What is the appeal of 'pulp' fiction

[johnsemlak]

I'm sure this topic has been discussed here and elsewhere, but I've been thinking about it lately, particularly after last Xmas's King Kong film.

I was wondering, why exactly did Jackson choose to set the film in the 1930's era. There's nothing explicit about the story that requires that time setting. The obvious answer is that the original version was set in that time (and Jackson is clearly very reverent towards the original), but King King films have been set in later times. I don't see why Jackson couldn't have set it in the current time and been perfectly faithful to the original. That said, I think Jackson's Kong was brilliant for its setting and I wouldn't change a thing--it was certainly far superior to the 1980s version.

So, what is it about the pulp era that makes it so attractive, particuarly for fantasy/adventure stories, to at least some people? By pulp era, I supposed I mean the interwar period of the 20s and 30s--when pulp magazines were popular, and where modern stories like Indiana Jones inc are set.

Is there something about this era that works well as a setting, particularly for modern stories with a fantasy mix? Or is the popularity of this time-period largely due to immense author creativity that came out of this period--with the boom of pulp magazines, novels, and comics?

 

[Hand of Evil]

Pulp's greatest appeal to me is the mixing of weird science and magic without having to worry about explaining yourself, you focus on the action and letting those items become props for the story.

I also think pulp movies have specific breakdown for a location, being: 1) introduction, 2) build up, 3) action, 4) cliffhanger, and 5) resolution. This is repeated during the movie.

 

[Aeric]

With the end of WWI, people are suddenly free to think about other things, like exploring the world and having adventures.

Modern technology is just starting to come into its own, with things such as airplanes and zepplins moving from the realm of curiosity into commonplace.

Nazis make great villains. They're evil, they want to take over the world, and they're into/after all kinds of crazy occult stuff and superweapons.

 

[Tonguez]

With the end of WWI, people are suddenly free to think about other things, like exploring the world and having adventures.

Modern technology is just starting to come into its own, with things such as airplanes and zepplins moving from the realm of curiosity into commonplace..

I think this is it, the interwar years are the period when the world started to shrink. There is still a lot of 'The Unknown' around to explore but also the new and exciting 'World of Tomorrow' being promised. Plus for us modern audiences its a romantic time full of adventure: Nazis, Gangsters, strange gentlemen from the east, mystical artifacts, cannibal savages, zeppelins, masked crime fighters and super robots.


2. I don't think King Kong could have been set in modern times. Mighty Joe Young was a modern take on the story which I think worked because it accounted for modern sensibilities. However Kong could have worked in any period up to the 1970's but after that is a whole different story...

 

[Viking Bastard]

And imagine the Empire State Building fight with modern jets...

Yay. Dramatic.

 

[WayneLigon]

I was wondering, why exactly did Jackson choose to set the film in the 1930's era. There's nothing explicit about the story that requires that time setting. The obvious answer is that the original version was set in that time (and Jackson is clearly very reverent towards the original), but King King films have been set in later times. I don't see why Jackson couldn't have set it in the current time and been perfectly faithful to the original.

Is there something about this era that works well as a setting, particularly for modern stories with a fantasy mix?

The main answer is indeed that that is when the original was set but there are several compelling reasons to keep it in that timeframe.

One reason is that it seals up several plot holes that would have had the negative-minded nit-pickers out in droves (like other vermin, they cling to a movie until they suck all the life from it). There is no landmass the size of Skull Island that we would not know about today, already. There would be no way you could transport a large dangerous animal into the heart of an American city in modern times, even assuming you could get it through customs. The army would probably have the thing down and dead in it's second encounter with the thing, just from rocket launchers or somesuch.

I think one of the big reasons the era appeals to us is that it's the last gasp of the unknown. In the 1930's there still are untouched places on the Earth, places where man has never put a foot or photographed. It's plausible that one could find dinosaurs or giant apes somewhere.

Another reason is that there is enough technology to make things interesting but not so much that it's not overwhelming. Nobody asks 'well, why don't they do X?' because 'X' hasn't been invented yet.

 

[johnsemlak]

I think one of the big reasons the era appeals to us is that it's the last gasp of the unknown. In the 1930's there still are untouched places on the Earth, places where man has never put a foot or photographed. It's plausible that one could find dinosaurs or giant apes somewhere.

.

I think there's something to that, especially in terms of how we perceive the era now. However, the reading I've done about the era says that among the educated it had become unplausable to, for example, find a lost island with dinosaurs, or survivors of Atlantis.

Were stories with plots like that popular in those days because they were considered interesting fantasy (as they are now) or because there was still a signficant, perhaps less educated, part of the population that believed in such things. (of course, nowadays kids up to a certain age still are convinced of stuff like that).

 

[johnsemlak]

One reason is that it seals up several plot holes that would have had the negative-minded nit-pickers out in droves (like other vermin, they cling to a movie until they suck all the life from it). There is no landmass the size of Skull Island that we would not know about today, already. There would be no way you could transport a large dangerous animal into the heart of an American city in modern times, even assuming you could get it through customs. The army would probably have the thing down and dead in it's second encounter with the thing, just from rocket launchers or somesuch.
.

Are those issues any less of a plot hole when set in the 1930s? (perhaps in popular perception it is) If anything, I find it more believable that today it would be technologically feasible to move such a large animal. Bottom line though, watching King Kong requires some suspesion of disbelief, regardless of what era it's set in.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

It is, as others have said, a combination of things more or less unique to the time. The action/adventure genre pretty much peaked in pulp fiction. Great villians. Exploration of the land, sea and air was going full blast, but there was still much to learn. Science was inventing new things every day. And so on. Interesting times, if you will. (There was also the optimism of the period, with dark clouds looming on the horizon, that made just about anything possible.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And imagine the Empire State Building fight with modern jets...

Yay. Dramatic.

They'd use attack helicopters in real life (although that's awfully high in an awfully windy area for helicopters of any sort), which would be plenty dramatic, I think.

As for the OP, I agree with the others: Still lots of blank spots on the map, with the ability to move to them relatively quickly (sort of like Eberron!) and with villains that we know, with historical perspective, are the real deal of villainy. (And not just Nazis -- there are other groups coming to power during the period who are also quite nasty.)