Just saw Django [MERGED~> !SPOILER ALERT!]

[voodoo]

saw it and thought it was about a C- and I'm being nice. it was like QT has a hard on for the N word like no other and basically said since this is a slavery pic how can anybody criticize especially if I let the darkie win in the end. this story could have been told much better.

 

[da_monumental_1]

Wow. Fifteen pages arguing back and forth about a QT film? Those in opposition could have won this argument on the first page about a slaves gets revenge film. Why make a fictional spaghetti western when you could have made the real McCoy.

Sounds like a personal problem is what I'm saying. Your opinion doesn't make something fact, especially when the vast majority feel a different way..


IMO this is movie of year, on par, if not better than Inglorious Bastards.. The HFPA, Top Critics, and most movie goers think so as well..



What I think is you set yourself up for failure, and expecting something different than what this film is. I personally knew what to expect because I read the screenplay a year back..

Argumentum ad populum

in the end massive numbers of people were killed and families were destroyed the only difference is the nazis didn't care to make a profit from it.

Actually, they did. A lot of major companies that exist today did as well.

 

[geechiedan]

Wow. Fifteen pages arguing back and forth about a QT film? Those in opposition could have won this argument on the first page about a slaves gets revenge film. Why make a fictional spaghetti western when you could have made the real McCoy.

Argumentum ad populum



Actually, they did. A lot of major companies that exist today did as well.

that was suggested at some point in one of the Django threads..

yes


actually they do. what do you think sequels are? The first movie only bigger. but in this case rick spanish made a comparison of the two...i was just saying in order for them to be comparable they would need the same kinds of things to happen namely a recreation of the evil institution of the holocaust for the jews. to actually see a concentration camp recreated in the film. I think QT COULD have gone there in IB if he wanted to but he avoided it becuz he knows jews would NOT have appreciated that specific element being used for a shoot em up in a fictitious story.


yes it was a cold tho kinda slow scene.

yes he referred to and compared jews to rats. Which was a popular slur nazis used as well as swine..but it wasn't said over 100 times..another point of comparison in that in nazi germany rats was a common insult just as common as ****** was in the south but somehow it wasn't used as often in the film..in fact QT went out his way to find a scene in which to insult blacks a couple of times in IB.


yeah and...



if QT wanted to make a story of a black man in early america kicking white ass he could have done it a few ways.

1. A nat turner-esqe slave revolt where django on his own accord and machinations with a number of escaped slaves kills a slave owner and takes back his wife and they both escape (since its fiction).

2. django buys his own freedom and having failed to get his wife goes on a vengeful rampage and takes down a planatation and frees his wife with little to no white assistance.

3. QT wanted to make a western..so then make a WESTERN. Django is a bounty hunter in the WEST, somewhere in arizona or montana (classic john ford western scenery not antebellum south) who's wife is kidnapped and he and his partner (can be a white man here) has to track her down before they can bring her back to the south and its a race against time and distance.

Now any of those alternatives would probably be met with less blacklash than now..of course the word ****** would STILL be heard 1000 times but you can't have everything

the question is do you think any of those alternatives would have gotten green lit??

 

[jack walsh13]

Saw the movie last night with the wife. Loved it. Samuel L. Jackson's part although not ment to be funny was hilarious!!!

 

[Rick Spanish]

Wow. Fifteen pages arguing back and forth about a QT film? Those in opposition could have won this argument on the first page about a slaves gets revenge film. Why make a fictional spaghetti western when you could have made the real McCoy.

Because the "Real McCoy" would have been a Spike Lee level flop..

 

[geechiedan]

Because the "Real McCoy" would have been a Spike Lee level flop..

thats telling..the fucked up part is you don't realize what you wrote

 

[KP404]

Saw the movie last night with the wife. Loved it. Samuel L. Jackson's part although not ment to be funny was hilarious!!!

