Talk:Django Unchained

Sub page

I had started working on a page for this here. I may add some things from mine, but anyone who wants to copy/paste from my page is welcome to. --KЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 12:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a "Spaghetti Western"

It's not really a spaghetti western if it's not a low budget Italian film from the late 60s. 69.120.1.55 (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Whilst it may be inspired by, or in the style of a spaghetti western, it cannot be one for this reason. Changed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

How is it a "Western" at all? The story takes place in the deep south. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.251.231 (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's really a Blaxploitation film, if any genre is to be selected (and this is consistent with Tarantino's prior work). I've made that change, thanks. It would be hard to argue that this is a Western of any kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.251.231 (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It might not have the vistas of the West, but it most definitely was a dangerous place, even for people wealthy enough to own slaves. Louisiana, where this was filmed (although maybe not set), changed hands multiple times between the British, Spanish, and French (including battles at Baton Rouge and Natchez) until the US purchase of the Louisiana Territory and annexation of the Free and Independent Republic of West Florida in 1812. The Sabine river, until the Texas annexation in 1845, was the western frontier and to the north was Choctaw country, who joined the attack on Natchez during the American Revolution. Farther east was Creek territory, who during the war of 1812 the Red Sticks raided into Pensacola. Southern Louisiana is still known as Cajun country because it was filled full of French settlers who were angry at being displaced from Nova Scotia after the French and Indian War which was started by George Washington. In the far south, the Baratarians, a group of pirates and smugglers lead by Jean Lafitte were active until the 1920s. Additionally there were slave uprisings, including the 1811 German Coast Uprising which killed at least 70 slaves and 55 white people, ended in a pitched battle where the modern-day Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport is located. Also, there are alligators everywhere, and at the time, the entire place was plagued with Yellow Fever with a major outbreak in New Orleans in 1822, 1841, 1847, 1853, Cholera in 1832 which is still in the bayous, and constantly being plagued with Malaria. In addition there were the standard complement of tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, and hot humid summers. The Bowie knife, used in the famous Sandbar Fight near Natchez, Mississippi in 1827, was designed in the area. At the same time there was significant economic and political strife with the north, as the local economy transferred over to international cotton trade for inexpensive high-quality English goods, which the north tried to restrict in favor of poorer-quality northern-produced goods. But, based upon the teaser trailer, if this is set in the antebellum south, it probably won't really dive into the challenges and conflicts of the era, and go for simplistic blaxploitation story. Which, IMHO, is a pity.

Tarantino described the film as a southern, not a western, given the locale of the film's plot.

68.105.46.68 (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Southern" isn't an established genre of film, so if we just plonk "Django Unchained is a 2012 American Southern directed by Quentin T." it sounds very strange. The closest genre here is probably "Western", so for the lead sentence of the article that is probably good enough. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly also takes place in the South as opposed to the West, but I've never heard anybody argue that *that* wasn't a western. "Western" as a genre has many attributes that are more important that physical location of the story. You might have more of a point arguing specifically against "spaghetti western". But, if you do, you're arguing against the definition offered by Wikipedia itself, which is much broader and not limited to 1960's Italian productions (reasonable, since the term came to encompass a lot more than just that in the minds of all but the strictest purists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.65.253 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actors Walking Off

Seems this is a troubled production, Kurt Russell walked off the set joining Sasha Baron Cohen. Would seem a section devoted to this issue is warranted. 72.130.94.107 (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so unless there are reliable sources. Even then these quibbles aren't particularly noteworthy. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Mandingo?

Shouldn't there be some reference somewhere to Mandingo? It sounds like that film, and its sequels, were as much an inspiration for this film as Django was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafong (talk • contribs) 01:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I've moved the "inspiration" part down to the development section, and added a note about Mandingo, cited to the P.Bradshaw article on the Guardian website. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And in the "Historical Accuracy" section, there is also a reference to Mandingos (if you click on the word Mandingo in that section, there is a Wikipedia article about the African tribe that became known as Mandingo.) FormalLogician (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:EASTEREGG. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that comment was misguided, should have checked it. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Film running time

Here is the citation for the film's running time in case somebody has a problem. here also here Ziggypowe (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles require reliable sources. The running time was altered to at least four different numbers; without a citation how can we know who's right or wrong? JoshuSasori (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Links to rotten tomatoes/metacritic

The Wikipedia policy is clear: if the thing is already linked in the references, it doesn't need to be linked in the external links section. The manual of style for films doesn't contradict this advice, in fact its external links section says to go to WP:EL for full details. I would have thought "film fans" editing film articles on Wikipedia would have known this. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There are exceptions, and Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are included in those exceptions. They can be shown in the External Links section for films sections regardless of references. And you get no points for snarky "quotes". Film Fan (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not exceptions, and they are not included in any exceptions, or lists of exceptions. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Awards

