SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 29th, 2024, 9:20am
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Reviews    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  ›  Django Unchained Moderators: Nixon
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 3 Guests

 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 » : All
Recommend Print
  Author    Django Unchained  (currently 11641 views)
sniper
Posted: January 8th, 2013, 11:30am Report to Moderator
Old Timer


My UZI Weighs A Ton

Location
Northern Hemisphere
Posts
2249
Posts Per Day
0.48
I loved how the kept hitting that same poor dude during the first shootout at Candy Land.


Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Logged
Private Message Reply: 15 - 61
Eoin
Posted: January 8th, 2013, 12:35pm Report to Moderator
Been Around


just another ego maniac with low self esteem

Location
Ireland
Posts
638
Posts Per Day
0.12

Quoted from albinopenguin

Concerning the bullets, I loved how they played up the splatter. However those pellets back then packed quite a wallop. They were inaccurate as s hit but if it struck you, you were officially f ucked.


Would I be correct in saying Django Unchained was set in 1858? In that case, the single action revolver of that era was the Colt Model 1851, a .36 calibre paper and ball affair. As the round is solid, unlike modern hollowpoint, jacketed and ballastic tips, it passes through flesh rather than splattering it. Muzzle velocity with black powder is also lower.

But, we'll forgive QT this error in the name of effects . . .

Pretty sure Django uses .44 & .45 revolvers with cartridges, all from the post 1871 era.

I thought any sniper worth their salt would know their guns . . .

Eoin
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 16 - 61
leitskev
Posted: January 8th, 2013, 2:25pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
The story is ante-bellum, so probably 1858 or around that. Certainly no later.

The standard for reality for QT is obviously not high. Unless you think Hitler really did die in a movie theater in Paris.

Near the end of Django, when the sister is blown away, she moves in a direction substantially different from where the bullet should have carried her. But the audience loved that scene.

White shock at black men on horses is a complete fiction. Complete. Black children grew up on plantations and they actually played with the white children. Both rode horses which were readily available.

I don't want to paint a false picture: slavery was brutal generally, and most suffered horribly.

But black men not only rode horses, they had racing competitions among themselves.

Was a black man on a horse a risk for flight? Well, was a small white family living surrounded by slaves at risk for being slaughtered? It would seem so, but it seldom happened.

These institutions evolved over 300 years. They were complicated and difficult for us to understand.

While Django is not realistic, those things did not bother me about the film. They were entertaining.

Where the film was weak for me mostly was that I really didn't care what happened. I think the only scenes that drew emotion out of me were the ones where Django's wife suffered, or struggled with controlling her fear.

The acting was excellent. No problem with that.

The story seems unfocused. What was the point? What was QT trying to say?

Look at the scene where Dicaprio talks about the brains of Africans, how they are by nature submissive. What was the point of that? It almost felt like QT thinks that to be the case. I mean I think it's interesting to discuss why blacks did not revolt. But better to explore some of the social and psychological reasons for that, and even better to demonstrate that with a scene.

Dicaprio also is fascinated by exceptionally bright black people. But he believes it is an extreme exception. And one senses QT believes this. Otherwise what is the point of repeatedly bringing it up?

It's certainly a misanthropic view of humanity. All white people are evil(except the German, perhaps QT compensating for Inglorious), and most black people are submissive and stupid. Man, what a view of the world.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 17 - 61
Eoin
Posted: January 8th, 2013, 2:56pm Report to Moderator
Been Around


just another ego maniac with low self esteem

Location
Ireland
Posts
638
Posts Per Day
0.12
Kevin,

Say it ain't so bro!? I thought Hitler was killed in that cinema? I can't comment on the film, as it isn't out here yet. Just being playfully pedantic on the nature of the blood spatter discussed from the so called bullets from that era.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 18 - 61
leitskev
Posted: January 8th, 2013, 3:33pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
Eoin, the blood was almost comical. It got a lot of audience reaction. It was like Gallagher with his exploding melons. The white living room of the mansion was painted red, literally.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 19 - 61
Dreamscale
Posted: January 8th, 2013, 4:37pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Just saw this, this morning.  I enjoyed it...very much, actually.

Is it a classic?  No, probably not.  Is it a great movie?  Not really.  Is it a great story/plot?  Definitely not.  Are there great characters with deep arcs?  Hell no.

But, it works exactly the way QT wanted it to...and that's always what counts.

You know...it's quite amazing how QT movies look and feel like only QT movies do.  There's a certain pace that always feels too slow, but always succeeds when it's all said and done.  The look is hard to explain, but you all know what I'm talking about, I'm sure.  There's other stuff as well...

...like...

Extensive use of SUPERS, many of which are far more than just a simple title.