That's the only part I was disgusted at because there were blacks that were really like that

 

[Rick Spanish]

thats telling..the fucked up part is you don't realize what you wrote

I realize exactly what the fuck I wrote.. CAC's aren't interested in a true slave rebellion film. They had to load this movie with bait just to get them out to the theaters..

 

[O.G BAMM]

Who was the lady with her face covered and was later looking at the photos? did she live or die? I didnt get her character at all.....

 

[Rick Spanish]

Who was the lady with her face covered and was later looking at the photos? did she live or die? I didnt get her character at all.....

As I said before, It was Zoe Bell.. She's not even an actor, she's Uma Thurman's stunt double. She's a slave Tracker in the film, and is listed as "The Tracker" in the credits.. Her character isn't in the script.. That's all we know.

 

[jack walsh13]

That's the only part I was disgusted at because there were blacks that were really like that

Yup. He was Django's worse enemy.

 

[jack walsh13]

Who was the lady with her face covered and was later looking at the photos? did she live or die? I didnt get her character at all.....

Django killed her when he bust in the barn remember? I believe it was when he said goodbye to his friend.

 

[Rick Spanish]

Who was the lady with her face covered and was later looking at the photos? did she live or die? I didnt get her character at all.....

As I said before, It was Zoe Bell.. She's not even an actor, she's Uma Thurman's stunt double. She's a slave Tracker in the film (She tracked down that runaway slave D'Artagnan), and is listed as "The Tracker" in the credits.. Her character isn't in the script, and was a last minute addition.. That's all we know.

 

[geechiedan]

I realize exactly what the fuck I wrote.. CAC's aren't interested in a true slave rebellion film. They had to load this movie with bait just to get them out to the theaters..

and yet you still can't see why people..why spike opposes django unchained on principle??

 

[jack walsh13]

and yet you still can't see why people..why spike opposes django unchained on principle??

Geechie please don't quote Manhatten aka Rick spanish anymore please? I don't wanna see shit dis jackass writes man!!!

 

[Rick Spanish]

and yet you still can't see why people..why spike opposes django unchained on principle??

Nope.. I don't respect anyone that has an opinion on something they haven't seen, no matter what you've concocted in you head about what it might be.


Especially someone who made this..

And thinks he's the only one with a license to satire Black pain..



His principal comes across as hating the fact he didn't do it first...

 

[Rick Spanish]

Geechie please don't quote Manhatten aka Rick spanish anymore please? I don't wanna see shit dis jackass writes man!!!

Still mad he got called out for posting that tranny.. FOH nigga..

 

[lazarus]

you sound bitter and im going to destroy your points.
1. concentration camps werent needed because no one was saving a jewish girl at a camp you are comparing two diff stories
2. why do you care about white recognition and awards? do they dictate if you like a movie or not?
3. how are you going to inform an opinion on a movie without seeing it? 4

now thats interesting since Inglorious Basterds opens with jewish persecution and the ultimate symbol of jewish persecution was the concentration camp. The film was an anti holocaust film so why wasn't it set in a concentration camp? And instead of questioning why that would be...you came up with a number of reasons why it DIDN'T need be set there while stating Django NEEDED to be set in a plantation.

The reason I keep going over it is because people like you dismiss the notion that someone could object to the movie on principle. Do I need to see it? NO because I object to the setting and use of a slave plantation for essentially a blaxploitation flick especially in the 21st century. I don't care how he portrayed it its disrespectful on principle for him to go there. Especially for a white man considering we KNOW for a fact that a black director would NOT get the green lite to direct this kind of film. It would be perceived much differently if a black director's name was attached..you know it and I know it.

You ever watch Good Times? Ever notice that the hardest messages and observations in social commentary always came from Michael the youngest least threatening black male on the show...the producers of the show said they purposefully did it that way because biting commentary coming from big black take no shit looking James Evans Sr. would be perceived TOTALLY differently to viewers. And it would turn them off.

Spike Lee does Do The Right Thing doesn't go global and doesn't win an oscar in its category, doesn't even get a best picture nom..no golden globes nothing..

