The Shoutbox
In conclusion: bump.
To me, they were always just stylistic flairs. After all, there's really no earthly reason we should be shown the outline of a square on-screen simply because Uma Thurman traced its outline with her fingers. But it's different and stands out.

I'm sure some are references, but even when I didn't/don't "get" them, I usually just chalk them up as little creative outbursts designed to set the film apart. Little in-jokes to let the viewer know that Tarantino knows that it's only a movie. This is certainly in keeping with his highly self-aware, so-accurate-they're-not-even-really-parodies efforts like Kill Bill and the upcoming Grindhouse.

In my opinion, at least.
...bumpety bump...
It IS one of those movies I can watch any time I see it on, but I wouldn't use the word "masterpiece" either. Unless you're talking about Tarantino's body of work as compared to itself, perhaps.

It's fun, and it has some good dialogue and some interesting plot tie-ins. Has a lot of replay value.

But since I don't think I caught any of the other movie references (didn't know about this till you mentioned it), then things like the rear-screen projection really stand out as a sort of "WTF?" moment while watching it for the first time.

Fun, funny, but otherwise a teeny bit distracting without a context.

Gotta love the classic Royale with Cheese bit, though.
ANYway...
Just wasn't clear why Tarantino did it.
I didn't mind the rear-screen projection, I thought it was fun. Pulp Fiction is full of references to other movies, and my problem with it has always been that most of them are there without much rhyme or reason. There's no organic reason for them to have been inserted, it was just kind of showing off and having fun.

And I get that, but my other big problem with it is that so much of the audience who love the movie are unaware of those references, so they think it's all just cool and original. For me it's too often half a step removed from something in a Naked Gun movie. I recognize the movie being referenced, OK, but what does that have to do with anything?

Quentin is a good technician and as a screenwriter his dialogue skills are his real strength, but while I understand why Pulp is so beloved, especially by a younger generation, I just can't see it as any masterpiece.
Obviously, I meant "why" he did that. Oops.

I know why they did that stuff in the '50s, of course. Just wasn't clear why Tarantino did it. I guess I missed a lot of the other references in PF, so that one stands out for me.

Plus, it's just so darned funny ... and it's there through the whole scene.
I'm still not sure when Tarantino did that.
For the same reason he did it in Kill Bill, Vol. 2; a fun and conscious nod to the films of yesteryear when rear-screen projection was the norm.

Films up through the 1960s were still shot mostly in Studios, and besides that cameras were still too big to get inside or even attach to the outside of a car. Quentin was just having fun referencing that era...one of about two-hundred references, general and specific, in Pulp Fiction.
I still laugh at the really cheesy "outside" scene out the cab window when Willis is leaving after the fight. It's so ... 1950s fake. I'm still not sure when Tarantino did that, but it always makes me laugh. I hardly ever hear the dialogue in that scene because I'm too busy watching, fascinated, the weird fake scene out the back window.
Bobby. It's funny, but I used to bash the same scene you are talking about. For some reason, it didn't sit right with me. Now I love it. Now that I am over the shock stuff in the film, and know the flow, I love chewing up every line in Pulp Fiction. It is really well written. maybe give it another go in a couple of weeks...
I will try to get at least one review written in the next few days, to add what i can to the area...