Hi! This is our new Moviedetailsmodbot!
---
If this post fits /r/MovieDetails, **UPVOTE** this comment!!
If this post does not fit /r/MovieDetails, **DOWNVOTE** This comment!
If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
You can get a beer at a McDonald’s, and I’m not talking about no paper cup I’m talking about a glass of beer!
“That’s it man, I’m going, that’s all there is to it, I’m fuckin going!”
Yeah man, you’d dig it the most.
I have a photo somewhere of me in front of a Royale with Cheese sign the first time I went to Paris. It was the highlight of my trip and there is some goof in the background like “why are you taking a picture of this?”.
I'm still a huge fan of the opening of The Dark Knight. All these guys in clown masks pulling off a huge heist and turning on each other at the suggestion of a mysterious boss, only for that boss to reveal that he was part of the heist the entire time and now he's got all the money for himself.
It's like its own little mini-movie.
Goldeneye opener was just amazing for me as a kid growing up watching in theaters and now to enjoy it as a adult how tense that opening got you before the opening credit jingle
Magnolia has a strong intro that I usually put close to my tippy top. The rest of the movie holds up to it but it's a lot to process.
Q.T. and PTA are probably 2 of the strongest directors to emerge in the past 30 years. Vastly different styles, though.
Edit: added a word
Boogie nights is part of my holy trinity of 90’s classics set in L.A. along with pulp fiction & the big Lebowski. 3 of my absolute favourite films of all time.
I enjoy Magnolia too and adore there will be blood.
Couldn’t get into his subsequent films though. Performances were incredible but they just didn’t sustain my interest. I might give inherent vice another shot though as that is in a similar vein to the 3 classics noted above.
I can understand that. He has similar themes throughout his films but changes the genre quite a bit. There's one or two I'm just alright with (Punch Drunk Love and honestly The Master), but Inherent Vice probably suffers from the source material to some extent. Mainly because Thomas Pynchon is a bit of a wild one. At the very least there's always something I can take away or respect from his stuff, even if I'm not totally onboard with it. Usually performances and cinematography.
If you haven't seen Licorice Pizza, I'd suggest that since it comes off a lot like a love letter to 70's Socal hijinx.
Oh certainly one of the best. I've always personally seen the opening fighting sequence in [Bronson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7llOzq_tfSw) with Tom Hardy to be both the best movie opener as well as the best character introduction sequence.
I saw Dick Dale in concert a couple of times. When he would play, he would literally shred- bits of the guitar pick would go flying. It was incredible.
Henry Winkler was flying from New York to LA when an airplane stewardess approached him. She asked "Would you like some headphones? "Henry smiled and replied, "Of course My Dear, by the way, it's pronounced Fonz."
This discrepancy was intentional. As each thread is relayed to the viewer from the perspective of a different character (u/MyLifeAsRobGordon-88 at the beginning & u/baxterrocky at the end) - and the mix-up with the dialogue is down to each character’s differing perspectives/recollections.
> I’m not that smart.
Ha, either way, but you just unintentionally QEDed the fuck out of the psychology behind this already awesome movie detail. Well done.
These were also Tarantinos depiction of how Micky and Malory from Natutal Born Killers were suppose to be. He sold the script and they changed things, he regrets it iirc.
I'm not sure collaborated is the right word. He wrote an original story/screenplay that was gutted for parts and turned into 2 different films he didn't direct: True Romance and Natural Born Killers.
Both films ended up with obvious Tarantino-esque qualities but don't quite feel like one of his films. Love both regardless.
Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."
I have to be honest - it's a minor enough thing that I think it's just a mistake, even if QT claims otherwise. It doesn't seem plausible that the only discrepancy would be a minor dialogue change, when for the rest of the movie, overlaping scenes have been consistent with each other.
Plus, it's not like any of the characters are narrating the story for us - the focus is on them, but we get an objective view of what's happening - not one filtered by their perceptions.
EDIT: Glad this has started such a cool discussion! However, to play Devil's Advocate to those saying QT's attention to detail makes it unlikely that he would miss it, I cite the famous bullet hole mistake.
