What was the point of this scene?

What was the point of this scene?

To prove the writer was a autistic pleb that actual went to Paris to eat at a McDonalds?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Wxx5wbWnrCY
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Something about feet.

what's it like being a crummy faggot like you OP?

Humanize the characters

It's banter you dip

Amsterdam.

And to give the retarded illiterate american hit-man flavor to the character.

Just two dudes hanging out

John Travolta insisted they include something about Scientology and this is it

>royale with cheese
>not royale et fromage

So what do they call a whopper

le whopper

2 buddies hanging out and talking shit about things nobody cares, like everyone do IRL. It creates a more realistic atmosphere.
I hate Tarantipleb but there's nothing wrong with this scene

Turns out that paid murderers have normal conversations too

Like that Law & Order SVU episode where the serial rapist is a fan of flower gardening for no reason in particular.

Criminal =/= lacks hobbies

It appears to be just having chitchat, but the conversation is revealing what kind of character they are. Vincent is freewilling rumbler, but a bit of conservative. On the other hand, Jules is typical homie who is about to encounter the mindblowing experience of his lifetime. This sequence tells you whole story are about to be told by POV of Jules.

le quirky tarantino dialogue

I regret ever watching any of his flicks

To show you that hitman have personalities before they do some hardcore hitman shit

It is to show that they are normal idiot guys and not just cold blooded hired killers.

youtube.com/watch?v=Wxx5wbWnrCY

whats so bad about him? feel like a pleb, thought his movies had good dialogue

They often do, but he always adds some really goofy immersion breaking shit because he's gotten completely full of himself. He could tell a great story, instead he tells you repeatedly that the story was written by Quentin Tarantino.

He can have good dialogue. Some of his shit gets way too masturbatory. See pretty much anytime someone starts talking about comic books.

I feel like earlier on he tried to emulate the kind of dialogue seen in stuff like Wild at Heart, but didn't know how to insert it naturally. So a lot of it can feel self indulgent and awkward. I'd say his more recent movies generally do a better job incorporating his dialogue stylings without it feeling misplaced.

oh i see, i'll keep that in mind

>I'd say his more recent movies generally do a better job incorporating his dialogue stylings without it feeling misplaced.

that's interesting to hear, I would have to disagree. while the earlier time periods of both films help ground his flowery dialogue a bit more, I still thought that both Django and Hateful 8 had ridiculously overwritten dialogue. Huge chunks of both movies could easily been cut down, like the opening carriage ride in 8 or the journey to candyland/dinner party in django.

Inglourious Basterds also had a ton of dialogue, but that seemed to fit more since so much of it was about the different languages and cultures of everyone involved

like?

Most recently was his fucking narration in Hateful Eight. The Hans Landa title pop in Basterds. Shit like that which takes you right out of the movie just to make sure you know who made it.

I like those things. They bring a certain kind of tension breaking moment that is very rare in movies.
I think he does them very good.

It's not about length, it's about placement. Inglorious and Hateful 8 both had dialogue that felt natural, established characters and was plot or scene relevant.

The cheeseburger talk in Pulp Fiction is just a long joke. It feels like something Tarantino heard somewhere and thought was really clever so he shoehorned it into the film.

It's not as bad as, say, Bill's Superman monologue in Kill Bill 2, but it's still clunky and awkward feeling.

Because in france it's "Royal Chesse"