Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss it

Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

so did you not like the movie becuz it wasn't taken from the letter you posted or becase it was made by a white person, please clear that up?

Neither, I didn't like the movie becuz the first half sets up schultz as some benevolent all father that takes Django under his wing (even tho his character is supposed to be a cold calculating killer in it for the money) gives him everything then sacrifices his life for him. Once its established that Django owes schultz his life and everything he has is because of a good white man THEN AND ONLY THEN can he go on his rampage and kill all the bad white people.

People say the film is supposed to be in your face and shocking and deals with a touchy subject but it doesn't shock anyone in fact the very people you would THINK would be off put by a slave revenge flick where a bunch of white people get slaughtered lined up around the corner to see it..laughed in the aisles over it and gave tarantino awards for it.

something about that just doesn't add up:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

Wrestling is also not real, but I still enjoy it by watching from time to time! Yes, I disagree with the original poster and yes, I can disagree in this thread if I want to!

the wrestling analogy isn't the point I was making...but thanx for the participation:cool:
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

That cast of roots on "THE WENDY WILLIAMS SHOW" was pretty tight. There is more to that than a lot of people will really know. On the movie MANDINGO wit Ken Norton was some hard core truth that you have to watch several times to catch on to.

There is a book titled "BLACK IN SELMA" That they should make a movie out of.
blackinselmaf.jpg


http://oneblacknation.webs.com/

http://blacknation.vpweb.com/default.html
blacknation.jpg
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

Didn't the OP admit that he encourages white women to call him a ni&&er during sex? Or am I mistaken?
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

Whats funny is that all this shit was discussed before the movie ever came out.

We know Django is not historically accurate. We know its not a Black empowerment movie. We know Tarantino's version is not the version a Black man would have done.

Thing is people were never saying those things in the first place. Everyone keeps saying its just a movie.

Im still trying to figure out who exactly Geech is trying to convince here.
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

Whats funny is that all this shit was discussed before the movie ever came out.

We know Django is not historically accurate. We know its not a Black empowerment movie. We know Tarantino's version is not the version a Black man would have done.

Thing is people were never saying those things in the first place. Everyone keeps saying its just a movie.

Im still trying to figure out who exactly Geech is trying to convince here.

thats funny cuz thats not how QT thinks of it:

It's a revenge fantasy that, depending on your perspective, makes this either the rare film to honestly present the ugliness of slavery, or one that treats atrocity as a backdrop for genre movie irreverence. It's probably both.

"If the only purpose of this movie was to make a shocking expose about slavery ... that would be well and good. You could definitely do that," says Tarantino. "But this movie wants to be a little more than just that."

"With black audiences, they laugh, they just get it," says Tarantino. "Part of the humor is stemming out of: `We were afraid of these idiots?'"

"It's the most important subject in America, both from a historical perspective and in our day to day lives," says Tarantino. "There are a whole lot of white filmmakers that might wish to venture into this area but they're afraid. They're afraid of being criticized."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/tarantino-unchained-quent_n_2340413.html

If its NOT about black empowerment and for a dude who thinks he knows black people so well, he makes the white character so prominent that the flick should have been called Schultz & Django...then what the hell is film about?

If you KNOW that's not what a black hero should look like..if you KNOW that a black director would come from a different angle then what do you see in the film that makes you go all :groupwave::wepraise::wepraise::wepraise::wepraise:

as for Everyone keeps saying its just a movie. If its "just a movie" then make Django the hero from the beginning.. If its "just a movie" then reduce Shcultz character and bring Broomhilda forward...if its "just a movie" then have Django manipulate Schultz and use him and if he gets killed in the process so be it becuz its all about getting his wife back.

Now go to a studio and pitch THAT story and tell them "hey its just a movie" and see what THEY say:rolleyes::rolleyes: cuz for them its NOT just a movie its an aggressive message against white people and they can't sell that to a mainstream audience because MOST white people wouldn't see it even tho its "just a movie".

When its some bullshit for US its "just a movie"
When its some bullshit for THEM they flat out reject it.

