NikeTalk › NikeTalk Forums › The Lounge › General › Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained (a Spaghetti Western) scheduled for release Christmas 2012
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained (a Spaghetti Western) scheduled for release Christmas 2012 - Page 41

post #1201 of 1631

Even white folks are mad laugh.gif

 

 

 

Quote:
Jeff Kuhner wrote a reaction to theSNL skit for The Washington Times: "Anti-white bigotry has become embedded in our postmodern culture. Take “Django Unchained.” The movie boils down to one central theme: the white man as devil — a moral scourge who must be eradicated like a lethal virus."
post #1202 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by CP1708 View Post

I'm serious, I'm askin the question. Why wouldn't Stephen help Django rather than help Candie? Why even blow up their spot? They wanted the chick too, it's one broad, what does Stephen care? Candi had NO IDEA of anything goin on, he was conductin business and they woulda been long gone. Who made sure to stop that, and make all the noise? Candie, or Stephen?

So in effect, which one was TRULY preventing Django from rescuing his wife? The answer ain't Candie. wink.gif

 

In the past the role or job of a house ***** was to always look after his master/slave owner.  In today's society we have alot of house *****'s even still running around just without the chains on. What they do now in today's society is to make sure they take care of the white man, because as they believe it to be, they are looking for and after their white savior.  Hence why the image or depiction of a white savior is still being portrayed today in certain outlets, but we can talk about that later. 

 

Stephen would never help Django cause his job is to make sure he takes care of Candie.  In that regard it's like this, the better Calvin Candie does the better Stephen does, the more Candie gets to prosper and eat the better Stephen gets to eat, the more slaves Candie has rule over the more slaves Stephen can rule over, and so on and so forth.  To answer your question Candie truly stopped or prevented Django from rescuing his wife, which is why they had to buy Broomhilda away from Candie.  Stephen had no real power, Candie had all the power.  If Candie wanted to let Broomhilda go for free, he could have and there wouldn't have been a damn thing Stephen could have done about it.  Money and power CP1708, money and power champ.  Which is the underlying point to racism as a whole. 

Team 49ers
XVI . XIX . XXIII . XXIV . XXIX
Team Member #2, The Dynasty will return




Team
DC/MD/VA
Cough up a lung..Where Im From!!
O.G. Member #5
Reply
Team 49ers
XVI . XIX . XXIII . XXIV . XXIX
Team Member #2, The Dynasty will return




Team
DC/MD/VA
Cough up a lung..Where Im From!!
O.G. Member #5
Reply
post #1203 of 1631
I've never heard of Jeff Kuhner before, but he is an idiot.
post #1204 of 1631
So where is Django gettin a fresh lineup out of nowhere like that in 1858? grin.gif
post #1205 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dade B0Y View Post

So where is Django gettin a fresh lineup out of nowhere like that in 1858? grin.gif


Eli Whitney's Blazin Cuts

post #1206 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerBallin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dade B0Y View Post

So where is Django gettin a fresh lineup out of nowhere like that in 1858? grin.gif


Eli Whitney's Blazin Cuts

 

i expected a jamie foxx hairline joke.

R.I.P. PIMP C

 

#sadboys

 

Reply

R.I.P. PIMP C

 

#sadboys

 

Reply
post #1207 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuce King View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by CP1708 View Post

I'm serious, I'm askin the question. Why wouldn't Stephen help Django rather than help Candie? Why even blow up their spot? They wanted the chick too, it's one broad, what does Stephen care? Candi had NO IDEA of anything goin on, he was conductin business and they woulda been long gone. Who made sure to stop that, and make all the noise? Candie, or Stephen?


So in effect, which one was TRULY preventing Django from rescuing his wife? The answer ain't Candie. wink.gif

In the past the role or job of a house ***** was to always look after his master/slave owner.  In today's society we have alot of house *****'s even still running around just without the chains on. What they do now in today's society is to make sure they take care of the white man, because as they believe it to be, they are looking for and after their white savior.  Hence why the image or depiction of a white savior is still being portrayed today in certain outlets, but we can talk about that later. 