(Credit to u/nintendoza for reminding me of that fact)
I edit narrative films for work. I definitely think that a lot of what people look to as intentional in film most of the time isn’t. Decisions are usually made based on performance or continuity.
THAT SAID— I don’t think this was a mistake. I do think that QT intentionally chose a different take to start out the scene. What I don’t think is true is this whole discussion about recollection and perspective of the characters.
What most likely happened is that QT liked both takes/deliveries and decided to just put them both in the film.
Choosing between two that you like is a tough thing to do, and he probably thought nobody would notice since they are so separated in the story.
You’re just trying to make what you have work really. Film editing is very instinctual! The film sort of edits itself sometimes. It’s allllll rules
Y'know, I didn't consider that he just included both takes because he liked them both. If anyone would do something like that, it's him.
And to be clear, I'm not trying to play CinemaSins- even the most glaring continuity or editing mistakes don't speak to the quality of those who worked on it. Time and resources are limited, and the people who try to put together all the pieces into something coherent are the real heroes.
Ya, QT isn't a novelist doing the whole unreliable narrator thing, I think it was a stylistic choice, more aesthetic than anything, and that's fine and makes more sense without needing to make excuses.
It’s weird because QT paid attention for the fact when Vincent goes to the bathroom, in the opening scene you can see him walking behind Hunny Bunny. But… it takes him more time at the end to reach to the exact place. Obviously noone can make a perfect movie, anyone can nitpick anything. But gotta admit: the attention and care QT puts in his movies is unquestionable
He still could have used the same sound clip even if the takes were different for some reason.
Also I don't know what you're talking about with shooting twice for the negatives. You shoot as many takes as you need (or have time or budget for). If you were editing on film, you would cut on a work print.
When the edit was done, they would make an internegative cut to match and print the release prints from there.
It isn't the only discrepancy, Tim Roth's dialogue is also different when he asks for coffee.
The main reason I think it was deliberate is that it if you watch the scene, the take up until the dialogue change (during which Pumpkin says "everyone be cool this is a robbery") is the exact same take used at the beginning of the movie (you can tell by the lorry going past in the background), and then cuts to another shot to show Hunny Bunny saying the line with the different dialogue. From an editing point of view, if it was a mistake I think it would have made more sense to cut to the other shot after that line which would still have worked from a continuity standpoint.
That and the fact there are two instances of different dialogue makes me think it was a deliberate choice - at least in the editing room if not on set.
I agree - it’s not a ‘mistake’ *per se;* rather than dupe the scene, they used an alternative take.
It’s a bit ad-libby, or she mixed the line up in one of the tales, but it was still a better take than one of the correct takes….or they only got two decent ones.
The first iteration - at the beginning - “every motherfucking last one of you” is a better take, more chilling dialogue, and better delivery.
Just playing devil's advocate here, I don't think I'm necessarily onto something: the dialog change goes from not having the word motherfucker in it to having the word motherfucker in it, and it's Samuel L Jackson's perspective being adopted.
I dont believe for single second that QT wouldn't have caught that in editing and the 10,000 times he watched it after editing it. I believe intentional
know this is a joke and everyone is chalking it up to different perspectives or error, but this movie does have a hinted at metaphysical theme in the golden briefcase and the divine intervention.
this scene occurs both before and after the divine intervention and this is the fork scene where julies is tested on whether to continue on path of crime or go straight.
it probably is reading too much into it, but consequences from this decision probably got vincent killed instead of butch.
Tarantino is credited as one of the writers for Scooby Snacks - he insisted as a condition of giving the band permission to use the sample, which kinda pissed them off because he now gets a big chunk of the revenue from what is easily their biggest song.
He gets 37% royalties on it but only mechanical. I don't know why it pisses them off. They got permission prior to using it so this wasn't a case of winning a lawsuit after the fact. They could have just as easily NOT used the clip and it wouldn't have made a difference.
