I can see why QT involved slavery as a backdrop for this film... He mentioned one time how he loved Westerns, but always wondered why they never addressed slavery in those movies seeing as though it is the same time period.... It makes sense to me 
Anyone Seen Django?
- Thread starter Pool_Shark
- Start date
-
- Tags
- movies
this was a love story breh, fukk what qt talking about. a story about a man trying to save his chick from a villain with action and revenge..now how many movies had that same Damn concept? now you really going to act like this nikka HAD to tell that story through a slavery lane
fukk outta here only thing ignorant is nikkas cosigning this bullshyt c00n movie. If you really think because qt wanted to make a western that makes it cool I swear I don't know how to take a dude like you serious. Seems like to me if qt wanted to tell a story about a hero saving his lady against all odds he could have done it a lot more tastefully.
fukk were you expecting? An Original Black Matrix?You're right it was a love story, the German Love story Shultz was talking about.
With a bad ass character who, while set in an era of oppression, overcame the shyt and got his woman back.
It was an arcade game of a movie with strong characters, great onscreen presence by big name actors and racist people getting just punishment through the hands of a former slave.
^ I bet my paragraph is exactly how Tarantino pitched it, and he eventually made the fukking movie. It was a fun movie... a spaghetti western... with a black lead.
What's the problem?
Exactly. Got us sounding like the whie racist people" we justly criticize. Had a Black Director made this movie and changed nothing... it would be GOAT though right?
Then we'd say... See...White directors would never venture into this story type, cuz they RACIST - Chris Rock Voice.
Marvel
Psalm 149:5-9
I already brought it up. It's not a slavery era movie, it was set in the 1920s, and is based on a true story. Directed by John Singleton, a black director did the story justice.
Budget - $30 million
Box office - $13 million
White people don't want to see their own people lynching innocent men, women, and.children over a cac lie.
Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2
You're right it was a love story, the German Love story Shultz was talking about.
With a bad ass character who, while set in an era of oppression, overcame the shyt and got his woman back.
It was an arcade game of a movie with strong characters, great onscreen presence by big name actors and racist people getting just punishment through the hands of a former slave.
^ I bet my paragraph is exactly how Tarantino pitched it, and he eventually made the fukking movie. It was a fun movie... a spaghetti western... with a black lead.
What's the problem?
Exactly. Got us sounding like the whie racist people" we justly criticize. Had a Black Director made this movie and changed nothing... it would be GOAT though right?
Then we'd say... See...White directors would never venture into this story type, cuz they RACIST - Chris Rock Voice.
To be honest I thought I was about to see a damn slave revolutionary shyt from the previews, but what did I get? A love story set in slavery times but they only used slavery when it was convenient to progress the story, or to "make it seem like a more fukked up scenario" I'll just give a couple examples to why I originally said this was some c00n shyt straight up and could as well just been a different version of kill bill and still been a great movie. like I was telling that other fukk nikka I could careless about qt wanting to shoot a western when he has to do so much bullshyt cheap shyt in the movie to get his point across in a love /rescue story.
IF he wanted to make a western fine then, use a white character and have his bytch get kidnapped by some bandits or some shyt. To be honest the
story line has been done so many different ways its literally no way he could have not pulled the shyt off.But back to what I was talking about really was it necessary to have dumb ass slaves running around calling a white dude big daddy? was it necessary to have nikkas fighting to death for pleasure,having django have a nikka eaten alive by dogs, the whole "your skull/brain aint smart as the white man" JUST TO MAKE A fukkING LOVE STORY SET IN WESTERN TIMESyou nikkas can be serious with this shyt yall in here thinking Sam L character was so funny but that c00nin ass nikka made it worse steady calling chicks bytches, nigggas ect....again JUST TO MAKE A fukkING LOVE STORY SET IN WESTERN TIMES
I guess what Im saying my be going over some of yalls heads but if we arent getting a movie truely about a slave uprising which is what I originally thought Django Unchained meant. Then why we got to see all this other bullshyt to see a nikka rescue his bytch.
Let's be honest, do you blame them?