Stephen would never help Django cause his job is to make sure he takes care of Candie.  In that regard it's like this, the better Calvin Candie does the better Stephen does, the more Candie gets to prosper and eat the better Stephen gets to eat, the more slaves Candie has rule over the more slaves Stephen can rule over, and so on and so forth.  To answer your question Candie truly stopped or prevented Django from rescuing his wife, which is why they had to buy Broomhilda away from Candie.  Stephen had no real power, Candie had all the power.  If Candie wanted to let Broomhilda go for free, he could have and there wouldn't have been a damn thing Stephen could have done about it.  Money and power CP1708, money and power champ.  Which is the underlying point to racism as a whole. 

I see your point and it makes sense, but as I brought up, if Stephen says nothing, they walk out just fine. Candie had zero clue he was being misled. They were this close to walkin out the door and Stephen messed it up. So in that sense, he became the main obstacle for Django getting his wife back. That's why I was askin who was more "evil". Not that Candie was a good dude, but for Django's purposes, Stephen became the biggest hurdle to their plan.
MIAMI DOLPHINS
LA LAKERS
CHICAGO CUBS
MIAMI HURRICANES
I'M A DOUCHEBOX
I DONE TOLD YOU
Reply
MIAMI DOLPHINS
LA LAKERS
CHICAGO CUBS
MIAMI HURRICANES
I'M A DOUCHEBOX
I DONE TOLD YOU
Reply
post #1208 of 1631
Whether you liked the movie or not, at the very least we can be happy that it has sparked a lot of good conversation.
post #1209 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLVN View Post

Whether you liked the movie or not, at the very least we can be happy that it has sparked a lot of good conversation.


I agree but some people don't like to think or talk.  Just consume

post #1210 of 1631
mean.gif postin from my phone ftl
Edited by MrONegative - 1/3/13 at 1:39pm
"You are like the Michael Jordan of being a sonofa*****"
Reply
"You are like the Michael Jordan of being a sonofa*****"
Reply
post #1211 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerBallin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PLVN View Post

Whether you liked the movie or not, at the very least we can be happy that it has sparked a lot of good conversation.


I agree but some people don't like to think or talk.  Just consume

Like how you leech off of every meaningful post on NT and turn it into dumb ***** ****? Kinda like that, champ? smile.gif
"You are like the Michael Jordan of being a sonofa*****"
Reply
"You are like the Michael Jordan of being a sonofa*****"
Reply
post #1212 of 1631
I think Fuqua is wrong in the sense that Spike was asked his opinion. So would Fuqua have prefered if Spike said no comment, flew to where ever QT was and had a convo behind closed door about his points? That just seems silly. People ask Charles Barkley his opinion about lebron james even when he isnt in studio. So should he say no comment and fly to Miami and have a discussion with Lebron? Spike owes nothing to QT, just as QT owes nothing to Spike and can make whatever kind of movie he wants. But Im not for somebody holding their tongue and not speaking their minds.

Also its not like Spike doesnt have a point.
post #1213 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRAY SALTERS View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by CP1708 View Post

I'm serious, I'm askin the question. Why wouldn't Stephen help Django rather than help Candie? Why even blow up their spot? They wanted the chick too, it's one broad, what does Stephen care? Candi had NO IDEA of anything goin on, he was conductin business and they woulda been long gone. Who made sure to stop that, and make all the noise? Candie, or Stephen?

So in effect, which one was TRULY preventing Django from rescuing his wife? The answer ain't Candie. wink.gif
I'm not sure if you understand the slave owner / house ***** dynamic.

He's brainwashed to believe the more subservient he is to his master...the better off he will be. Are you really asking which one is truly "more evil" here?

laugh.gif

Yea. Candie's the big boss. I don't think it's fair to say Stephen is more evil than Candie, because that let's Candie off the hook, as if he couldn't help doing the things he did. Woe is him. He's just a produce of his environment. ********.

Candie is a patently American monster. Capitalism as a cause and validation for inhumanity. And using his privilege and education to make excuses for the way he is. He's a hypocrite and a phony. And like the Nazis in Inglourious, he can put on fancy clothes, speak a little differently and leave the past in the past when he's done inflicting himself on others.