Sub titles for dialogue.

Crazy amount of bit part characters who all shine in their brief appearances (usually played by very recognizable faces/actors).

An over the top bloody finale.

A plot that waffles here and there, knowing damn well where it's actually headed.

A musical score that, although usually very whacky, always impresses.

A bending of reality, be it history, or just common sense, that somehow doesn't matter and always works.

A tongue planted firmly in cheek, even when things are bloody and horrific, and a knowing wink wink, it's just a movie, folks.

I can't say I loved this flick, but I can definitely say I'll see it again...and again, and each time I see it, I know I'll appreciate it more.  And that's really what a movie should be all about.  The sad reality is that very few are these days.

QT seems to be one of a very few who really understand movies and what they are, as well as what they should be.  Everyone who preaches structure and the like about what a script and movie have to be should pay close attention here.  This is a movie that proves nothing is sacred and nothing has to be this way or that way.

Highly recommended for everyone who appreciates anything that has to do with movies and entertainment.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 20 - 61
Gage
Posted: January 8th, 2013, 5:07pm Report to Moderator
New



Posts
221
Posts Per Day
0.05
Saw it again last night.  I usually pick a movie apart on a second viewing but once again I just sat there and enjoyed it.  Say what we will about how simple and stupid parts of the film are, it's nearly three hours long and completely enjoyable.  What a great return to classic "trash" cinema: something meant to entertain and do almost nothing more.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 21 - 61
Heretic
Posted: January 8th, 2013, 7:53pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts
2023
Posts Per Day
0.28

Quoted from leitskev
Look at the scene where Dicaprio talks about the brains of Africans, how they are by nature submissive. What was the point of that? It almost felt like QT thinks that to be the case. I mean I think it's interesting to discuss why blacks did not revolt. But better to explore some of the social and psychological reasons for that, and even better to demonstrate that with a scene.

Dicaprio also is fascinated by exceptionally bright black people. But he believes it is an extreme exception. And one senses QT believes this. Otherwise what is the point of repeatedly bringing it up?

It's certainly a misanthropic view of humanity. All white people are evil(except the German, perhaps QT compensating for Inglorious), and most black people are submissive and stupid. Man, what a view of the world.


It would be odd to me to argue that the villain of the film is expressing the director's beliefs. Aren't villains typically designed as the direct antithesis to what the film upholds as good? That's the point, isn't it, that they show incorrect views, incorrect beliefs, etc.?

Definitely agree that the film didn't need to have such universally unlikable white characters. Felt like a bit of a demonization of the South, really. Then again, it is a simple good guys/bad guys flick. Appropriately to the story, the majority of white characters were slave owners/enforcers, and it wasn't a film about the internal struggle faced by those in power.

I don't think the view of the world of blacks as submissive during slavery is unreasonable. Humans are submissive. Most of them don't stand up for themselves, even in extreme times. That seems pretty evident. I also don't think the movie suggested that blacks were stupid, although the black characters were largely uneducated (and they presumably would have been). If anyone really got it as far as being shown to be stupid, it was DiCaprio's Candie, who was embarrassed and shown for a fool repeatedly throughout the film. That's how I read it, anyway.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 22 - 61
leitskev
Posted: January 8th, 2013, 8:29pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
I'm talking specifically about the dialogue, Chris. Yes, it's the bad guy who delivers it, and that's what QT would reply...with a glimmer of mischief in his eye.

As I said, to explore why slaves did not revolt, and developed a submissive acceptance, is one thing. But why put a skull on the table and talk about a phrenological trait of the brain? If that was to emphasize the "badness" of the bad guy, I'm not sure it came off that way.

And the Dicaprio character says several times that blacks are capable of intelligence..."maybe one in ten thousand". Again, it's the bad guy saying this, but could a movie be made in which the good guy said that?

A more serious film maker(and before everyone get's their panties in a bunch, I love QT films) would have explored, at least a little, the psychology behind such submissive behavior. I realize the goal is fun entertainment, but once you go SO far out of the way to bring up these topics, as Django does, you are obligated to at least try to take a deeper look at them. Otherwise just leave them alone in the first place.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 23 - 61
Heretic
Posted: January 8th, 2013, 8:52pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts
2023
Posts Per Day
0.28
Hmm, that makes sense. I took the phrenology bit as a way of poking fun at racism -- a reminder of the sorts of moronic arguments upon which racist sentiments are predicated. I guess what I mean is that I didn't see it as bringing up a topic, per se, because the idea of phrenology and the idea that differences in intelligence might be inherently related to skin pigment are both so ludicrously stupid. To me, taking things to such an extreme specifically restated the film's intention not to analyze the human condition in a meaningful way.