Spike does Malcolm X..no global distribution, no award recognition in the least.

Tough Black Man doing Tough Black Films

Quentin Tarantino does a blaxploitation slave film..worldwide blockbuster hit and already a lock for golden globe and oscar nominations. Gets oscars for his jewish revenge fantasy (thats NOT set in an concentration camp).

And you don't see all kinds of things askew here??? really?? Or do you not wish to consider the hard questions about how hollywood perceives blacks...how black rage has to packaged to america and the world...how we have to find permission or end around plays to express that rage in entertainment media..how things we hold sacred can be used for entertainment fodder?

 

[AllState17]

and yet you still can't see why people..why spike opposes django unchained on principle??

Geech, let me ask you a serious question.

What would have been the proper setting for this film?

 

[militantmidget]

That's the only part I was disgusted at because there were blacks that were and still to this day really like that

Fixed

 

[geechiedan]

you sound bitter and im going to destroy your points.
1. concentration camps werent needed because no one was saving a jewish girl at a camp you are comparing two diff stories
2. why do you care about white recognition and awards? do they dictate if you like a movie or not?
3. how are you going to inform an opinion on a movie without seeing it? 4

1. Stories are fluid things. Tarantino could have easily written a story of jewish revenge around a concentration camp. Its not an impossibility. That you guys think it is just shows a limitation in your imagination and maybe tarantino's unless he purposely avoided such a scenario and if thats the case then you'd have to ask why would he?

2. Awards have nothing to do with my liking a film. I'm just pointing out how a black man's serious take on subject matter pertaining to blacks gets ignored by his peers while a white man's fantasy take on subject matter pertaining to blacks gets lauded.

3. I object to the movies premise on principle paying to see the film (which supports it) and looking at how the scenes were done doesn't change the fact that I believe that using plantation life during slavery for an action blaxploitation film is still disrespectful to the memory of the people who had to live thru that hell.

here's an example...There's a Skin head band called Ginded Nig that has a song called "Splatterday, ****** Day" (true shit)..now I don't have to listen to this song in any way or look at the video to object to its subject matter or the imagery it projects.


thats it? Okay so where's the destruction part come in?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Nope.. I don't respect anyone that has an opinion on something they haven't seen, no matter what you've concocted in you head about what it might be.


Especially someone who made this..

And thinks he's the only one with a license to satire Black pain..



His principal comes across as hating the fact he didn't do it first...

So "Django" is satire now?

 

[geechiedan]

Geech, let me ask you a serious question.

What would have been the proper setting for this film?

if QT wanted to make a story of a black man in early america kicking white ass on a slave plantation he could have done it a couple of ways.

1. A nat turner-esqe slave revolt where django on his own accord and machinations with a number of escaped slaves kills a slave owner and takes back his wife and they both escape (since its fiction).

2. django buys his own freedom and having failed to get his wife goes on a vengeful rampage and takes down a plantation and frees his wife with little to no white assistance.

3. QT wanted to make a western..so then make a WESTERN. Django is a bounty hunter in the WEST, somewhere in arizona or montana (classic john ford western scenery not antebellum south) who's wife is kidnapped and he and his partner (can be a white man here) has to track her down before they can bring her back to the south to sell her into slavery and its a race against time and distance.

these are just various scenarios off the top of my head..

 

[Kwame Coltrane]

What alot of cats are failing to realize is that this isnt a docudrama like Red Tails. This isnt based on real events. This isn't a historical film. Its not aimed to show the scope or timeline of slavery. Its a film that uses the backdrop for the story. Its about a freed slave getting revenge and less about slavery. Did anyone watch Inglorious basterds and think it was a film about Nazi Germany? No it was a backdrop for revenge on the nazis just like this is a revenge film on the slave owners. I enjoyed it. Yes 3 black people died. But about 300 honkys perished pretty brutally. I wanted to be entertained and i was. Nothing says a good time like a slave burning down a plantation, shooting numerous owners, killing a house nigga, and outsmarting white folks at their own game. I didnt go in there trying to vouch for historical accuracy, count the N-word drops, or look for a tutorial on slavery. I went in there to see some honkys killed, see some cool scenery and some good dialogue. I wasnt dissapointed in that aspect.

