I didn't water down "exploit", to exploit means to make use of something to one's own benefit. That's the definition of the word. Take your cape off. Everybody is not out here making slave movies. This isn't an issue of what QT should or should not do nor am I saying that he shouldn't be paid. I'm saying that his movie Django exploits slavery. QT used slavery as the vehicle to push his movie. Stop tapdancing and shuffling in an attempt to dodge that fact.
This is a bunch of nonsense. Serioulsy, anyone who actually "learned" anything about slavery watching Django is an idiot and doesn't even deserve to be acknowledged. Watch could you possibly have "learned" about the realities of slavery watching Django? If you didn't know that slaves were treated brutally, less than human, then that says something about you not the movie. If anything the movie does more to miseducate than educate. There are inaccuracies all through the movie. It's a fictional blaxploitation slave revenge film though, so it's not held to any kind of meaningful standards when it comes to accuracy. That's the point. It's just a movie made to entertain, not educate. Stop trying to make it more than what it is. Django has done nothing to spark any kind of intelligent conversation. You can't even get people to be truthful about the movie itself(people like you being proof), let alone slavery or race relations. What Django has done is illustrated how easy it is to pimp black people. It has also shown how protective some blacks are over white people.
I'm not your "bro". I don't have to prove anything, it's common sense. Again, Django is a fictional blaxploitation/western slave revenge flick. Does that sound like a movie that is intended to educate people on slavery? Nobody is being educated as a result of some fictional action revenge movie using slavery as the backdrop. You talk about not ignoring reason then post dumb shyt. "How do you know that QT only made the movie to make money?" Are you stupid or what? Of course Django is for purely entertainment purposes, that's not even up for debate. You clowns will say anything to try and defend the movie.
there's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but you really need to remember the difference between your opinion and a fact.
django is creating conversation around slavery and race relations. this has been proven in this thread, so that's a fact.
django is educating people about slavery, and also leading people to research further about slavery on their own. this has been proven in this thread, so that's a fact.
QT is exploiting slavery with django by making money off it. that's a fact. but it's also a fact that "exploit" is not automatically a negative word.
saying QT made this movie strictly for entertainment purposes is your opinion. i dont agree with you because imo a movie set during slavery is IMPOSSIBLE to strictly make for entertainment purposes because it's way too emotionally charged of a topic to be strictly entertainment (as you can see) so there was definitely an specific intention with using slavery. but again, thats MY opinion.
saying django was not made with the intention, at least in part, to educate, is also your opinion.
it is also your opinion that django IS NOT educating anyone about slavery, but the evidence clearly does not support that assertion when you see people posting in this very thread talking about what they learned from django and/or learned as a result of watching django. so thats pretty straightforward.
at the end of the day tho people are going to make the movie what they want. people will interpret it in their own unique ways. and it's all good cause that what's so great about art.
i find it interesting though. is it QT making the movie that pisses people off or the movie itself that pisses people off, or both? for example, what if a black person made this movie? would that individual be labeled a "sell-out" in your opinion?