- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Django Unchained out on DVD today.
Posted on 4/17/13 at 1:04 pm to SJS Eagle 85
Posted on 4/17/13 at 1:04 pm to SJS Eagle 85
quote:
Candie has a slave that speaks German which would be a novelty to anyone else but an actual German. Schultz purcahsing her from Candie (above market value as she is a specialty item)is completely reasonable. The whole "farmer won't sell you his horse so you offer to buy his farm as a distraction" is obviously necessary as a plot vehicle but in reality is fairly stupid. Candie, like any other slave owner, would've sold her for the right price.
Tarantino has an in depth interview about it. I dont feel like looking it up. Ultimately, you are right "Schultz was wrong" which QT stated in a very long interview.
QT on the "Trip to CandyLand"
quote:
I know this is weird, but I don't know anyone who speaks German and I'd like to buy her."
Yeah, absolutely. That could work. In real life, that could work. And even in the case of this movie, in real life, it could work. It could not work and there is no Plan B if it doesn't work. They're screwed if it doesn't work.
So you're saying that this plan creates a Plan B?
Yes. But, also, it's the fact that the minute that Candie realizes that they need Broomhilda is the minute he has the upper hand. In no iota of any way, shape or form can Schultz ever allow Candie to have the upper hand. It's just not his way to ever allow anybody -- especially somebody he finds so cretinous. Even before he knows him! Just from the facts -- that much of a power-mad baron to have the upper hand. Even enough to come up and say, "I speak German. I've heard you have this German-speaking slave. I'd like to pay $5,000 for her." Well, he's afraid that Candie will say, "No, how about $10,000? If you want it that much."
But didn't they wind up paying $12,000?
Well, that's because that ended up happening. They had no choice later.
So, in my mind, I'm thinking that they went through this whole thing, when they could have just said, "Here's all of our money." I get the upper-hand aspect, but in the end it doesn't work anyway and that's what they wind up paying. Did you ever think that once Candie figures out their true motives, to just have them kicked out without Broomhilda?
No, because Candie doesn't care enough about Broomhilda.
So he still wants the money.
He still wants the money. But here's the interesting thing, though: It's not Schultz's way. Ever. To let anybody he's dealings with have the upper hand.
So just going straight to Candie is giving him the upper hand?
It gives Candie the power position. Candie can say, "yes" or "no." Candie can dictate the price from that point on. Aside from the fact that Schultz doesn't even want to pay $5,000 for her. He'll pay $12,000 to keep her from being beaten to death, but he doesn't want to. He wants to buy her for $350. He wants to pretend he's going to spend $12,000 on Eskimo Joe and get her for nothing. And then they never see him again. He doesn't want to give them any money.
quote:
know what you're saying, but, honestly, a lot of directors would never say something along those lines. But you're saying that, in this story, Schultz is a character who makes wrong decisions.
He's working from the wrong assumptions. Schultz is so egotistical and is such a control freak, he cannot allow himself to be put in the non-power position of every situation. It's why he ends up getting killed in the first place! They've had it; they got her.
They won.
They won! But he cannot make himself subservient -- you know, to shake Candie's hand. I think it's one of the cool subtexts of the film that ultimately, yes, they were wrong. If they had approached Candie, he would have sold Broomhilda for $5,000.
There is more in the link.
This post was edited on 4/17/13 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 4/18/13 at 1:26 pm to beaverfever
Eh....Inglorious Basterds IMPROVES the more you watch it.
But I think Django is the better/tighter movie. imho.
But I think Django is the better/tighter movie. imho.
Posted on 4/18/13 at 1:33 pm to Rittdog
The Scotty/Broomhilda scenes (deleted/not filmed) explained further
LINK
quote:
Originally, Broomhilda was bought for Scotty by his plantation owner father from the Greenville auction (where she and Django were separated). But, almost immediately, as the script notes, "Broomhilda climbs into the driver's seat. In more ways then [sp] one." When she reaches the plantation, Broomhilda becomes "Scotty's sort of de facto sweetheart," and one night Scotty takes her into Greenville for a night on the town, eventually ending up at Calvin Candie's Cleopatra Club. Candie shows up and introduces himself, at which point Broomhilda leaves.
The night turns into a card game between Scotty and Candie, at which the stakes, when they run out of money, become Candie's favorite slave Sheba vs Broomhilda (Candie: "We ain't playin' for money no more. We matchin' **** gals. And a **** gal you got."). After Candie produces a winning hand (a "STRAIGHT FLUSH" in the script), Scotty calls him a cheater, and Candie challenges him to a duel for besmirching his name in his own club. Scotty realizes his predicament -- he can't go home without Broomhilda nor can he face his parents. He can't leave -- and Candie shoots him dead.
This tangent was elaborate, over ten pages long and God knows how much time it would have taken up in the film and cost to produce (we're looking at least an additional 20 minutes). But it was one of the most enjoyable parts of the script, and an amazing introduction to Candie's character. Now, though, the only things that remain from this bit are the character of Sheba and the reference to how much Broomhilda enjoys jellybeans
LINK
Posted on 4/18/13 at 11:20 pm to Rittdog
Just watched with wife and MIL
Great movie
Great movie
Posted on 4/20/13 at 8:05 am to DINGBAT
Watched Django last night. I lt was good, but didn't find that it was as great as everyone here said it was, nor was it close to being as good as Inglorious Bastards.
I felt the story could have been better. I'm not quite sure where, but I felt something was lagging.
Loved the dialogue. Leo did an outstanding job as always. Waltz was great. Even Foxx wasn't bad.
I don't know, the story itself just left something to e desired I guess.
6/10
I felt the story could have been better. I'm not quite sure where, but I felt something was lagging.
Loved the dialogue. Leo did an outstanding job as always. Waltz was great. Even Foxx wasn't bad.
I don't know, the story itself just left something to e desired I guess.
6/10
Posted on 4/20/13 at 4:12 pm to DINGBAT
awesome movie with great actors. First Tarantino film I've seen. Some really funny parts, especially the scene with all the bitching about the masks. Great soundtrack too.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News