 

[TooTrilla]

Saw the movie last night with the wife. Loved it. Samuel L. Jackson's part although not ment to be funny was hilarious!!!

Im sure it was meant to be funny. But I loved the movie too. SHit was great. Didn't bother me a bit. I went to a White movie theater too and me and my girl were laughing the hardest. Hilarious shit mixed in with some deep shit. Good fucking movie. Fuck the haters.

 

[AllState17]

if QT wanted to make a story of a black man in early america kicking white ass on a slave plantation he could have done it a couple of ways.

1. A nat turner-esqe slave revolt where django on his own accord and machinations with a number of escaped slaves kills a slave owner and takes back his wife and they both escape (since its fiction).

2. django buys his own freedom and having failed to get his wife goes on a vengeful rampage and takes down a plantation and frees his wife with little to no white assistance.

3. QT wanted to make a western..so then make a WESTERN. Django is a bounty hunter in the WEST, somewhere in arizona or montana (classic john ford western scenery not antebellum south) who's wife is kidnapped and he and his partner (can be a white man here) has to track her down before they can bring her back to the south to sell her into slavery and its a race against time and distance.

these are just various scenarios off the top of my head..

Options 1 and 2 cant be done without considerable time on a plantation by the way...

But lets say you completely flip the script to a straight western bounty hunter story. Then you end up with a movie that really doesnt have anything to do with slavery. So you have a movie during the age of slavery in America, starring a slave, but you are running away from that subject altogether. So in the end... whats the point?

Is that any more respectful then what was made?

Take your own example. Is Inglorius Basterds really about WWII, or Jews, or concentration camps, or Nazis? No its not. Its nothing more then a cool story. There was nothing Jewish or German about it. Its just sold as a "Jew revenge" movie. It has no value whatsoever.

Django was very hard to watch but I cannot deny its value.

 

[geechiedan]

Options 1 and 2 cant be done without considerable time on a plantation by the way...

options 1 and 2 where addressing the plantation depiction and they were stories that dealt with blacks revolting without the help of a white man (something that happened in real life by the way again see nat turner as an example)

But lets say you completely flip the script to a straight western bounty hunter story. Then you end up with a movie that really doesn't have anything to do with slavery. So you have a movie during the age of slavery in America, starring a slave, but you are running away from that subject altogether. So in the end... whats the point?

Is that any more respectful then what was made?

option 3 has the specter of slavery in the background but its more of true western while still addressing the racial dynamics of the time. Also Django in QT's story isn't a slave anymore he's a free man hence the name Django Freeman..its his wife thats still in slavery. People will say..hell QT himslef says that Django Unchained is more of a love story with slavery/plantation life as a setting. Django wants to get his wife back and revenge on the people who wronged him. If thats the case then the setting can be anywhere and the story should hold up.

Are those scenarios more respectful..I think so because the slave revolt stories show blacks creating a movement of their own volition independent of white assistance and backing (again something that happened for real). Black people on here have always talked about wanting to see the Nat Turner story well this is as close you can get without doing an actual biopic (which should be done).

Take your own example. Is Inglorius Basterds really about WWII, or Jews, or concentration camps, or Nazis? No its not. Its nothing more then a cool story. There was nothing Jewish or German about it. Its just sold as a "Jew revenge" movie. It has no value whatsoever.

Django was very hard to watch but I cannot deny its value.

Maybe IBhas no value to you because your not jewish or don't really care about jewish persecution. But it was indeed a WW2 movie and jewish revenge fantasy. That was the point..thats why the first scene we see is of violent jewish persecution. Thats why the last scene we see is two jewish american soldiers carving a swastika in a nazi's forehead and smiling with satisfaction.