Thats why that excuse doesn't float to me. :hmm:
 
Last edited:
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

ah thanks for reminding me, going to watch my official blu-ray this weekend. Thank you QT!

tumblr_mkwv0zF4Xw1rtg3njo1_500.jpg


rejoice.png
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dCWN1DtveW8/UXdVYJmVsJI/AAAAAAAADik/caeDtEx4vXw/s1600/1857+-+4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dCWN1DtveW8/UXdVYJmVsJI/AAAAAAAADik/caeDtEx4vXw/s640/1857+-+4.jpg" width="460" /></a></div>

THIS is why the way Tarantino wrote Django Unchained is complete BULLSHIT.. READ THAT ARTICLE^^^^^

* Dude RANAWAY - ESCAPED in 1852 that article was published 1857 so he's been gone for 5 YEARS...

* He passed himself off as a FREE MAN and lived under ASSUMED NAMES in all that time...

* Worked with an irish dude in escaping Raleigh. Now MAYBE the irish guy was an abolitionist and convinced him to escape or MAYBE he talked the irish guy into helping him in any case nothing can happen unless Dennis took the first step and decided to take the chance you know...like a REAL HERO would. And this how his story STARTS..not ends. And MAYBE he passed thru all those towns because he was looking for his woman or family that was sold all over. Its possible.

This is the south...this is the a few years before the civil war the SAME time period of the film. And this is REAL HISTORY not a mash up of speghetti westerns and blaxploitation with some rap music thrown in :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: THIS IS WHY I DIDN'T LIKE THE FILM AND WAS FLABBERGASTED THAT BLACK PEOPLE ACTED LIKE HE GAVE US A GIFT:hmm::hmm::hmm:

QT made that film the way he did for a reason and it had NOTHING to do with pleasing a black audience. :smh::smh::smh:

As a screenwriter, my scripts create a world solely to entertain while appealing subconscious feelings and telling the most compelling, dramatic and conflict-driven story. Period!

Because of this, any adaptation is going to have some minor or major inconsistencies.

This is why book people are always pissed off when their favorite novel is made into a movie, this is why the Song of Fire and Ice people are pissed off about how Games of Thrones has been adapted to TV (even to the point of questioning the authenticity of the BlackWater episode when the BOOK'S AUTHOR wrote the damn episode).

Most importantly, this is why movies expressively say that this is BASED off a true story or actual events.

The thing that people have to understand is that true life doesn't make for good movies.

Shit, I am currently writing a script about a vacation the homies and I took. We had an epic time and some crazy shit happened but even in this instance (where the shit actually happened to me) I had to alter 85 percent the on-goings of the vacation because it would suck all ass if I wrote the story exactly as it occurred!

If you want true life go see a documentary. Ease up on ultra criticism of adaptation movies if you want to be entertained.
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

at least you can admit it
:lol::lol::lol:

I think I'm going to go buy a blu-ray for each room so i will have it everywhere i go!
lawd.png


you are welcome father!
win.png


Quentin Tarantino's Oscar-winning film knocks "The Hobbit" from its perch.

The major studios’ grip on the national home video charts was broken the week ending April 21 when Anchor Bay Entertainment topped all three charts with its disc release of Quentin Tarantino’s controversial Django Unchained, an Oscar-winning Weinstein Co. production about a freed slave who sets out to rescue his wife from a brutal Mississippi plantation owner.

The film, which grossed $162.8 million at the domestic box office, debuted at No. 1 on both the Nielsen VideoScan First Alert chart, which tracks overall disc sales, as well as Nielsen’s dedicated Blu-ray Disc sales chart.

Django Unchained also bowed at No. 1 on Home Media Magazine’s rental chart.

On the sales front, the violent drama – the first high-profile new release to hit stores in two weeks – bumped Warner’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey to the No. 2 spot. Hobbit has been in stores for five weeks.

tumblr_mkvmyqoRhX1qasnrqo2_500.jpg


mynicca1.png
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

All of my scripts take an African American purview. The argument for black film is misplaced. Everyone is concerned with the authenticity of Black films, when the real question is, "How do we create conflict-filled, dramatic and entertaining films that appeal universally on a subconscious level while adhering to the collective consciousness of black movie-goers (not black people, black movie-goers).

This is the theory I am developing! And it's trademarked for you all you thieves out there!
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

Fiction making mofos angry now...
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

As a screenwriter, my scripts create a world solely to entertain while appealing subconscious feelings and telling the most compelling, dramatic and conflict-driven story. Period!

Because of this, any adaptation is going to have some minor or major inconsistencies.

