if that is suppose to be stood u damn right
My Thoughts When The Movie Finished "D'Jango Is A Bad Ass!" If Your Final Thought Was "Oh My That Dr Shultz Was AWESOME!!!" Thats On YOU Breh
if that is suppose to be stood u damn right
Jamie played the role perfectly. You all bytch about everything. How the fukk else could he have played the role?
u keep going back to the acting when that isn't even an argument worth discussing.The sticking point is "characterisation" calvin candie and scultz could've been played by chatum tatum and orlando bloom and they still would've outshone whoever played django. U know why? Cuz the screenplay insured itNo I don't. I think those roles were given to actors that are just better on screen that Jamie Foxx. Django was the only character in the movie that even had or arc or an opportunity to change/grow.
Jamie had major interplay with both of those characters. Him getting an acting lesson from them both isn't a reflection of QT breh.
I stopped labeling characters that way once I left my teens. I did walkaway thinking "that movie sucked, I was apathetic to almost everything django reletated and I found his bish annoying, that shouldn't happen"My Thoughts When The Movie Finished "D'Jango Is A Bad Ass!" If Your Final Thought Was "Oh My That Dr Shultz Was AWESOME!!!" Thats On YOU Breh
Jamie played the role perfectly. You all bytch about everything. How the fukk else could he have played the role?
Exactly Jamie played the role perfectly nikkas always got something to complain about
I labelling characters that way once I left my teens. I did walkaway thinking "that movie sucked, I was apathetic to almost everything django reletated and I found his bish annoying, that shouldn't happen"
Exactly Jamie played the role perfectly nikkas always got something to complain about
will have to take your word on that one cuz I can't remember anything he said (but his name to the other django) almost all the quotes came from the 2 caucasian leads
Also The Most Memorable Lines Of That Movie Come Out Of D'Jangos Mouth
u keep going back to the acting when that isn't even an argument worth discussing.The sticking point is "characterisation" calvin candie and scultz could've been played by chatum tatum and orlando bloom and they still would've outshone whoever played django. U know why? Cuz the screenplay insured it
I didn't need an arc because we got their back story through dialogue and a strong dialogue with exposition beats a weak arc 10/10xYou can't just throw out the fact that he was in the ring with much better actors. How do you figure that Candie and Schultz were stronger characters when they were 1 dimensional with little to no written in arc? Nothing changed about those characters at all during the entire movie.
will have to take your word on that one cuz I can't remember anything he said (but his name to the other django) almost all the quotes came from the 2 caucasian leads
Look man, I'm not at all overly sensitive. I grew up in a predominantly white area in the south and work in a predominantly white corporate environment in a red state. If I were overly sensitive I wouldn't have a job or live where I live.
That said, I didn't walk into the movie expecting to be offended. And truly I'm not "offended" by what I'm talking about...it's more accurate to say I take issue or have a critique of what QT has done. Of course, that critique can't be taken out of the context of what QT's previously done...which I didn't really touch on in my original breakdown of the movie.
Anyway:
Yes, but what does it matter who said it? The word "******" was still being used for laughs...in a movie about slavery...written by a white director...who has a history of writing questionable lines using the word "******". If that's not cause for , you're just giving QT a pass he hasn't earned (and FYI--i don't think anyone should use the word in conversation and I don't use it myself).
Thank you. You're proving my point. In a movie about slavery, a black man is presented as arguably the most antagonistic force . This is absolutely the wrong message, and I don't assume the audience is educated well enough on slavery and the archetype that Stephen represents to not be rubbed the wrong way by it.
So you have Leo/Candie giving a 5-10 minute monologue voicing a phrenological argument for why blacks are submissive, not creative, and less intelligent--why we we're not "burdened by genius". This is what QT sat down to write for a movie that was essentially a vanity project-- something to do in his free time. Anyway, the movie's entire "rebuttal" to Candie's argument consists of:
1. A throwaway line from Schultz that Alexander Dumas was black (he was a quarter black)
2. Django stating that everything Candie said was "hogwash" or something to that effect.
In other words, a 10 second rebuttal to a 5 minute argument. And note that Django isn't the one who kills Candie-- it's Schultz. Django kills the hillbillies and rednecks that Candie states are essentially "******s" themselves throughout the movie. Also, side note, I guarantee you there will be increased searches for "black people skull shape", "black people skull dimples", "black people skull dimples" now. More Americans being introduced to phrenological arguments for black inferiority...gee, thanks Quentin .
Overall, you can't properly view this movie critically without asking yourself questions about why QT chose to make a movie set around slavery, chose to write it in the way he did, and chose to have it develop the way it did. My personal take is that this was QT putting most of his thoughts on race & blacks on the table (in a movie that runs 15 minutes shy of 3 hours ). Pretty disturbing look into his mind and the internal debate he's had/is having about our intelligence, agency, etc.
"I Like How You Die Boy" And "Im Curious Why You're So Curious" Have Been Pretty Standout From What Ive Seen
Also
Dr. King Schultz: How do you like the bounty hunting business?
Django: Kill white people and get paid for it? What's not to like?