 

[Jay_from_dade]

The Positives: Tarantino employed the most black actors in just one major film than have been in the whole years cumulative.

The Advertisements were basically A BLACK MAN WILLING TO DO ANYTHING TO SAVE HIS BLACK WOMAN. Made $62mill.

He didn't sugar coat slavery, He kept the horrible shit that was done to us on screen. And since they are trying to remove it from the history books this is important. Even the use of Nigga. Just face it ,that is what we were called then, call each other now and when a white person is angry they will call you that to your face today.

Neutral: Any one who was really paying attention to the film, would realize the movie is actually about Dr.King Shultz. His Change and journey from a ruthless bounty hunter to a man sensitive to the African American plight.

Dynamic character (main character): dramatic character who undergoes an important inner change, as a change in personality or attitude.

Django was more of a static character. If the movie was really about him, we would have felt his love for Broomhilda more, not like we were learning about her through Shultz's eyes.

Negative: The attention this movie is getting for the wrong reasons. Its merely entertainment. Not well written. Tarantino has been better.

 

[Pootypoot]

The Positives: Tarantino employed the most black actors in just one major film than have been in the whole years cumulative.

The Advertisements were basically A BLACK MAN WILLING TO DO ANYTHING TO SAVE HIS BLACK WOMAN. Made $62mill.

He didn't sugar coat slavery, He kept the horrible shit that was done to us on screen. And since they are trying to remove it from the history books this is important. Even the use of Nigga. Just face it ,that is what we were called then, call each other now and when a white person is angry they will call you that to your face today.

Neutral: Any one who was really paying attention to the film, would realize the movie is actually about Dr.King Shultz. His Change and journey from a ruthless bounty hunter to a man sensitive to the African American plight.

Dynamic character (main character): dramatic character who undergoes an important inner change, as a change in personality or attitude.

Django was more of a static character. If the movie was really about him, we would have felt his love for Broomhilda more, not like we were learning about her through Shultz's eyes.

Negative: The attention this movie is getting for the wrong reasons. Its merely entertainment. Not well written. Tarantino has been better.

Excellent points. I agree with everything except Tarintino has done better. I think this is his best film to date, and I'm a huge fan of his. I think you summed the movie up to perfection though.

 

[Rick Spanish]

Neutral: Any one who was really paying attention to the film, would realize the movie is actually about Dr.King Shultz. His Change and journey from a ruthless bounty hunter to a man sensitive to the African American plight.

Negative: The attention this movie is getting for the wrong reasons. Its merely entertainment. Not well written. Tarantino has been better.

He was sensitive to the plight of the slave from the first scene when he took down the Speck brothers to free those "poor captive souls" (and of course to free Django).. You might need to Re-watch, man. Play close attention to the bar scene at the beginning when he talks about how he despises slavery..


And while I won't say this is Tarantino's best writing job, its definitely no his worst, and it was good enough to get the screenplay nominated among the best of the year..


I agree with mostly everything else you said..

 

[BGLR1212000]

I will say I agree on 1 thing. This is the first time I left a Tarantino movie thinking it was something missing, but isn't it great that Tarantino has a reputation for telling a story so well, that we expected a little better outta a damn near 3 hr flick. I can't wait to see it again.

 

[Jay_from_dade]

He was sensitive to the plight of the slave from the first scene when he took down the Speck brothers to free those "poor captive souls" (and of course to free Django).. You might need to Re-watch, man. Play close attention to the bar scene at the beginning when he talks about how he despises slavery..


And while I won't say this is Tarantino's best writing job, its definitely no his worst, and it was good enough to get the screenplay nominated among the best of the year..


I agree with mostly everything else you said..