This is why book people are always pissed off when their favorite novel is made into a movie, this is why the Song of Fire and Ice people are pissed off about how Games of Thrones has been adapted to TV (even to the point of questioning the authenticity of the BlackWater episode when the BOOK'S AUTHOR wrote the damn episode).

Most importantly, this is why movies expressively say that this is BASED off a true story or actual events.

The thing that people have to understand is that true life doesn't make for good movies.

Shit, I am currently writing a script about a vacation the homies and I took. We had an epic time and some crazy shit happened but even in this instance (where the shit actually happened to me) I had to alter 85 percent the on-goings of the vacation because it would suck all ass if I wrote the story exactly as it occurred!

If you want true life go see a documentary. Ease up on ultra criticism of adaptation movies if you want to be entertained.

thats not my point:smh:
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

All of my scripts take an African American purview. The argument for black film is misplaced. Everyone is concerned with the authenticity of Black films, when the real question is, "How do we create conflict-filled, dramatic and entertaining films that appeal universally on a subconscious level while adhering to the collective consciousness of black movie-goers (not black people, black movie-goers).

This is the theory I am developing! And it's trademarked for you all you thieves out there!

you can trademark a theory??:lol::lol::lol:
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

Fiction making mofos angry now...

fiction makes white folk angry all the time..this is why most black directors can't get the budgets they want to tell the stories they want.

thats a FACT:hmm: you know it and I know it.
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

My point is Django doesn't show TRUE black empowerment until its well established that a nice white man has fully enabled him to be able to anything he does.

We have to understand that there are dualities in movies. There are two distinct stories in every credible movie. There is an action story and a relationship/emotional story!

In most movies, the situations that happen to the the central character drives the emotional and action story.

Some stories driven by multiple characters, this is hard to do but this was pulled off in the 1st Hangover. Question for thought, who was the main character in Hangover 1? We can make the case for the nerd, the heart-throb and, to a lesser extent,
White Jesus.

This is the genius of the Dark Knight, as it was woven so meticulously, that you could make an argument for both Batman and the Joker as the central character.

QT in my opinion, split the characters to drive the emotional and action story. The German drives the emotional story (this is why we see him have the most character development from beginning to end). Jamie drives the Action story (noticeably, he did not have much development). This is why each protagonist takes a different form. The Leo character is the emotional protagonist and Sam Jack is the Action protagonist.

This was a well-developed and complex script but they would not work separately. The German and Leo could not drive a movie by itself in that world as the action would suck. And Jamie and Sam could not have the rebel/slave master showdown outside the context of the white dominated antebellum south. Together, the characters add depth and drive the world that was created!
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

you can trademark a theory??:lol::lol::lol:

Trademark was tongue and cheek.

The initial version is self published as a point of departure intended for black writers in film programs.

I want to be cited in the event that the theory picks up legs!
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

The biggest issue I had with the movie is slavery movies and comedies don't go together.
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

We have to understand that there are dualities in movies. There are two distinct stories in every credible movie. There is an action story and a relationship/emotional story!

In most movies, the situations that happen to the the central character drives the emotional and action story.

Some stories driven by multiple characters, this is hard to do but this was pulled off in the 1st Hangover. Question for thought, who was the main character in Hangover 1? We can make the case for the nerd, the heart-throb and, to a lesser extent,
White Jesus.

This is the genius of the Dark Knight, as it was woven so meticulously, that you could make an argument for both Batman and the Joker as the central character.

QT in my opinion, split the characters to drive the emotional and action story. The German drives the emotional story (this is why we see him have the most character development from beginning to end). Jamie drives the Action story (noticeably, he did not have much development). This is why each protagonist takes a different form. The Leo character is the emotional protagonist and Sam Jack is the Action protagonist.

This was a well-developed and complex script but they would not work separately. The German and Leo could not drive a movie by itself in that world as the action would suck. And Jamie and Sam could not have the rebel/slave master showdown outside the context of the white dominated antebellum south. Together, the characters add depth and drive the world that was created!

Great answer and now where getting to the nitty gritty of it. The only issue then is are you sayin that Django the title character couldn't carry the emotional story in a slave film? Are you saying that a white foreigner whose eyes we see the horrors of slavery thru is a better character to convey the emotion and conflict of slavery in the south?