You can see what's underneath when they flash his bad teeth. He's a Francophile, but he speaks not a lick of French. He's affluent and worldly enough to build this lush, European mansion in Mississippi but he still has to convince himself that the ugly slavery he inherited was natural. It wasn't his fault and didn't make him less intelligent or a monster, because blacks are biologically meant for this. He can take a black bride...**** his sister, whatever. It's alright, because he's white and rich and that's all that matters.

Being white in America is having the freedom to take on any identity you want and being allowed to discard it whenever you please. That's the racial free market. And money is the motivator like any good free market. Everyone shuts up and swallows whatever ******** they get fed when money's involved. That's the side of Candie, that Schultz and Django try to appeal towards.

There is something deeper there, though.

...Now, I wish Django would've been the one to kill Candie, because that would've been more iconic than "you sure do die good, boy." But I can take a step back and look at what's there instead of what isn't. A different filmmaker might've been fixed on having that moment, but you can see where the meaning would get lost in it. People are pathological and they bend towards the path of least resistance. You have that moment and it boils down to "angry black slave gets revenge." But having Schultz be the one...he's not some hick. He's not some "count my teeth," born into this, slave-owning bigot. And Candie knows that. And he's not American...and Candie loves that. He doesn't have a dog in this fight. (no pun) That's why Candie has the big show and tell with the skull. He wants Schultz to think he's intelligent and cultured and that this little slave thing is just a part of natural culture.

That's why he wants Schultz to come shake his hand. Because to Candie, Schultz is trying to con him in a business deal and he got caught redhanded, but it's alls well that ends well. Candie could've had Django, Schultz and Broomhilda killed and all that, but he's a gentleman and a businessman. And Schultz's validation means something. That's what he wants from him and that's why Schultz would rather die than give it to him.

What does it mean that the big slave empowerment film has such a big important centerpiece between two white people? I don't know.

But people are pathological, and the choices Quentin made...to have the white foreigner kill the big bad white slaver and the black hero to kill the black sellout make us think more deeply about them. Stephen could've just stayed the comic relief, but he amounted to much more...in the kitchen scene and when he dropped the cane.

It means more, because we're having this conversation.
"You are like the Michael Jordan of being a sonofa*****"
Reply
"You are like the Michael Jordan of being a sonofa*****"
Reply
post #1214 of 1631
Brilliant movie people from the south can relate and concur. I felt he meant no disrespect but tried to show where the divine ignorance and habits in society are derived. We are all human who share more than just the same fate. Jamie Fox did an excellent job and shouldn't be ashamed of anything. The problem is America rather you not know the truth we all have been made in to N******.
Edited by FlipNLu - 1/3/13 at 2:46pm
post #1215 of 1631
This is one of the "deeper" posts on NT. Nice write up man.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MrONegative View Post

laugh.gif
Yea. Candie's the big boss. I don't think it's fair to say Stephen is more evil than Candie, because that let's Candie off the hook, as if he couldn't help doing the things he did. Woe is him. He's just a produce of his environment. ********.
Candie is a patently American monster. Capitalism as a cause and validation for inhumanity. And using his privilege and education to make excuses for the way he is. He's a hypocrite and a phony. And like the Nazis in Inglourious, he can put on fancy clothes, speak a little differently and leave the past in the past when he's done inflicting himself on others.
You can see what's underneath when they flash his bad teeth. He's a Francophile, but he speaks not a lick of French. He's affluent and worldly enough to build this lush, European mansion in Mississippi but he still has to convince himself that the ugly slavery he inherited was natural. It wasn't his fault and didn't make him less intelligent or a monster, because blacks are biologically meant for this. He can take a black bride...**** his sister, whatever. It's alright, because he's white and rich and that's all that matters.
Being white in America is having the freedom to take on any identity you want and being allowed to discard it whenever you please. That's the racial free market. And money is the motivator like any good free market. Everyone shuts up and swallows whatever ******** they get fed when money's involved. That's the side of Candie, that Schultz and Django try to appeal towards.
There is something deeper there, though.
...Now, I wish Django would've been the one to kill Candie, because that would've been more iconic than "you sure do die good, boy." But I can take a step back and look at what's there instead of what isn't. A different filmmaker might've been fixed on having that moment, but you can see where the meaning would get lost in it. People are pathological and they bend towards the path of least resistance. You have that moment and it boils down to "angry black slave gets revenge." But having Schultz be the one...he's not some hick. He's not some "count my teeth," born into this, slave-owning bigot. And Candie knows that. And he's not American...and Candie loves that. He doesn't have a dog in this fight. (no pun) That's why Candie has the big show and tell with the skull. He wants Schultz to think he's intelligent and cultured and that this little slave thing is just a part of natural culture.
That's why he wants Schultz to come shake his hand. Because to Candie, Schultz is trying to con him in a business deal and he got caught redhanded, but it's alls well that ends well. Candie could've had Django, Schultz and Broomhilda killed and all that, but he's a gentleman and a businessman. And Schultz's validation means something. That's what he wants from him and that's why Schultz would rather die than give it to him.
What does it mean that the big slave empowerment film has such a big important centerpiece between two white people? I don't know.
But people are pathological, and the choices Quentin made...to have the white foreigner kill the big bad white slaver and the black hero to kill the black sellout make us think more deeply about them. Stephen could've just stayed the comic relief, but he amounted to much more...in the kitchen scene and when he dropped the cane.
It means more, because we're having this conversation.
post #1216 of 1631
Awesome post O Neg. and clearly supported in the movie not like you are reaching. They set that up right away with the not knowing French comment and how he dressed
post #1217 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrONegative View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRAY SALTERS View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by CP1708 View Post