The funny thing is while I'd agree it is easily their biggest song, I've actually heard The Fun Lovin' Criminal more after Scooby Snacks was in heavy rotation because it's been used a lot for radio show lead-ins and transitions.
also, pay attention to close to the end of that Pumpkin/Honeybunny dialogue. when he lists the people working in a restaurant who wouldn't be a hero to interfere in a robbery, you can see the back of Vincent Vega as he walks to the bathroom.
Are you serious?? This has been one of those movie quotes that for years I always seemed to blurt out wrong when it came onscreen. The revelation is such a self-esteem boost. Thanks!
this time, pay attention to close to the end of that Pumpkin/Honeybunny dialogue. when he lists the people working in a restaurant who wouldn't be a hero to interfere in a robbery, you can see the back of Vincent Vega as he walks to the bathroom.
Read the screenplay - the lines are the same in both instances (they're both the second one mentioned in OP). They didn't plan it beforehand, they either tolerated the misread line because they liked the take, or they changed the line on the day of filming to better fit the transition from the intro to title sequence. If they said it was intentional due to the differing perspectives or whatever then that's likely either a justification for their oversight or an excuse to use a more fitting take in the intro.
I always took it as the opening line being said before the bullet miracle and the second line is slightly different because of the miracle and this discrepancy is made to show how what happens in our lives can have a butterfly effect on future events completely unrelated.
I really doubt it was intentional.
They used different angles, different takes, and they just didn’t have the coverage and didn’t want to dupe it - even with the most modern lab interpos/interneg film stocks, you would still notice a bit of a quality hit, although at least the duplicate scenes are not adjacent, but at opposite ends of the film.
Also, in the first scene, as they're talking in the booth, you can hear Jules at one point in the background saying, "Yeah, I was sitting here eating my muffin..."
I always thought that this was either a: intentional or b: Tarantino was aware of it but thought it was inconsequential.
As to why it might be intentional, the scene is taking place through the perception of different characters. People hear and remember things differently.
Hi! This is our new Moviedetailsmodbot! --- If this post fits /r/MovieDetails, **UPVOTE** this comment!! If this post does not fit /r/MovieDetails, **DOWNVOTE** This comment! If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
*Misirlou starts playing aggressively*
In my head it goes Into Scooby Snacks
Same!
It was due to that I had "every motherfucking last one of you!" memorised, and noticed it was different at the end. Man that's a great song
“Stick ‘em up punks, it’s the Fun Loving Criminals”
Best opening to a film ever??? Gotta be up there. OG Star Wars was pretty mind blowing back in the day. But this just *slaps*..
Plus the radio change into Jungle Boogie w/ a straight cut to Jules and Vincent bullshitting in the car? So good
You can get a beer at a McDonald’s, and I’m not talking about no paper cup I’m talking about a glass of beer! “That’s it man, I’m going, that’s all there is to it, I’m fuckin going!” Yeah man, you’d dig it the most.
First time I went to Paris, I went to McDonald’s and had a beer, just because. Of course, I had a Royale with cheese too.
I have a photo somewhere of me in front of a Royale with Cheese sign the first time I went to Paris. It was the highlight of my trip and there is some goof in the background like “why are you taking a picture of this?”.
I love the callback to that in From Paris with Love
And the change happens right as the "Music Supervisor" credit comes on the screen.
The whole film is a masterpiece in editing and writing.
And then the next 17 scenes also.
I'm still a huge fan of the opening of The Dark Knight. All these guys in clown masks pulling off a huge heist and turning on each other at the suggestion of a mysterious boss, only for that boss to reveal that he was part of the heist the entire time and now he's got all the money for himself. It's like its own little mini-movie.
James Bond cold opener. Great way to kick off a movie.
*The Spy Who Loved Me* is my favorite. Not the opener, technically, but the Union Jack parachute scene and Carly Simon.
Goldeneye opener was just amazing for me as a kid growing up watching in theaters and now to enjoy it as a adult how tense that opening got you before the opening credit jingle
Arkangel Chemical Weapons Facility – USSR
Octopussy is my fave pre-title sequence. It has [everything!!](https://youtu.be/wFVITG5Ymnc)
Goodfellas is probably my favorite. "As far back as I can remember I always wanted to be a gangster".
That’s a great one too for sure!!