The first hour of the film goes to great length to show the relationship between the slave and the bounty hunter which would explain why the film has something of a buddy-cop feel to it more than the man on singular quest feel it should have. If youre talking about an emotional component and want to save the action for Django then couldn't Broomhilda serve that purpose since she's the one whose being tortured, raped and held captive for nearly the whole movie?

Tarantino is credited for the stark depiction of plantation life. He showed the horrors of torture devices like the muzzle Django was strapped up in and the hot box Broomhilda was forced into but he never showed the impact it had on the slaves themselves. Before I saw the film I read a review and the writer said he was impressed with how Tarantino portrayed a post traumatic stress disorder moment in the movie. I was like wow, okay QT has dug deep here, no one has shown the effects of PTSD in a film that involves slavery but it would stand to reason that it would not only happen but be common place considering what the slaves had been through. So I see the film and it does show a PTSD moment...happening to SCHULTZ. The one person who's never had to deal with hard ship like that sees one horrible incident and has twitching flashbacks. Meanwhile Broomhilda was in a hotbox for 10 HOURS and how do we see how she deals with it hours later?? Oh, we don't.

And this is the crux of the issue me and others who agree have with stories like Django.. the CRUCIAL component of the film is carried by a white character and the response I keep getting back (from my OWN PEOPLE no less) is that it CAN'T be any other way.

And the fucked up part is theyre RIGHT it COULDN'T be told another way and get the green light and acceptance that it has. But that just makes me dislike the film that much more and why I'm telling black people they shouldn't accept this compromised water-down story because it had to be designed so that its palatable to white people even tho its JUST A MOVIE:rolleyes:
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

CACs and coons shat on me for giving props to Red Tails when it dropped while big-upping Django. :hmm:
Nowadays, QT tells stories for teenaged white boys. Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown QT is gone.
He's become a caricature of himself.
He gets his bread from Hollywood elitists now and they have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in black history, a real black story, and least of all a black hero.
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

I'm hanging a Django poster in my man cave.


I'm naming my dog Django...

I'm naming my daughter Dr. King Shultz...

I sent QT an email and told him he can come over to my house and fuck my sister...


:D:D:D:D:D
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

thats funny cuz thats not how QT thinks of it:

It's a revenge fantasy that, depending on your perspective, makes this either the rare film to honestly present the ugliness of slavery, or one that treats atrocity as a backdrop for genre movie irreverence. It's probably both.

"If the only purpose of this movie was to make a shocking expose about slavery ... that would be well and good. You could definitely do that," says Tarantino. "But this movie wants to be a little more than just that."

"With black audiences, they laugh, they just get it," says Tarantino. "Part of the humor is stemming out of: `We were afraid of these idiots?'"

"It's the most important subject in America, both from a historical perspective and in our day to day lives," says Tarantino. "There are a whole lot of white filmmakers that might wish to venture into this area but they're afraid. They're afraid of being criticized."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/tarantino-unchained-quent_n_2340413.html

If its NOT about black empowerment and for a dude who thinks he knows black people so well, he makes the white character so prominent that the flick should have been called Schultz & Django...then what the hell is film about?

If you KNOW that's not what a black hero should look like..if you KNOW that a black director would come from a different angle then what do you see in the film that makes you go all :groupwave::wepraise::wepraise::wepraise::wepraise:

as for Everyone keeps saying its just a movie. If its "just a movie" then make Django the hero from the beginning.. If its "just a movie" then reduce Shcultz character and bring Broomhilda forward...if its "just a movie" then have Django manipulate Schultz and use him and if he gets killed in the process so be it becuz its all about getting his wife back.

Now go to a studio and pitch THAT story and tell them "hey its just a movie" and see what THEY say:rolleyes::rolleyes: cuz for them its NOT just a movie its an aggressive message against white people and they can't sell that to a mainstream audience because MOST white people wouldn't see it even tho its "just a movie".

When its some bullshit for US its "just a movie"
When its some bullshit for THEM they flat out reject it.

Thats why that excuse doesn't float to me. :hmm:


You are all over the map in your response.

You are mad at everyone. Mad at QT, mad at the studios, mad at Blacks who enjoyed it, mad that whites spend where they wanna spend, mad that the movie made money...