I'm serious, I'm askin the question. Why wouldn't Stephen help Django rather than help Candie? Why even blow up their spot? They wanted the chick too, it's one broad, what does Stephen care? Candi had NO IDEA of anything goin on, he was conductin business and they woulda been long gone. Who made sure to stop that, and make all the noise? Candie, or Stephen?

So in effect, which one was TRULY preventing Django from rescuing his wife? The answer ain't Candie. wink.gif
I'm not sure if you understand the slave owner / house ***** dynamic.

He's brainwashed to believe the more subservient he is to his master...the better off he will be. Are you really asking which one is truly "more evil" here?

laugh.gif

Yea. Candie's the big boss. I don't think it's fair to say Stephen is more evil than Candie, because that let's Candie off the hook, as if he couldn't help doing the things he did. Woe is him. He's just a produce of his environment. ********.

Candie is a patently American monster. Capitalism as a cause and validation for inhumanity. And using his privilege and education to make excuses for the way he is. He's a hypocrite and a phony. And like the Nazis in Inglourious, he can put on fancy clothes, speak a little differently and leave the past in the past when he's done inflicting himself on others.

You can see what's underneath when they flash his bad teeth. He's a Francophile, but he speaks not a lick of French. He's affluent and worldly enough to build this lush, European mansion in Mississippi but he still has to convince himself that the ugly slavery he inherited was natural. It wasn't his fault and didn't make him less intelligent or a monster, because blacks are biologically meant for this. He can take a black bride...**** his sister, whatever. It's alright, because he's white and rich and that's all that matters.

Being white in America is having the freedom to take on any identity you want and being allowed to discard it whenever you please. That's the racial free market. And money is the motivator like any good free market. Everyone shuts up and swallows whatever ******** they get fed when money's involved. That's the side of Candie, that Schultz and Django try to appeal towards.

There is something deeper there, though.

...Now, I wish Django would've been the one to kill Candie, because that would've been more iconic than "you sure do die good, boy." But I can take a step back and look at what's there instead of what isn't. A different filmmaker might've been fixed on having that moment, but you can see where the meaning would get lost in it. People are pathological and they bend towards the path of least resistance. You have that moment and it boils down to "angry black slave gets revenge." But having Schultz be the one...he's not some hick. He's not some "count my teeth," born into this, slave-owning bigot. And Candie knows that. And he's not American...and Candie loves that. He doesn't have a dog in this fight. (no pun) That's why Candie has the big show and tell with the skull. He wants Schultz to think he's intelligent and cultured and that this little slave thing is just a part of natural culture.

That's why he wants Schultz to come shake his hand. Because to Candie, Schultz is trying to con him in a business deal and he got caught redhanded, but it's alls well that ends well. Candie could've had Django, Schultz and Broomhilda killed and all that, but he's a gentleman and a businessman. And Schultz's validation means something. That's what he wants from him and that's why Schultz would rather die than give it to him.