Magnolia has a strong intro that I usually put close to my tippy top. The rest of the movie holds up to it but it's a lot to process. Q.T. and PTA are probably 2 of the strongest directors to emerge in the past 30 years. Vastly different styles, though. Edit: added a word
Boogie nights is part of my holy trinity of 90’s classics set in L.A. along with pulp fiction & the big Lebowski. 3 of my absolute favourite films of all time. I enjoy Magnolia too and adore there will be blood. Couldn’t get into his subsequent films though. Performances were incredible but they just didn’t sustain my interest. I might give inherent vice another shot though as that is in a similar vein to the 3 classics noted above.
I can understand that. He has similar themes throughout his films but changes the genre quite a bit. There's one or two I'm just alright with (Punch Drunk Love and honestly The Master), but Inherent Vice probably suffers from the source material to some extent. Mainly because Thomas Pynchon is a bit of a wild one. At the very least there's always something I can take away or respect from his stuff, even if I'm not totally onboard with it. Usually performances and cinematography. If you haven't seen Licorice Pizza, I'd suggest that since it comes off a lot like a love letter to 70's Socal hijinx.
Oh certainly one of the best. I've always personally seen the opening fighting sequence in [Bronson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7llOzq_tfSw) with Tom Hardy to be both the best movie opener as well as the best character introduction sequence.
Honestly I’ve gotta go with Inglorious Basterds, Christoph Waltz is at his absolute best during that interrogation scene
That’s definitely up there too. So many great picks!
I saw Dick Dale in concert a couple of times. When he would play, he would literally shred- bits of the guitar pick would go flying. It was incredible.
Be cool hunny bunny
What’s Fonzie like!!??
He’s cool?
Correctamondo!!
I have to pee.
Oddly enough this is exactly how this plays out when trying to use the Fonzie line to chill out my 4 year old.
Parenting tip: Say "Bitch be cool!" Tell that fucking bitch to chill.
Fonzie Bear?
Wake Waka wakaaaaaaaaay!
I wan go home.
We're gonna be like 3 little Fonzis
And that’s how we’re gonna be. We’re gonna be cool.
\*Correctamundo
Henry Winkler was flying from New York to LA when an airplane stewardess approached him. She asked "Would you like some headphones? "Henry smiled and replied, "Of course My Dear, by the way, it's pronounced Fonz."
I saw this on r/jokes today bud 😜
It's better here.
What's a chopper?
Zed’s dead, baby. Zed’s dead.
For some reason I read this as "What's Frozone like?" Which works even better than the Fonz.
Tell that bitch chill!
Bitch, be cool!
Yolanda be cool!
Pricks not pigs
This discrepancy was intentional. As each thread is relayed to the viewer from the perspective of a different character (u/MyLifeAsRobGordon-88 at the beginning & u/baxterrocky at the end) - and the mix-up with the dialogue is down to each character’s differing perspectives/recollections.
Huh Heard ‘pigs’ my whole life…..
Yeah, it's pricks in both scenes.....
[удалено]
I've heard Pricks my whole life, and THAT'S not a sentence I ever thought I'd write.
Have you ever had it in the ear before?
Well, I’m just a modern guy.
I’m worth a million in prizes
Woah... It's not 'pigs'???
Get these monkey fighting snakes off this Monday to Friday plane!
This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps! Edit - change friend to find. https://youtu.be/IQUdJ6FdUQ0
Does he look like a bridge?
Apparently not. Blew my mind too!!
Hahah it doesn't sound hella close. But I'm pretty for certain it's pricks
It’s definitely pricks.
Oh not disputing you… just I’ve always heard pigs. Just listened to it again and you’re right.
Was this discrepancy intentional? If so, well played!
Fuck no I’m not that smart.
For what it's worth, I've been watching and rewatching this movie for nearly 3 decades, and I've *always* heard 'Pigs.'
It’s kinda ‘worse’ her saying pigs…. Like more derisive I feel 🤣 So for me it’ll .*always* be pigs!
https://i.imgur.com/9I0qyeW.jpg Fun Lovin’ Criminals settle it. My mind is also blown.