No this movie is not about Black empowerment. How many Blacks have you met who told you they felt empowered by it? I havent met any. Nor did we go into the theater expecting to be. You arent here speaking on controversial issues fam. Empowerment isnt the reason why Blacks enjoyed it.

This movie isnt about one particular issue. QT's movies hardly ever are anyways. From everything Ive seen and read, if i can boil it down to one thing, the movie is mainly about having a story in antebellum south.

Either QT or the studio decided to make this movie commercially acceptable for white people through Schultz. Guess what, white people decided they still want white people's money. Mind you, in the entire film, there is only ONE white character with any redeeming qualities. One. ALL the others werent worth shit! But you never point that out do you?

I think the difference between you and me is that you believe that this movie should be "for Black people" even though its made "by white people". Thats YOUR mistake fam.

What do i see in this movie that's praise worthy? I didnt like the movie very much. What is praise worthy about this movie is that it may open doors for other movies made in that historical setting. If those movies do come, maybe they will push the limits that Django did not, and hopefully will be made by Black directors too.
 
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

Great answer and now where getting to the nitty gritty of it. The only issue then is are you sayin that Django the title character couldn't carry the emotional story in a slave film? Are you saying that a white foreigner whose eyes we see the horrors of slavery thru is a better character to convey the emotion and conflict of slavery in the south?

The first hour of the film goes to great length to show the relationship between the slave and the bounty hunter which would explain why the film has something of a buddy-cop feel to it more than the man on singular quest feel it should have. If youre talking about an emotional component and want to save the action for Django then couldn't Broomhilda serve that purpose since she's the one whose being tortured, raped and held captive for nearly the whole movie?

Tarantino is credited for the stark depiction of plantation life. He showed the horrors of torture devices like the muzzle Django was strapped up in and the hot box Broomhilda was forced into but he never showed the impact it had on the slaves themselves. Before I saw the film I read a review and the writer said he was impressed with how Tarantino portrayed a post traumatic stress disorder moment in the movie. I was like wow, okay QT has dug deep here, no one has shown the effects of PTSD in a film that involves slavery but it would stand to reason that it would not only happen but be common place considering what the slaves had been through. So I see the film and it does show a PTSD moment...happening to SCHULTZ. The one person who's never had to deal with hard ship like that sees one horrible incident and has twitching flashbacks. Meanwhile Broomhilda was in a hotbox for 10 HOURS and how do we see how she deals with it hours later?? Oh, we don't.

And this is the crux of the issue me and others who agree have with stories like Django.. the CRUCIAL component of the film is carried by a white character and the response I keep getting back (from my OWN PEOPLE no less) is that it CAN'T be any other way.

And the fucked up part is theyre RIGHT it COULDN'T be told another way and get the green light and acceptance that it has. But that just makes me dislike the film that much more and why I'm telling black people they shouldn't accept this compromised water-down story because it had to be designed so that its palatable to white people even tho its JUST A MOVIE:rolleyes:

I'll take these one at a time. I am not saying that it is better or worse that the movie wasn't purely shown through the eyes of Jamie, for several reasons, it's not the path QT took. That doesn't make the movie less entertaining.

With Broomhilda, simply put, she is the love interest and not a major character in the movie. She is simply there to make Jamie's character more sympathetic to the audience. She is a representation of a goal he is trying to achieve. Outside of that she has no critical value to the movie.

Remember, black movies have to have universal subconscious appeal while appealing to the collective consciousness of black movie goers. Having Jamie slay slave masters appeals to the collective consciousness of black movie goers, but that doesn't have the same universal appeal. In the eyes of the universal movie-goer, he's just a revenge seeking killer with little depth. Adding Broomhilda makes the audience sympathetic to his cause! Him finding and rescuing his wife is sympathetic/relationship/emotional justification for the murderous vengefest.

Also, you have to remember that Jamie and Schultz are the leading character in one and Leo and Sam Jack are the protagonist in one. The heroic journey is completed through Jamie and Schutlz simultaneously! If you separate the two form a critical standpoint, then it does take away from the film. But you'd have to do so with other movies like the first hangover! In that film, if you invest in an individual character to show a complete heroic journey, then the movie is simply a series of funny moments as none of them develop a complete heroic development individually but they do as a whole! Same concept with Django, just a different and more serious world.