How can this film have won any awards before it's actually released? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like they are having special showings for critics etc. Note that there are a bunch of reviews of the film out there already now. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Critical response" is getting overloaded with stuff

The critical response is getting overloaded with bits and pieces. Amusingly Spike Lee saying he will not see the film is put under critical response. I'm starting a new section "controversy". Feel free to edit it, name it something else, and move it around but be careful not to put things which aren't critical response under critical response. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Spike Lee was misquoted in the Vibe blog post. If you watch the video, he says: "It [attending the film] would be disrespectful to my ancestors." Elliotharmon (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Having seen the film, I don't understand how someone could think it is a "spoof" or mockary of slavary. Maybe some explanation of why Spike Lee and Travis Smiley think so, despite not having seen the film, would be warranted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.76.216 (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Depends how much controversy there really is. If this is a storm in a teacup, then it might make sense just to delete the section at some point. But then we might have two controversies. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Spike Lee has been in something of a one-sided feud with Tarantino for years. He's probably still butthurt over his earlier humiliations on Tarantino's films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.13.119 (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry WHO is Roxane Gay and what is an excerpt from what appears to be user-generated content on BuzzFeed doing on a list with 'the world's top film critics'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.235.9 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask again WHO is Roxane and why are her thoughts listed here alongside those of the World's Top Film Critics? Nearly every prominent critic or intellectual covering film in the entire world has had something to say about this film - why are they absent and, in their place, a quote from a Buzzfeed article written by someone whom no one has heard of? Please stop restoring this... Roxane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.86.251 (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section/Mandingo fighting

Should the mandingo fighting piece be under controversy? This doesn't seem controversial as the film never claimed to be historically accurate and none of the articles about the historical accuracy of mandingo fighting condemn the film for this inaccurate embellishment.--68.195.88.14 (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You could make "historical accuracy" section if it's reliably sourced. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a "historical accuracy" section for Inglorious Basterds? Come on. The movie is not being sold as based on a true story, there is certainly no need. Duhon (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, depends on the sourcing I think. If there is a whole bunch of interest in the historical accuracy then it could be an issue. Who knows, this film may open up the debate on slavery in the US. Or it may not, in which case you will be correct. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The point about dynamite not being invented yet is well taken. However, I believe that the "hood scene" predating the KKK was intentional. It was QT's humorous attempt at depicting the first KKK rally. In the movie, one of the characters says, "Alright! Next time, we will dress up, we will do it right! Agreed?" I think stating that this predates the origins of the KKK is unnecessary since they never claimed to be the KKK, they just resembled a proto-KKK group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.12.117 (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone might want to add a paragraph about the controversy surrounding the Action figures. Action Figures representing Django; Schultz; Candie; Stephen; Butch, and Broomhilda were manufactured and released to the public in February. After objections from producer Harvey Weinstein, prodution was discontinued after an initial production run, alleged to be 1,000 units, which I assume to mean 1,000 of each character produced in the series. Advance orders were taken on ebay by ebay sellers who either placed early orders from the manufacturer; or perhaps the ebay sellers are factory workers who got their hands on some units. Ebay soon blocked sales of these action figures, AKA "dolls." On February 20th, I placed orders on Amazon for one each of the Stephen, Django, and Candie action figures. I paid around $115 each, although on ebay, most of the bidders who secured their purchase on ebay, overpaid by hundreds of dollars. Allegedly, though the Broomhilda figure was produced in a very limited quantity. Amazon prices for the Broomhilda figure are equivalent to the high ebay prices. Some sellers are still listing their Django action figures, hoping to sell them before ebay cancels the auction. Marc S. Dania Fl. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Spelling error

Inglorious Basterds is referenced as "Inglorious Bastards" under the criticial reception chapter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.110.96 (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Another spelling error

It's not "Broomhilda" (that's a comic strip character). The character from German mythology (clearly pronounced with an N by Schulz) is "Brünnhilde", see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brünnhilde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.177.96 (talk • contribs)

The film's website lists it as "Broomhilda". Look under cast & crew. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

In the Controversy section, please link "Connecticut school shooting" to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Thank you. --87.78.0.235 (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2012

The following sentence towards the beginning of the "Plot" section is incorrect and it is not a picayune error: "Schultz frees Django and kills the Speck brothers." While he does shoot one of the men*, I seem to recall that he also shoots the other guy's horse causing it to fall on and break the guy's leg. The scene wraps up with Dr. Schulz telling the remaining slaves that they had two choices: they could carry the guy back 37 miles from whence they came or kill the guy and head towards more friendly territory. He then points at the North Star to suggest that they use it as a guide if they choose the "go free" option.

• I can't confirm that they were the Speck brothers or were just hired by the Speck brothers to deliver the slaves to their new owners.