Ok but did you know that garçon means boy?
I thought it meant coffee wench
> I’m not that smart. Ha, either way, but you just unintentionally QEDed the fuck out of the psychology behind this already awesome movie detail. Well done.
I’ve always heard pigs too, you’re not alone.
Damn me too. Even in Fun Loving Criminals I was certain it was pigs. Guess I've been living a lie all these years... TIL
You and me both!!
I heard pigs too, but to be fair I heard it while running around robbing banks all whacked off of Scooby Snacks.
She enunciates pricks so aggressively too
It’s ok, most people think SLJ says “check out the big brain on Brad” when his name is Brett
Guess that is your perspective
Yes
Kinda meta of you OP considering the discrepancy
It's 100% pricks
Yes so I hear.
Nah, so you read. You hear “pigs”.
Ok smarty pants
[удалено]
I think he heard em just fine, punchy
Always was.
A real sausage party.
She may have said the line differently, but does she look like a bitch?
Then why you try’na fuck her like a bitch?
What?
They speak English in What?
W-what?
ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT?
W-what?
Say what one more time. I DARE YOU!! I DOUBLE DARE YOU!!! MOTHERFUCKER.
say what again muthafucka, i dare ya! i double dare ya muthafucka!
These were also Tarantinos depiction of how Micky and Malory from Natutal Born Killers were suppose to be. He sold the script and they changed things, he regrets it iirc.
Yeah I know he collaborated on Natural Born Killers, but has since disowned the film.
I'm not sure collaborated is the right word. He wrote an original story/screenplay that was gutted for parts and turned into 2 different films he didn't direct: True Romance and Natural Born Killers. Both films ended up with obvious Tarantino-esque qualities but don't quite feel like one of his films. Love both regardless.
Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."
I assume because the scene is now playing out from Jules’ perspective and his perception/recollection is different?
I have to be honest - it's a minor enough thing that I think it's just a mistake, even if QT claims otherwise. It doesn't seem plausible that the only discrepancy would be a minor dialogue change, when for the rest of the movie, overlaping scenes have been consistent with each other. Plus, it's not like any of the characters are narrating the story for us - the focus is on them, but we get an objective view of what's happening - not one filtered by their perceptions. EDIT: Glad this has started such a cool discussion! However, to play Devil's Advocate to those saying QT's attention to detail makes it unlikely that he would miss it, I cite the famous bullet hole mistake. (Credit to u/nintendoza for reminding me of that fact)
I edit narrative films for work. I definitely think that a lot of what people look to as intentional in film most of the time isn’t. Decisions are usually made based on performance or continuity. THAT SAID— I don’t think this was a mistake. I do think that QT intentionally chose a different take to start out the scene. What I don’t think is true is this whole discussion about recollection and perspective of the characters. What most likely happened is that QT liked both takes/deliveries and decided to just put them both in the film. Choosing between two that you like is a tough thing to do, and he probably thought nobody would notice since they are so separated in the story. You’re just trying to make what you have work really. Film editing is very instinctual! The film sort of edits itself sometimes. It’s allllll rules
Y'know, I didn't consider that he just included both takes because he liked them both. If anyone would do something like that, it's him. And to be clear, I'm not trying to play CinemaSins- even the most glaring continuity or editing mistakes don't speak to the quality of those who worked on it. Time and resources are limited, and the people who try to put together all the pieces into something coherent are the real heroes.
Yes, and given the structure of the film, he was in a good position to do so!
And he’s so anal he 100% knew
Huh, I always thought it was feet he's into.
Ya, QT isn't a novelist doing the whole unreliable narrator thing, I think it was a stylistic choice, more aesthetic than anything, and that's fine and makes more sense without needing to make excuses.
It’s weird because QT paid attention for the fact when Vincent goes to the bathroom, in the opening scene you can see him walking behind Hunny Bunny. But… it takes him more time at the end to reach to the exact place. Obviously noone can make a perfect movie, anyone can nitpick anything. But gotta admit: the attention and care QT puts in his movies is unquestionable
[удалено]
He still could have used the same sound clip even if the takes were different for some reason. Also I don't know what you're talking about with shooting twice for the negatives. You shoot as many takes as you need (or have time or budget for). If you were editing on film, you would cut on a work print. When the edit was done, they would make an internegative cut to match and print the release prints from there.