The last statement is simply the economics of the movie industry. Primarily, the most successful Black centered films top-out at 50 Million. There simply isn't enough black movie goers to justify 8 figure budgets, in most instances. A director like Tarantino won't get out of bed for less than a 50 mil budget. He has to use his script to negotiate to a consensus with the studios. And telling a "slave story" in the antebellum south a huge budget is not going to get the green light unless it is universally appealing, the same goes for any big budget film. This is not an indictment on QT and Django, it's somply a reality of the movie industry.

We cannot act like others dont operate under this paradigm. Take Spike for example. When he gets a big budget, they are for films that are universally appealing (25 hour, Inside Man, Miracle at St. Anna). Spike was two for three artistically in those films and one for three commercially.

He had his big chance with Bamboozled and he blew it. He blew it for two reasons, the script was poorly written and, most importantly, Spike did not even attempt at making the movie universally appealing! Bamboozled sought to appeal purely to the collective consciousness of black folks (not black movie goers) and it flopped commercially. You can't have a big-budget movie that solely appeals to the sensibility of black folks.

Can you have a big budget hit (artistic and commercial) movie that is told through the purview of a Black person? Yes, but it is mandatory that it has a universal appeal! We seen it with Boomerang and Malcolm X! Black film-makers lose sight of this delicate balance and take creative freedom that ultimately leads to their demise.

We have to remember that nearly every major studio release is made with studio money. Studios are only concerned with seeing a profit and in order to see a profit, the movie has to have universal appeal. The time-honored black films can universally appealing and appeal to the collective consciousness of black movie goers!
 
Last edited:
Re: Why Django Unchained was PURE Bullshit - every black person with DVD should toss

You are all over the map in your response.

You are mad at everyone. Mad at QT, mad at the studios, mad at Blacks who enjoyed it, mad that whites spend where they wanna spend, mad that the movie made money...

No this movie is not about Black empowerment. How many Blacks have you met who told you they felt empowered by it? I havent met any. Nor did we go into the theater expecting to be. You arent here speaking on controversial issues fam. Empowerment isnt the reason why Blacks enjoyed it.
I dislike QT's arrogance in thinking he's made some sort of paradigm shifting film. I am angry that the studios curb black creativity. I feel black people should be more discerning in what's being presented to us. I'm not mad the film made money but I am mad that a TRUE black produced film doing the same subject matter wouldn't make that much or get overseas distribution.

The film is totally about black empowerment thats what tarantinos intention was to a large degree and he's stated that in so many words in interviews. And black people feel empowered and entertained by the film because we see a black man, an ex slave shoot up a bunch of white people. But that truthfully is only slightly remarkable.

This movie isnt about one particular issue. QT's movies hardly ever are anyways. From everything Ive seen and read, if i can boil it down to one thing, the movie is mainly about having a story in antebellum south.

Either QT or the studio decided to make this movie commercially acceptable for white people through Schultz. Guess what, white people decided they still want white people's money. Mind you, in the entire film, there is only ONE white character with any redeeming qualities. One. ALL the others werent worth shit! But you never point that out do you?
Quentin Tarantino has been in the entertainment business for a long time and he's well aware of things like demographics and marketing. He also knows how to make a story that has massive mainstream appeal. Now in the marketing business there are code terms for demographics that are used in lieu of referring directly to an ethnic or racial group. The two main terms we all hear are the urban market (which means Black people or in more general terms minorities) and the mainstream market (which is basically White folks, the majority). Marketing research and studies have concluded that films that either focus on or have majority non white casting tend to not do as well as with "mainstream" audiences as movies with white leads or majority white casts. Its not that minority cast films fail but they don't generate as much box office revenue as predominately white cast films. Unless its stars Will Smith or Denzel Washington. Tarantino understands this.

And knowing this, writing a story where all of the white characters are slave owning douche bags and the only positive white character in the film is not seen very prominently MAY turn off a large segment of the mainstream audience. So the only good white person in the story has to be inflated to counteract the fact that there so many negative white characters in the film. This would explain why Dr. Schultz buys Django out of slavery and mentors him rather than Django escaping the plantation This would explain why Schultz insists on helping Django even when their initial deal is completed and he has nothing more to gain from his team up with the ex-slave rather than Django talking the bounty hunter into helping him.. This would explain why their relationship takes up more than half the film time so much so that Django and Broomhilda's love story gets reduced to longing looks and quick exchanges. It also explains why only after Schultz has sacrificed himself does Django, in the last 20 minutes of the film, become the fully realized, self initiating, activated hero that everyone in interviews and reviews keeps talking about.


