I don't understand where some of the hate for Django is coming from in relation to this movie. I think both are great movies. Django was obviously made to engage a more commercial audience which is fine. Hell in both movies there are similar characters. Both had the over the top plantation owner and Brad Pitt could be looked at as a version of Christopher Waltz (to a much lesser degree). Yes the movies are told in different formats, but the overall message isn't that much different. I still think some people are totally missing the point of what Tarantino was trying to get across in his film.
Just saw 12 Years a Slave
- Thread starter mastermind
- Start date
-
- Tags
- movies
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
and what point was he trying to come across that we are all missing?
12 Years is a serious film while Django wasnt. Not only that, Fassbender's character was a lot more realistic as a slave owner vs Leo's character.
I dont think anyone is hating on Django, but 12 Years is a more serious and just a better movie.
and what point was he trying to come across that we are all missing?
12 Years is a serious film while Django wasnt. Not only that, Fassbender's character was a lot more realistic as a slave owner vs Leo's character.
I dont think anyone is hating on Django, but 12 Years is a more serious and just a better movie.
Why is it better? Just because it's more "serious"?
Tarantino showed in the movie how going through life is a Game to be played. For example, when Waltz and Django were caught up in the situation early in the movie and Waltz pulled out his "warrant" for the Sheriff he killed, it's not clear the sheriff was the actual guy the warrant was for. The scene before they go to the plantation Waltz tells Django to pick a outfit and not to deviate from the character is about SALES. You pick your gimmick and stick to it. If you're a lawyer, you wear a suit. If you're an investment banker, you don't run around chasing clients in shorts and a t-shirt. In making a deal, both sides are always overstating what they can do. In the end, you will be happy if the person delivers on at least 80% of what they claimed. At the end of the movie, Django learned the game when he used Waltz's bounty papers to fool the hillbillies. He was doing exactly what Waltz was doing before. It's a mental shackle of the brain that keeps many people from accomplishing what they want.
Even for 12 Years they have to SELL the movie. You create a bunch of early review hype, get the blogs going (this thread), interviews, etc. It's not simply we're going to spend $20 million on a movie and suddenly everyone is going to see it. It would FLOP. This movie has been set up great for a Oscar run which it deserves. At the end of the day, you're still pushing a product.
A movie doesn't have to be serious to be sincere. I believe Tarantino was sincere in what he put out.
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
Why is it better? Just because it's more "serious"?
Tarantino showed in the movie how going through life is a Game to be played. For example, when Waltz and Django were caught up in the situation early in the movie and Waltz pulled out his "warrant" for the Sheriff he killed, it's not clear the sheriff was the actual guy the warrant was for. The scene before they go to the plantation Waltz tells Django to pick a outfit and not to deviate from the character is about SALES. You pick your gimmick and stick to it. If you're a lawyer, you wear a suit. If you're an investment banker, you don't run around chasing clients in shorts and a t-shirt. In making a deal, both sides are always overstating what they can do. In the end, you will be happy if the person delivers on at least 80% of what they claimed. At the end of the movie, Django learned the game when he used Waltz's bounty papers to fool the hillbillies. He was doing exactly what Waltz was doing before. It's a mental shackle of the brain that keeps many people from accomplishing what they want.
Even for 12 Years they have to SELL the movie. You create a bunch of early review hype, get the blogs going (this thread), interviews, etc. It's not simply we're going to spend $20 million on a movie and suddenly everyone is going to see it. It would FLOP. This movie has been set up great for a Oscar run which it deserves. At the end of the day, you're still pushing a product.
A movie doesn't have to be serious to be sincere. I believe Tarantino was sincere in what he put out.
I have no words for this. They are two different movies breh
The Message
Lex with tv sets the minimum
I cant stand that shyt, that's why wont see Django, The Help, The Blindside...etc
I've been hearing Brad Pitt's character is the white savior and I wasn't going to see this shyt because
of it, but I dug Chewitel since Talk To Me and I liked some of the things McQueen has said about
the project...he doesn't strike me as a director that's
down for the okey doke. I'm tired of seeing slaves, maids
and butlers on the big screen, but
I'm exicted to see this. I think it'll be an honest and genuine portrayal of that time.
No fake, slapstick bullshyt.
yea I'm hearing that about Pitt as well but I heard his role is very small
Last edited:
Lakers Offseason
Superstar
So should I see this or Bad Grandpa this weekend?
The Message
Lex with tv sets the minimum
Good. I didnt want to sit up in the theater with the
face
white boy
Thing is, if you read the actual book, Pitt's character was indeed crucial in helping him eventually attain freedom. He wrote Northup's wife a letter letting her know where he was and what happened to him, prior to this they had no knowledge of where he was, this allowed them to hire a lawyer and eventually get him freed.
This why you CANNOT compare a movie like this with fluff like Django. Django is historical fantasy, emphasis on FANTASY, the concept of a white "savior" is used in order to stroke the ego of those Cacs suffering from white guilt who otherwise would've been too uncomfortable with the films portrayal of the atrocities that took place at this point in time and for which they still benefit to this day. The dentist is a compassionate mentor and father figure to Django, teaching him to read, write, and ultimately acquire the skills needed to to save his wife, showing that even though the "evil" white men were about in those times, there was still an evangelical Cac in the world willing to risk life and limb for his Negro Johnny companion.
In contrast 12 Years a Slave is a TRUE story based upon the actual first hand account of the slave who witnessed such horrors. The movie shares with the book a more complex view of the slave trade from both angles. His first master treated him somewhat kindly, not wishing for his slaves to receive too much punishment and respecting Northup's skill. He isn't a "savior" however as he doesn't risk anything to make sure his slaves are freed. He is still a profiter of slavery, blacks are still cattle to be used as one wishes, if a master treats a chained dog kindly by feeding him pheasant every night at dinner, does that delicious meal take away the cold imprisonment of the chains? These are themes sacrificed in Django in favor of raucous comedic moments from Leonardo Di'Caprio's Calvin Candie, a "villian" so childishly and one dimensionally created that all he needed was a twirling mustache to be a 1960's Bond Villian.
Last edited:
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
Brad Pitt's role is tiny, and actually understated based on what Northriop said himself in the book. He isnt a white savior, he is what actually happened
I have no words for this. They are two different movies breh
which is why I found it odd you mentioned Django on the first page when no one else mentioned it...why did you need to bring that movie into the discussion, since they are obviously different.
Let the two films stand on their own
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
i mentioned Django because its a movie about slavery, and there were dumbasses opening their mouths saying it was the definitive slavery movie and how important it was. Thats why I mentioned the hysteria AROUND the movie. I never said a bad word about the movie itself.
there wasn't a white savior in django... dr. schutz was killed off for a REASON just so it gives django the undisputed rank of hero. people would have a small mind if you ASSUME that just because schultz bought django his freedom at the beginning of the film that he's a savior. the real recognizes real when you saw how the roles of leader and sidekick dramatically got reverse further onto the film to the point the so-called "savior" almost jeopardized everything and got himself killed.
that film ought to be more APPRECIATIVE, because of the fact it represented a black hero in a world, then as well as NOW cease to exist.