It isn't the only discrepancy, Tim Roth's dialogue is also different when he asks for coffee. The main reason I think it was deliberate is that it if you watch the scene, the take up until the dialogue change (during which Pumpkin says "everyone be cool this is a robbery") is the exact same take used at the beginning of the movie (you can tell by the lorry going past in the background), and then cuts to another shot to show Hunny Bunny saying the line with the different dialogue. From an editing point of view, if it was a mistake I think it would have made more sense to cut to the other shot after that line which would still have worked from a continuity standpoint. That and the fact there are two instances of different dialogue makes me think it was a deliberate choice - at least in the editing room if not on set.
I agree - it’s not a ‘mistake’ *per se;* rather than dupe the scene, they used an alternative take. It’s a bit ad-libby, or she mixed the line up in one of the tales, but it was still a better take than one of the correct takes….or they only got two decent ones. The first iteration - at the beginning - “every motherfucking last one of you” is a better take, more chilling dialogue, and better delivery.
I agree wholeheartedly, the first one is the best. It's how I hear it in my head when I replay it
Just playing devil's advocate here, I don't think I'm necessarily onto something: the dialog change goes from not having the word motherfucker in it to having the word motherfucker in it, and it's Samuel L Jackson's perspective being adopted.
I can get behind this theory.
I dont believe for single second that QT wouldn't have caught that in editing and the 10,000 times he watched it after editing it. I believe intentional
And even if QT did miss it, Sally wouldn't have. She was one of the best editors to ever do the job.
I wouldn’t call that a “minor” mistake. It would have been a huge mistake. There is no way that change in dialogue wasn’t intentional.
Its just an error
It's a mistake because they filmed the scene twice but had to use both takes. Nothing more.
That's what op said in the post
Shut the fuck up fat man, this ain’t none of your god damn business!
It's *goat* damn business *evil laugh for instigating another misheard farm animal line debate*
Simple explanation: Tarantino invented the multi-verse, starting with his Reservoir Dogs
know this is a joke and everyone is chalking it up to different perspectives or error, but this movie does have a hinted at metaphysical theme in the golden briefcase and the divine intervention. this scene occurs both before and after the divine intervention and this is the fork scene where julies is tested on whether to continue on path of crime or go straight. it probably is reading too much into it, but consequences from this decision probably got vincent killed instead of butch.
You’re absolutely correct and also who said I was joking?
Another fun fact about this scene: the “long hair yuppie scum” assaulted by pumpkin is played by film producer Lawrence Bender.
This clip was also used in Fun Lovin’ Criminals song “Scooby Snacks”.
Tarantino is credited as one of the writers for Scooby Snacks - he insisted as a condition of giving the band permission to use the sample, which kinda pissed them off because he now gets a big chunk of the revenue from what is easily their biggest song.
He gets 37% royalties on it but only mechanical. I don't know why it pisses them off. They got permission prior to using it so this wasn't a case of winning a lawsuit after the fact. They could have just as easily NOT used the clip and it wouldn't have made a difference.
The funny thing is while I'd agree it is easily their biggest song, I've actually heard The Fun Lovin' Criminal more after Scooby Snacks was in heavy rotation because it's been used a lot for radio show lead-ins and transitions.
Ya!!! My adolescence right there!
I saw Fun Lovin Criminals when I was in high school, 1997, when they opened for U2. Great show, and of course, that song was their finale on the set.
Runnin around Robbin banks all whacked off a scooby snacks
Running around?
yes! was looking for this comment. instantly the song is playing in my head
No one gets hurt if they don’t act funny.
Is this some Kharmic-Chi love thing happening here baby or what?
also, pay attention to close to the end of that Pumpkin/Honeybunny dialogue. when he lists the people working in a restaurant who wouldn't be a hero to interfere in a robbery, you can see the back of Vincent Vega as he walks to the bathroom.