These responses show my you nikkas aint big time directors...you gotta try somethin different..and thats exactly what this movie is
To be honest I thought I was about to see a damn slave revolutionary shyt from the previews but what did I get lets see. A love story set in slavery times but only used slavery when it was convenient to progress the story, or "make it seemed more fukked up scenario" I'll just give a couple examples to why I orginally said this was some c00n shyt straight up and could as well just been a different version of kill bill and still been a great movie. like I was telling that other fukk nikka I could careless about qt wanting to shoot a western when he has to do so much bullshyt cheap shyt in the movie to get his point across in a love /rescues story.
IF he wanted to make a western fine then use a white character and have his bytch get kidnapped by some bandits or some shyt. To be honest the
But back to what I was talking about really was in necessary to have dumb ass slaves running around calling a white dude big daddy? was it necessary to have nikkas fighting to death for pleasure,having django have a nikka eating by alive by dogs, the whole "your skull/brain aint smart as the white man" JUST TO MAKE A fukkING LOVE STORY SET IN WESTERN TIMESyou nikkas can be serious with this shyt yall in here thinking Sam L character was so funny but that c00nin ass nikka made it worse steady calling chicks bytches, nigggas ect....again JUST TO MAKE A fukkING LOVE STORY SET IN WESTERN TIMES
I guess what Im saying my be going over some of yalls heads but if we arent getting a movie truely about a slave uprising which is what I originally thought Django Unchained meant. Then why we got to see all this other bullshyt to see a nikka rescue his bytch.
Oh, where to begin.
1. Why would Tarantino make a movie that, by your admission, has been done to death when he could make something fresh like this about concerning slavery? Because he's white? Get the fukk over it.
2. You think all comfort girls were walking around with the
look when forced to address their master? Nah. A lot of them were just glad not to be in the field. That was reason enough not to looking for a way off the plantation for some. Obviously some comfort girls, like Broomhilda, tried to run away.3. It'd be more offensive if Tarantino didn't admit that shyt like mandingo fights and nikkas getting ripped apart by dogs didn't happen. All of that made Calvin Candie a more menacing and hateful bad guy. The phrenology speech was part of that stuff too. Everyone knows that shyt isn't true now, but that's what guys like Candie used to justify the existence of slavery.
I'd be more offended if Tarantino didn't include Uncle Toms and characters like Big Daddy and Calvin Candie. That shyt happened and it doesn't hurt for Americans to see that shyt. If you're uncomfortable about that shyt, then get comfortable. That shyt is on you.
How about he used slavery as the back drop because he has some kind of fascination with black people and the topic is real controversial? Just look at the hype surrounding the film. Obviously the buzz wouldn't be this strong had he made a "spaghetti western" that wasn't about slavery. So the reason that slavery isn't really addressed in westerns is not self explanatory? QT knows why slavery is ignored in those movies. It's one of the worst atrocities in the history of man and it illustrates just how wicked whites have been to black people. Again, white people will not be entertained when exposed to a real honest look at slavery and white supremacy. QT used slavery to push his film and make money, not to "keep it real".
Have you ot seen Quentin Tarantino's catalog?
The dude gives no fukks about box office sales. He makes cult classics bruh.
Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown? People who KNOW movies and can appreciate good dialogue are into his movies...NOT the mainstream.
He stated he was thikning about making a movie a keen to Inglorious Bastads during Slavery since the Premiere or Inglorious b*stards
Shut up.
you can't be this dense. There are a lot of white people who believe that Phrenology BS to this day. Wake up.
I can't blame any white person who doesn't want to pay 10 bucks to see a drama about slavery.
It's been scientifically proven to be untrue by several experts. If they still believe that phrenology BS that speaks more to their morals than it does about Tarantino.
I should have said every scholar, not everyone.
OmegaK2099
Gettin' It In
I can see why QT involved slavery as a backdrop for this film... He mentioned one time how he loved Westerns, but always wondered why they never addressed slavery in those movies seeing as though it is the same time period.... It makes sense to me
werd, tho they did adress slavery in my name is nobody with the hero standing up for the slaves that were being made fun of, the other time ive seen slavery adressed was at the start of a fistfull of dynamite when these rich white folk pick up a thief a mexican thief and they just sit there stuffing their faces like pigs going "just like them n1ggers.."