What does it mean that the big slave empowerment film has such a big important centerpiece between two white people? I don't know.

But people are pathological, and the choices Quentin made...to have the white foreigner kill the big bad white slaver and the black hero to kill the black sellout make us think more deeply about them. Stephen could've just stayed the comic relief, but he amounted to much more...in the kitchen scene and when he dropped the cane.

It means more, because we're having this conversation.


Awesome write up man.

One question. Why have Candie oblivious to the charade?

I can't argue a word you typed here, but my point was coming from Stephen messing up their story, and chasin down Hilda trying to get to the bottom of it. Then pulling Candie out of the dining room, so he could expose them.

Why have Candie completely fooled, them almost getting away with it, only to have a slave stop Django? (for the time being at least)

Has to be more than just helping out his owner, right?


I probably phrased my stance earlier poorly by saying "evil", I probably should've gone with antagonist or something to the effect, because to me, Stephen was the biggest hurdle to getting his wife back. They fooled Candie, but Stephen, he was on them immediately. And that's where I was comin from. That made him the "villian" just in terms of getting Hilda back. Certainly I can agree that Candie was the worse man and the more "evil" I screwed my own argument up with that.

I have to believe, with every layer there was, there's something to Stephen dying last. That there was something we could have missed out. I don't know.

What about the sister? How she was killed. I don't even know what her guilt was other than going along with her brother, but she got blasted all to hell. laugh.gif Anything to that?
MIAMI DOLPHINS
LA LAKERS
CHICAGO CUBS
MIAMI HURRICANES
I'M A DOUCHEBOX
I DONE TOLD YOU
Reply
MIAMI DOLPHINS
LA LAKERS
CHICAGO CUBS
MIAMI HURRICANES
I'M A DOUCHEBOX
I DONE TOLD YOU
Reply
post #1218 of 1631
I just saw the movie on New Years and it was a great film. The acting, cinematography, soundtrack, and dialogue were all well done. I came into this movie not expecting a revolutionary black empowerment film. I was not naive enough to believe a major Hollywood production directed by Quentin Tarantino was going to leave me inspired as a black person. What I did expect was a controversial film with some action and great dialogue... and for the most part that is what I got.

Jamie Foxx did a great job in the film and often times stole the scene with the presence and energy he brought to his character. The underlying love story really captivated me and framed the movie well. I think those who didn't enjoy the movie or buy into it are those who came into the movie with the wrong expectations. The movie was never meant to be an historically accurate slave narrative.


To argue the use of the "N" word or who killed who and what is an exercise in futility. Nevertheless, stating opinions on what the film could be to is too intriguing to pass up. For the sake of discussion let's examine the thought process and motivations behind such acts...

From my perspective Calvin Candie represented the tyranny of racist white supremacy that exists in America. As with most of the European American or white people in this movie, he was unsophisticated, savage, and power hungry. His wealth and position were not earned or built from hard work. Mr. Candie just so happened to be born into wealth built on the backs of African slaves.

On the other hand you have "Dr. King" Schultz who I would consider a European elite. He was the antithesis to the Calvin Candie character. Both committed acts of violence and savagery, but Schultz did his business with attention to detail and precision. He killed as a means to an end. By killing Candie, Shultz did not give into what he saw as a great sin. Shaking Candie's hand would symbolically show that Schultz was no better than Candie. He was just another white man taking advantage and giving into the system of white supremacy. Schultz chose to kill Candie and ultimately died because he could no longer tolerate or run from the horrors of slavery.

In this context I absolutely have no problem with Schultz killing Candie.


At the end of the day Stephen was as much a victim of slavery as was Django. The system of racist white supremacy created both Django and Stephen, which is why I think they had to ultimately square off. In essence, the biggest problem facing Django (African or "black" people) WAS Stephen (another black man). Black people were and are their own worst enemy...
post #1219 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big J 33 View Post

I think once they reached Candie's death, he was no longer the singular VILLAIN of the movie. Yes, until that point he was evil, ugly, and a terrible villain deserving death. And had he and Django had a one on one fight to the death where Django ended up triumphant, it could have been a big victory for Django... but there's also King. And King's character arc had been greatly influenced by Candie and the horrible treatment of slaves that King had been exposed to. Candie beat him, figured out their trick, and King just couldn't let Candie get away with it. In part because he had seen the horrors of Candieland and also because Candie had gotten the better of King. 