I have the script I will read it tomorrow, Thats a point to poor writing. Shultz attitude didnt fully blossom on the slavery subject til Candie released the dogs on the fighter. The conversations prior were just a prerequisite to what was to come. And Pulp Fiction by far was his most well written screen play and Kill Bill 1 & 2 were his most entertaining Movies IMO

 

[AllState17]

options 1 and 2 where addressing the plantation depiction and they were stories that dealt with blacks revolting without the help of a white man (something that happened in real life by the way again see nat turner as an example)

But its impossible to tell those stories without the plantation setting. Which is what I asked you about in the first place because you yourself said your problem with the film is the depiction of life on the plantation.

To use your own example again, how could you possibly tell Nat Turner's story without showing us life on the plantation?

option 3 has the specter of slavery in the background but its more of true western while still addressing the racial dynamics of the time. Also Django in QT's story isn't a slave anymore he's a free man hence the name Django Freeman..its his wife thats still in slavery. People will say..hell QT himslef says that Django Unchained is more of a love story with slavery/plantation life as a setting. Django wants to get his wife back and revenge on the people who wronged him. If thats the case then the setting can be anywhere and the story should hold up.

Are those scenarios more respectful..I think so because the slave revolt stories show blacks creating a movement of their own volition independent of white assistance and backing (again something that happened for real). Black people on here have always talked about wanting to see the Nat Turner story well this is as close you can get without doing an actual biopic (which should be done).

You keep switching the topic to Django getting help from a white dude. I dont know why. They didnt have a subservient type of relationship. Django was his own man. You are pretending that it touches on the respectability aspect of the film but really thats just about our storyline preferences.

Like I said before, you can tell the "get my wife back" story a million different ways. I get that. But to me, if you gonna have slavery as a backdrop, and your star is a slave, and his woman is a slave, then deal with it head on. Thats what I feel adds value to the film.

Maybe IBhas no value to you because your not jewish or don't really care about jewish persecution. But it was indeed a WW2 movie and jewish revenge fantasy. That was the point..thats why the first scene we see is of violent jewish persecution. Thats why the last scene we see is two jewish american soldiers carving a swastika in a nazi's forehead and smiling with satisfaction.

Persecution is not specific to Jewish history. Hiding in your neighbors basement because your kind is being hunted is not specific to Jewish history. There wasnt anything in the movie that related back to German or Jewish heritage. You can tell the exact same story in a different war, and at the end instead of carving a swastika they carve another symbol.

 

[Genocide]

What QT did was make an extremely entertaining yet poorly written film. The fact is the movie was so entertaining it didn't matter that the script was fundamentally flawed. QT wrote a script where the protagonist had so few lines he seemed more like an extra.

Django's character development was so bad that when he finally got his woman and his revenge I didn't feel happy for him. Why? Because I didn't really know him. Sure, I was happy a black man was kicking hella ass but I didn't feel at all connected to the character.

However, QT aint stupid by far. He did that shit on purpose. He gave Jamie Foxx top billing because Django is the protagonist, but he knows good and damn well white people don't want to see a "black" movie. Django is the star on paper while the real stars are Shultz and DiCaprio. It's genius, but it makes for bad writing.

That being said, despite all that the movie is one of my favorite films of all time. I Love it. Can't wait to see it again.

 

[BGLR1212000]

What QT did was make an extremely entertaining yet poorly written film. The fact is the movie was so entertaining it didn't matter that the script was fundamentally flawed. QT wrote a script where the protagonist had so few lines he seemed more like an extra.

Django's character development was so bad that when he finally got his woman and his revenge I didn't feel happy for him. Why? Because I didn't really know him. Sure, I was happy a black man was kicking hella ass but I didn't feel at all connected to the character.

However, QT aint stupid by far. He did that shit on purpose. He gave Jamie Foxx top billing because Django is the protagonist, but he knows good and damn well white people don't want to see a "black" movie. Django is the star on paper while the real stars are Shultz and DiCaprio. It's genius, but it makes for bad writing.

That being said, despite all that the movie is one of my favorite films of all time. I Love it. Can't wait to see it again.

Exactly