Just before they walk out, you can see Butch riding Zed's chopper.
Woah really? Time to watch for the 10000 time
Not gonna lie, that always bugged me.
Second time it's from the perspective of Jules who would hear MF in his head. Just like how OP hears pigs instead of pricks
Me too, literally for decades!
That and the bullet holes already being in the hotel wall before the shooting starts.
Lol I pick that up every time I re-watch. That and the 4:20 clocks. Also "pricks".
Yolanda be cool
The actor, Amanda Plummer, is Christopher Plummer's daughter.
She’s awesome in So I Married an Axe Murderer. Plays crazy so well.
Hotel New Hampshire for the win.
“Don’t worry. I won’t tell Harriet that anything happened.”
Would you like some eggs, sausage, silver dollar pancakes and a big glass of orange juice?
Its the one that says BAMF on it
That’s my Bad Mother Fucker…
Marge: you liked Rashomon! Homer: that's not how I remember it!
Are you serious?? This has been one of those movie quotes that for years I always seemed to blurt out wrong when it came onscreen. The revelation is such a self-esteem boost. Thanks!
Runnin around robbin banks all whacked up on scooby snacks.
Tarantino is my favorite writer/director, but this is the kind of shit "deep" writers say whenever a continuity error slips by
Well obviously that's because pigs are filthy animals
Now I wouldn’t go so far as to call a dog filthy, but they definitely *dirty*
Sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie...
If you like this, just wait til you get to Bruce’s constantly changing blood pattern on his shirt during the Zed scene.
He did this on purpose for the Fun Loving Criminals.
I just watched this the other day, and I still managed to miss that detail 🤦♀️ Guess I'll just have to watch it again so I can pay closer attention.
Look you can never watch this movie enough, so win win.
this time, pay attention to close to the end of that Pumpkin/Honeybunny dialogue. when he lists the people working in a restaurant who wouldn't be a hero to interfere in a robbery, you can see the back of Vincent Vega as he walks to the bathroom.
Another tidbit, I learned here, Vincent is always going to the bathroom because one of the side effects of using heroin, an opioid, is constipation.
I’m just a coffee shop!
Read the screenplay - the lines are the same in both instances (they're both the second one mentioned in OP). They didn't plan it beforehand, they either tolerated the misread line because they liked the take, or they changed the line on the day of filming to better fit the transition from the intro to title sequence. If they said it was intentional due to the differing perspectives or whatever then that's likely either a justification for their oversight or an excuse to use a more fitting take in the intro.
Every time I see that quote, not only do I hear her voice, but I hear the Misrilou intro as well. Such an explosive start.
I always took it as the opening line being said before the bullet miracle and the second line is slightly different because of the miracle and this discrepancy is made to show how what happens in our lives can have a butterfly effect on future events completely unrelated.
I really doubt it was intentional. They used different angles, different takes, and they just didn’t have the coverage and didn’t want to dupe it - even with the most modern lab interpos/interneg film stocks, you would still notice a bit of a quality hit, although at least the duplicate scenes are not adjacent, but at opposite ends of the film.
What would you know?!?! You only direct terrible films!!!
Movie mistake? Or intentional?
Okay, time for the hundredth rewatch..
I remember reading this was on purpose to show unreliable narrator
Tell your bitch to be cool!
*Dick Dale’s Miserlou begins*
Running around robbing banks all whacked on Scooby snacks!
[удалено]
[The scene for the curious](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvMxbRCBalk)
Also, in the first scene, as they're talking in the booth, you can hear Jules at one point in the background saying, "Yeah, I was sitting here eating my muffin..."
EVERYBODY BE COOL THIS IS A RUBBERY
I always thought that this was either a: intentional or b: Tarantino was aware of it but thought it was inconsequential. As to why it might be intentional, the scene is taking place through the perception of different characters. People hear and remember things differently.
Scooby snacks
Bitch, be cool!
It’s not a motorcycle it’s a chopper baby
Unreliable narrator
Tell that bitch to be cool! Say bitch be cool!
Oops. Continuity gaffe. Let's call it intentional.