I think the difference between you and me is that you believe that this movie should be "for Black people" even though its made "by white people". Thats YOUR mistake fam.

What do i see in this movie that's praise worthy? I didnt like the movie very much. What is praise worthy about this movie is that it may open doors for other movies made in that historical setting. If those movies do come, maybe they will push the limits that Django did not, and hopefully will be made by Black directors too.
It won't...they said that with Sidney Poitier films...Roots...Spike Lee's early works. They've been saying that for 40 years and It won't because the paradigm CAN'T change as long as the views, beliefs and attitudes of white people control how projects get made.

I'll take these one at a time. I am not saying that it is better or worse that the movie wasn't purely shown through the eyes of Jamie, for several reasons, it's not the path QT took. That doesn't make the movie less entertaining.

With Broomhilda, simply put, she is the love interest and not a major character in the movie. She is simply there to make Jamie's character more sympathetic to the audience. She is a representation of a goal he is trying to achieve. Outside of that she has no critical value to the movie.

Remember, black movies have to have universal subconscious appeal while appealing to the collective consciousness of black movie goers. Having Jamie slay slave masters appeals to the collective consciousness of black movie goers, but that doesn't have the same universal appeal. In the eyes of the universal movie-goer, he's just a revenge seeking killer with little depth. Adding Broomhilda makes the audience sympathetic to his cause! Him finding and rescuing his wife is sympathetic/relationship/emotional justification for the murderous vengefest.

So Broomhilda gets regulated to a macguffin rather than treated as a real person:smh::lol::smh:
And I would think being enslaved and torture period would make people sympathetic but hey thats just me.:rolleyes:

Also, you have to remember that Jamie and Schultz are the leading character in one and Leo and Sam Jack are the protagonist in one. The heroic journey is completed through Jamie and Schutlz simultaneously! If you separate the two form a critical standpoint, then it does take away from the film. But you'd have to do so with other movies like the first hangover! In that film, if you invest in an individual character to show a complete heroic journey, then the movie is simply a series of funny moments as none of them develop a complete heroic development individually but they do as a whole! Same concept with Django, just a different and more serious world.

not necessarily and why not compare django with a film closer to its genre like Gladiator for instance..theres a hero's journey that didn't need splitting up among various people. Maximus carried both the action and the emotion.

The last statement is simply the economics of the movie industry. Primarily, the most successful Black centered films top-out at 50 Million. There simply isn't enough black movie goers to justify 8 figure budgets, in most instances. A director like Tarantino won't get out of bed for less than a 50 mil budget. He has to use his script to negotiate to a consensus with the studios. And telling a "slave story" in the antebellum south a huge budget is not going to get the green light unless it is universally appealing, the same goes for any big budget film. This is not an indictment on QT and Django, it's somply a reality of the movie industry.

We cannot act like others dont operate under this paradigm. Take Spike for example. When he gets a big budget, they are for films that are universally appealing (25 hour, Inside Man, Miracle at St. Anna). Spike was two for three artistically in those films and one for three commercially.

He had his big chance with Bamboozled and he blew it. He blew it for two reasons, the script was poorly written and, most importantly, Spike did not even attempt at making the movie universally appealing! Bamboozled sought to appeal purely to the collective consciousness of black folks (not black movie goers) and it flopped commercially. You can't have a big-budget movie that solely appeals to the sensibility of black folks.

Can you have a big budget hit (artistic and commercial) movie that is told through the purview of a Black person? Yes, but it is mandatory that it has a universal appeal! We seen it with Boomerang and Malcolm X! Black film-makers lose sight of this delicate balance and take creative freedom that ultimately leads to their demise.

We have to remember that nearly every major studio release is made with studio money. Studios are only concerned with seeing a profit and in order to see a profit, the movie has to have universal appeal. The time-honored black films can universally appealing and appeal to the collective consciousness of black movie goers!

When you say universal appeal you mean white folks..lets just get that outta the way:rolleyes::rolleyes:

and the bold is an indictment of society's attitude about history and people of color. It seems that for the people in that universal appeal group..race isn't the issue its just that race is the issue. :hmm::smh:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top