Vincent Vega (Pulp Fiction)

[Guest Len B'stard]

I find it a bit odd yes, especially considering the character is absolutely and totally devoid of any substance and is basically just a contrived (in the literal sense of the word) image of cool invented by a movie geek in his late 30s. I mean, it's sad to want to be any like, film or TV character but at least certain characters have infinite facets and sides and substance to them that evoke an image of complete human being, Vincent Vega (the Pulp Fiction character) is basically just cartoon-cool. Brilliant, amazing even for the film that he was in but as something to emulate? I'm not sure how one would go about it. It's just Tarantino writing a character with John Travolta in mind so he can make him the kind of cool that he was in all his wet dreams and not what he ended up being with Look Whoose Talking etc.

Actually the character was written with Michael Madsen in mind. It was written exactly for him. But Madsen turned him down, choosing to do some other film that turned out to be a gigantic flop. So then after Madsen rejected him, Tarantino turned to Travolta. The whole thing that the character was made for Travolta is just a bit of mythology.

And you know one theory for certain over the other because...?

Edited August 21, 2013 by sugaraylen

[Vincent Vega]

I find it a bit odd yes, especially considering the character is absolutely and totally devoid of any substance and is basically just a contrived (in the literal sense of the word) image of cool invented by a movie geek in his late 30s. I mean, it's sad to want to be any like, film or TV character but at least certain characters have infinite facets and sides and substance to them that evoke an image of complete human being, Vincent Vega (the Pulp Fiction character) is basically just cartoon-cool. Brilliant, amazing even for the film that he was in but as something to emulate? I'm not sure how one would go about it. It's just Tarantino writing a character with John Travolta in mind so he can make him the kind of cool that he was in all his wet dreams and not what he ended up being with Look Whoose Talking etc.

Actually the character was written with Michael Madsen in mind. It was written exactly for him. But Madsen turned him down, choosing to do some other film that turned out to be a gigantic flop. So then after Madsen rejected him, Tarantino turned to Travolta. The whole thing that the character was made for Travolta is just a bit of mythology.

And you know one theory for certain over the other because...?

Michael Madsen said so?

"Tarantino cast Travolta in Pulp Fiction only because Michael Madsen, who had a major role—Vic Vega—in Reservoir Dogs (1992), chose to appear in Kevin Costner's Wyatt Earp instead. Madsen has since expressed regret over his decision."

Edited August 21, 2013 by Vincent Vega

[arnold layne]

Beside the point.

[Vincent Vega]

Beside the point.

And what IS the point? I wanted my username changed back to Miser but I can't change it anymore I don't think. It was a toss up between Miser and Gandalf.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I find it a bit odd yes, especially considering the character is absolutely and totally devoid of any substance and is basically just a contrived (in the literal sense of the word) image of cool invented by a movie geek in his late 30s. I mean, it's sad to want to be any like, film or TV character but at least certain characters have infinite facets and sides and substance to them that evoke an image of complete human being, Vincent Vega (the Pulp Fiction character) is basically just cartoon-cool. Brilliant, amazing even for the film that he was in but as something to emulate? I'm not sure how one would go about it. It's just Tarantino writing a character with John Travolta in mind so he can make him the kind of cool that he was in all his wet dreams and not what he ended up being with Look Whoose Talking etc.

Actually the character was written with Michael Madsen in mind. It was written exactly for him. But Madsen turned him down, choosing to do some other film that turned out to be a gigantic flop. So then after Madsen rejected him, Tarantino turned to Travolta. The whole thing that the character was made for Travolta is just a bit of mythology.

And you know one theory for certain over the other because...?

Michael Madsen said so?

"Tarantino cast Travolta in Pulp Fiction only because Michael Madsen, who had a major role—Vic Vega—in Reservoir Dogs (1992), chose to appear in Kevin Costner's Wyatt Earp instead. Madsen has since expressed regret over his decision."

And of course, it wouldn't at all be in Michael Madsens personal interest to say so eh, as opposed to the directors word. But whatever man, it's cool.

[Estranged Reality]

a vega brothers movie would have been great.

tarantino talked about this for so many years.

[Vincent Vega]

It sounds great on paper, but...Were Vic Vega and Vincent Vega believable as brothers? I mean, in a cinematic sense...Michael Madsen and John Travolta are VERY different actors and I don't know if they would've had any chemistry on screen as a duo in the way Travolta did with Jackson. I mean, Vic Vega is a sociopathic, sadistic, stone cold killer. Vincent Vega is an affable, likable, cool hitman. They're just two very different kinds of characters, so I don't know if it even would've worked just in a chemistry level.

It's like adding Joe Pesci's character in Goodfellas as a member of The Corleone Family...Just doesn't add up in terms of dynamics.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Vincent Vega

[Guest Len B'stard]

Why not, it worked in Dusk Til Dawn, another reason why the Vega Bros wouldn't be worth it, he's kinda used that motif already. What you're saying makes no sense really Miser, contrast is kinda what character chemistry is based on.

Edited August 22, 2013 by sugaraylen

[T.wa.T]

What was in the suitcase???

[drtydane]

The loot from reservoir dogs?

[Powerage5]

The loot from reservoir dogs?

Diamonds aren't amber. Definitely not the diamonds.

I'm personally still a fan of the Marcellus Wallace's soul theory.

[J Dog]

a vega brothers movie would have been great.

tarantino talked about this for so many years.

I thought I heard him say one time that if there was a way to pull it off he would. I would have been all for it.

[Vincent Vega]

Why not, it worked in Dusk Til Dawn, another reason why the Vega Bros wouldn't be worth it, he's kinda used that motif already. What you're saying makes no sense really Miser, contrast is kinda what character chemistry is based on.

It's not about the characters...It's more I can't see John Travolta and Michael Madsen having good chemistry as actors the way Travolta did with Samuel L. Jackson.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Well you went in details contrasting the characters in your post, not the actors, how can you possibly tell whether two actors would or would not have chemistry? In fact, you were talking specifically about the characters there Miser, the characters and whether they'd have chemistry, read your post.

And your reasons for them not having chemistry is that they are to your mind actors of a different breed? Well firstly, they're not especially and secondly, even if they were, aren't those sorts of differences what makes duo based movies work? Cinema is based on internal and external and plot driven conflict, thats sort of the heart of what movies are about.

i.e. Dusk til Dawn, thought it'd be relevant, two bros in a Tarantino movie, basically the whole movie before it turns into a vampire flick is driven by the conflict of character between those two brothers, Lethal Weapon is driven by the conflict between Mel and Gibson (until such time as the plot kicks in anyway).

Edited August 24, 2013 by sugaraylen

[Guest NGOG]

Would Vince Vega have you squirting over a computer Miser?