Once Candie was dead, the greater obstacle was escaping Candieland, and that was far more daunting and dangerous than just one man. If Django killed Candie himself, he would still have to escape and all of that would stay the same, of course... but it wouldn't have been the same ending for King's character. 

I think you could argue Candie was a representation of all the evils of slavery and had Django killed him, it could have been a greater symbolic victory. But I think you can also argue the destruction of Candieland, all of the people working there, all those who profited off slavery, and even the physical structure of Candieland, all had a greater impact than just one man. Once word spreads of the destruction.. what could be a greater victory? The death of a single plantation owner or the complete demolition of his home, plantation, and all of his men?

If someone doesn't buy that explanation, then ok laugh.gif  but I think there's a case to be made for that argument and the way it happened in the movie.

repped because i agreed w every word
post #1220 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpottieOttie305 View Post


At the end of the day Stephen was as much a victim of slavery as was Django. The system of racist white supremacy created both Django and Stephen, which is why I think they had to ultimately square off. In essence, the biggest problem facing Django (African or "black" people) WAS Stephen (another black man). Black people were and are their own worst enemy...

and repped you too for this
post #1221 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpottieOttie305 View Post

I just saw the movie on New Years and it was a great film. The acting, cinematography, soundtrack, and dialogue were all well done. I came into this movie not expecting a revolutionary black empowerment film. I was not naive enough to believe a major Hollywood production directed by Quentin Tarantino was going to leave me inspired as a black person. What I did expect was a controversial film with some action and great dialogue... and for the most part that is what I got.

Jamie Foxx did a great job in the film and often times stole the scene with the presence and energy he brought to his character. The underlying love story really captivated me and framed the movie well. I think those who didn't enjoy the movie or buy into it are those who came into the movie with the wrong expectations. The movie was never meant to be an historically accurate slave narrative.


To argue the use of the "N" word or who killed who and what is an exercise in futility. Nevertheless, stating opinions on what the film could be to is too intriguing to pass up. For the sake of discussion let's examine the thought process and motivations behind such acts...

From my perspective Calvin Candie represented the tyranny of racist white supremacy that exists in America. As with most of the European American or white people in this movie, he was unsophisticated, savage, and power hungry. His wealth and position were not earned or built from hard work. Mr. Candie just so happened to be born into wealth built on the backs of African slaves.

On the other hand you have "Dr. King" Schultz who I would consider a European elite. He was the antithesis to the Calvin Candie character. Both committed acts of violence and savagery, but Schultz did his business with attention to detail and precision. He killed as a means to an end. By killing Candie, Shultz did not give into what he saw as a great sin. Shaking Candie's hand would symbolically show that Schultz was no better than Candie. He was just another white man taking advantage and giving into the system of white supremacy. Schultz chose to kill Candie and ultimately died because he could no longer tolerate or run from the horrors of slavery.

In this context I absolutely have no problem with Schultz killing Candie.


At the end of the day Stephen was as much a victim of slavery as was Django. The system of racist white supremacy created both Django and Stephen, which is why I think they had to ultimately square off. In essence, the biggest problem facing Django (African or "black" people) WAS Stephen (another black man). Black people were and are their own worst enemy...

ehh, to a certain extent. But even if black people banded together there would still be opposition shutting them down.
post #1222 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakep267 View Post

ehh, to a certain extent. But even if black people banded together there would still be opposition shutting them down.


Django wasn't fighting for the freedom of all black people. He was fighting for his wife and Stephen was his opposition. Both were black men and were in opposition with each other.

The problem I pointed out was oversimplified for a reason. There is only so much one can convey in a movie and that was a theme I observed. I do understand that in the real world there are a lot of problems facing everybody of every race.... But that's another topic for another day.
post #1223 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpottieOttie305 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by blakep267 View Post

ehh, to a certain extent. But even if black people banded together there would still be opposition shutting them down.


Django wasn't fighting for the freedom of all black people. He was fighting for his wife and Stephen was his opposition. Both were black men and were in opposition with each other.