So, why put a skull on the table and talk about phrenology? Because it makes the bad guy and his views look stupid and bad. And he was, and they are.

Why have the bad guy believe in an inherent relationship between "intelligence" and ethnicity? Same reason. He's a bad guy, and the things he does are stupid and bad. That's the way I took it, anyway.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 24 - 61
leitskev
Posted: January 8th, 2013, 9:00pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
I will say this: I watched it in a packed house. All white people from what I could see, and I live in an area with a large minority population. And the audience laughed and giggled EVERY time a black character said nigger. Every time. It was a little unnerving.

Have you ever read the script for Inglorious? The anti-semitic dialogue in that opening with the Nazi is much harsher in the script than what they used. It was a little too much. As though the writer was very familiar with the whole vein of thought.

Just saying. And I loved Inglorious. I kind of liked Django, I just think it's a bit overrated. And I'm a little suspicious of the real message. Carry on!
Logged
Private Message Reply: 25 - 61
Ryan1
Posted: January 8th, 2013, 10:46pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1098
Posts Per Day
0.22
I saw the movie in a theater that was probably 50/50 white and black.  Pretty much every one laughed at Stephen's(Jackson's) creative use of the word.  Especially the Black Hercules...N****les.  

I certainly don't think QT believes any of the phrenology stuff.  But from what I understand, that was a somewhat respected pseudoscience back then.  Someone like Calvin Candie would truly believe it.  And putting that skull on the table is a great visual distraction as Candie goes on his expositional scientific explanation regarding the three dimples.

Great movie, but it didn't reach the heights of Inglourious.  Thinking back to the plot now, I have to wonder why Schultz and Django had to use this Mandingo ruse instead of just purchasing Broomhilda outright.  
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 26 - 61
Heretic
Posted: January 9th, 2013, 12:44am Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts
2023
Posts Per Day
0.28

Quoted from leitskev
I will say this: I watched it in a packed house. All white people from what I could see, and I live in an area with a large minority population. And the audience laughed and giggled EVERY time a black character said nigger. Every time. It was a little unnerving.

Have you ever read the script for Inglorious? The anti-semitic dialogue in that opening with the Nazi is much harsher in the script than what they used. It was a little too much. As though the writer was very familiar with the whole vein of thought.


Fair enough. That's definitely unsettling. For my part, my mostly-white audience seemed fairly bruised -- I think? -- by the harsh racism in the film (although everyone definitely laughed at "the black Hercules").

Tarantino seems to come under pretty constant fire about this stuff, too. I recall people accused him of casting himself as Jimmy in Pulp Fiction just so he could talk to a strong black character like Jules the way Jimmy does, and say 'nigger' to him, without repercussions. And of course good ol' Spike Lee never lets up.

Personally, maybe this is simple-minded, but I always just think -- the guy's consistently making films with strong, original, engaging protagonists who are black and/or female, in a time when Obama's birth certificate and Hillary Clinton's cleavage are apparently news-worthy.  Why's he always the one getting this kinda flak? Ah well. Anyway.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 27 - 61
Dreamscale
Posted: January 9th, 2013, 3:32pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



You guys are unbelievable!  Seriously.

Why do peeps have to try and read so much into films?  I honestly don't get it.

Whether or not that's the way QT is has nothing to do with this or any other movie, does it?

I'll throw this out for the fun of it and see what you guys have to say about it.

The scene with the skull - QT likes to have a few what the fuck scenes in his movies - scenes that start and you have no clue where it's going to go.  You think it's possible that this long winded diatribe from Candie is simply meant to scare us into thinking he's actually going to bash her brains out with that hammer?

This was actually one of only a few times where I considered something really whacky may just occur.

Just saying...
Logged
e-mail Reply: 28 - 61
Ryan1
Posted: January 9th, 2013, 4:04pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1098
Posts Per Day
0.22

Quoted from Dreamscale


The scene with the skull - QT likes to have a few what the fuck scenes in his movies - scenes that start and you have no clue where it's going to go.  You think it's possible that this long winded diatribe from Candie is simply meant to scare us into thinking he's actually going to bash her brains out with that hammer?

This was actually one of only a few times where I considered something really whacky may just occur.

Just saying...


Yeah, I'm sure that was also one of the intentions of that scene, wondering if Candie was going to kill not only Broomhilda but also Schultz and Django.  But, it turns out business always comes first for Candie.  One interesting note about the scene where Candie smashes his glass down on the table...turns out that was real blood on Dicaprio's hand.  He gashed it wide open on the broken glass and just kept on with the scene while Jamie Foxx and Tarantino were freaking out off camera.

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 29 - 61
 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 » : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006