Pulp Fiction?

Not really. Pulp Fiction has far fewer stories - it's only really got three - its main characters are much more closely related (they're all employees of Marsellus Wallace), and there's very little in the way of cross cutting between the stories. Once you pick up a thread in Pulp Fiction, you see it through to the end, and then it moves on to the next one. In Short Cuts, the stories begin, develop and reach their resolutions at more or less the same time. Whereas Butch's story is over, before The Bonnie Situation even begins. Short Cuts also develops chronologically, whereas one of the defining elements of Pulp Fiction's structure is that it moves back and forth through time. The format isn't really similar at all.

Not really but I think of this as the SUBURBAN Lon Angeles tale that came out the same time. Bunch of characters loosely or not not loosely connected.

Magnolia, yes?

How so?

There's a million films that are structured, uh, mosaicly.

people have already addressed the point that SHort Cuts is by no means unique in its format. I'd agree that Magnolia is the most similar (and by no accident). I'm surprised no one has mentioned my favorite of the so-called hyperlink films, Amores Perros. If you haven't seen it, I really recommend it.

there's no place you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.

Short Cuts came out in '93. Pulp Fiction in '94. Besides, why would Robert Altman feel the need to "copy" from a guy who was a Blockbuster clerk a few years prior?

I’m gonna kick some ass! I’m gonna rise up, gonna kick a little ass! Rock, flag, and eagle!

[deleted]

He's not saying that. He's saying that Pulp Fiction copies the format of Short Cuts (which isn't really true).