The problem I pointed out was oversimplified for a reason. There is only so much one can convey in a movie and that was a theme I observed. I do understand that in the real world there are a lot of problems facing everybody of every race.... But that's another topic for another day.

oh, I wasnt relating it back to the movie. I was just speaking in general
post #1224 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRAY SALTERS View Post

Even white folks are mad laugh.gif




I was surprised black people are the ones up in arms about this movie. Its 3hrs of white people looking like evil savages who can't shoot to save their lives. roll.gif
post #1225 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLVN View Post

Was Dr. King Schultz really doing Django a service by killing Calvin Candie though?

It was necessary from the context of the movie. Some black people are complaining about how this movie portrays the white man as the savior but Schultz needed to die and kill Candie for Django to go on his rampage and truly save his wife.
post #1226 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PLVN View Post

Was Dr. King Schultz really doing Django a service by killing Calvin Candie though?

It was necessary from the context of the movie. Some black people are complaining about how this movie portrays the white man as the savior but Schultz needed to die and kill Candie for Django to go on his rampage and truly save his wife.

but lets not act like they dont have a point sort of. Schultz definitely had to die so that Django could come into his own, but the killing Candie part is the problem. Now you can look at it either 2 ways, as people have posted it makes sense for schultz to kill him, or from the stand point that django is only relegated to killing somewhat minor white characters and the big baddie wasnt his.
post #1227 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakep267 View Post

but lets not act like they dont have a point sort of. Schultz definitely had to die so that Django could come into his own, but the killing Candie part is the problem. Now you can look at it either 2 ways, as people have posted it makes sense for schultz to kill him, or from the stand point that django is only relegated to killing somewhat minor white characters and the big baddie wasnt his.

I didn't say they didn't have a point. My brother and I both taught Schultz should have control his emotions. If Schultz didn't do what he did, Django would not have gone on his lone ranger type killing spree. And he killed who I thought was one of the more deplorable characters in a final showdown, Stephen. Some of the characters Django killed during the film were far from minor.
post #1228 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey View Post

I was surprised black people are the ones up in arms about this movie. Its 3hrs of white people looking like evil savages who can't shoot to save their lives. roll.gif
If you wanted to be offended you could get creative and find something to be offended about.

If anything the movie made white folks look comical. The whole "clan" scene was forced but it played into the racist southern whites are idiots. Kerrys character could speak German. Even Leo needed a ***** to explain to him he was being played. Movie almost went out of its way to make the black people more civil & intelligent and the only decent white person was the Schultz.

But of course black folks gotta find a bus to jump in front & play victim.
post #1229 of 1631
Saw it again today for the second time, still loved it....no it wasn't a historical piece that's gonna provide a ton of depth but it did have some great symbolism as others have pointed out. It was brutal, realistic, and had some comedic parts as well, all in all its a really good entertaining movie. Samuel L still made me laugh.gif and mean.gif at the same time dude really brought Uncle Ruckus from Boondocks to life I really almost hated his character worse than Candie to be honest but he was also a victim of the overall slavery complex...self hating house slave to the extreme mean.gif

That Klan scene was still hilarious laugh.gif
Edited by LyonBC1 - 1/3/13 at 5:50pm
Eagles | Olympique Lyonnais | Arsenal | Sixers | Phillies | Flyers | PITT Panthers
DB The Collective
Reply
Eagles | Olympique Lyonnais | Arsenal | Sixers | Phillies | Flyers | PITT Panthers
DB The Collective
Reply
post #1230 of 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartune View Post

If you wanted to be offended you could get creative and find something to be offended about.
If anything the movie made white folks look comical. The whole "clan" scene was forced but it played into the racist southern whites are idiots. Kerrys character could speak German. Even Leo needed a ***** to explain to him he was being played. Movie almost went out of its way to make the black people more civil & intelligent and the only decent white person was the Schultz.
But of course black folks gotta find a bus to jump in front & play victim.

Schultz was the only civil white character in the whole film. My man big daddy was clearly Colonel Sander. All the white henchmen/slave overseers were getting outwit by Django. And like you said Candie was getting played and needed to be saved. The KKK should be protesting this movie.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General
NikeTalk › NikeTalk Forums › The Lounge › General › Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained (a Spaghetti Western) scheduled for release Christmas 2012