, within a short time of its introduction, been condemned as a threat to young people. Pulp novels would destroy their morals, TV would wreck their eyesight, video games would make them violent.
I was watching 'Pulp Fiction' when we were making 'Now and Then'. I didn't care about 'Now and Then,' you know?
In some ways, I think 'Pulp Fiction' hurt cinema in a very, very minor, small way. It did a massive amount of good. But it also made it impossible to make a movie even remotely like it without someone comparing it to 'Pulp Fiction.'
A pulp story without a detective and, obviously, somebody for him to do battle with is unthinkable, and I can't remember reading a pulp story that didn't have a dame - either a good girl or a bad girl.
I wouldn't define myself as the girl from 'Pulp Fiction.'
I always loved the verve and vivacity of pulp and I kind of merged it with my own interest in family stories.
'Pulp Fiction' is an amazing film, and I haven't made one nearly as good.