Porpoiseman (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Porpoiseman (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Done, please re-read and check, and let me know if it is OK. (I haven't seen the film.) JoshuSasori (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Plot Section_Suggested Edits

Recommend that the following sentence and link should be added to the first paragraph: "As Django recounts how he was separated from his wife after they attempted to run away together and were captured, Dr Shultz is intrigued that Broomhilda learned to speak German while looking after the slave holder's children. Schulz tells Django about the mythical Brynhildr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunhilda. The tale of the heroic rescue of a woman forced to live within a ring of fire inspires Django and foreshadows the perilous mission he would later undertake to reunite with his wife."

Recommend deletion of the bracketed language: "On his plantation, Candyland, male slaves are trained to fight to the death for sport[, while female slaves are forced into prostitution]." Explanation: There is absolutely nothing in the movie that supports that female slaves were forced to be "prostitutes", i.e. have sex for money. There is a passing suggestion that Broomhilda was forced to have relations with the most successful slave fighters--that is, she was used to "reward" the best slave fighters. Even this assertion is suspect because the statement was made maliciously in an effort to hurt Django and sully Broomhilda.

Recommend adding bracketed language: "Django is initially uneasy about his newfound role, but soon proves himself to be talented [with a gun and in playing various roles to suit Dr Shultz's fugitive hunting ploys.]" Porpoiseman (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Porpoiseman (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to mention the allusions to historical figures like Brynhildr in a plot section that needs to be kept under 700 words. It would definitely be worth mentioning in a cast or themes section though. —Flax5 14:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If someone undertakes that task, they might want to mention the James Russo character, "Dicky Speck". Sounds like a reference to Richard Speck. Gulbenk (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That needs a reference to a reliable source otherwise it is original research. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am setting this edit request to "answered" in light of the above responses and because protection of this article has expired. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

After having seen the film again, this time I believe that it was not Steven who suggested to Lara (Candie's surviving sister) to punish Django by sending him to the coal mine, but it was the other way around, it seems that Lara suggested this to Steven. I am not 100 % sure, but this time it seems that way. If so, let's edit that sentence in the plot. FormalLogician (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Dates of Civil War

The opening scene has a title identifying the date as 1858, "two years before the Civil War." Given that the Civil War did not start until 1861, does anyone have any idea what's going on here. It seems too obvious an error to have been missed. Did Tarantino want to subtly indicate the fundamentally ahistorical nature of his movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.176.244 (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Civil war starts in April 1861 so, if it is set in late 1858 that would be a period of two years plus six or seven months before the civil war. If you want to make a note on this, let us create a new section on "historical accuracy". JoshuSasori (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

For story telling purposes, saying "two years before the Civil War" is probably acceptable instead of saying "two years plus seven months before the Civil War", since the latter might sound awkward. FormalLogician (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy; KKK

I don't believe it is strictly inaccurate for a Klan-like entity to exist at the time this film is set. Within the dialogue it is mentioned the hoods are a first attempt at having a special garb for a lynching. It is not unreasonable to infer that this would be a possible origin or inspiration for the KKK's existence within the world of the film, as opposed to being inspired by the KKK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.165.241 (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The comment in the article about the KKK appears to be someone's impression. I haven't seen the film yet, so it may be that somewhere in the film they say that they are KKK. If so then the comment might be valid. However, I don't think they say that in the film, and the reference the person supplied does not support that. I tagged it with a "failed verification" tag yesterday, perhaps the editor will come up with clearer evidence. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not recall the riders using the term 'KKK", "Klan" or anything like that. It is simply that they were wearing white masks. I doubt this was uncommon for illegal lynch-mobs. (37.31.46.140 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC))

Historical Accuracy Section

I've removed mention of dynamite being anachronistic due to the fact that this will likely result in an entire section detailing anachronistic issues in the film i.e. firearms, language etc. Wikipedia discourages trivia sections (or glorified ones), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections. I'm not sure if a "Historical Accuracy" section is really warranted for the likes of this type of film? What are other opinions? Duhon (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It should depend on if there has been coverage about historical accuracy in this film. WP:FILMHIST is a set of guidelines about covering historical accuracy in films. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that may be fair enough as long as we limit it to items that fit that definition of attracting media coverage and discussion. Otherwise we'd have something like imdb's "goofs" section on our hands. Duhon (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In every wikipedia article, it is good to read it from top to bottom to make the whole thing make sense. This article is getting a lot of "drive-by" edits right now, and it is becoming messy and unreadable as a consequence. It's great if people can resist the tendency to tinker. I don't think the "historical accuracy" section is a problem for this article. It has been widely discussed in the context of the film, as the references show. I do think the kind of "tinkering" edits that the "historical accuracy" section attracts are a problem though. As long as the article remains readable it is not a problem, but fiddling with bits and pieces without reading the context is annoying. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• After Schultz completed the paperwork to purchase Broomhilda, he went to the library of Candie, and apparently exposed the superficiality of Candie's education and his empty intellectual snobbery, by pointing out that although Candie named one of his slaves as "d'Artagnan(t)" who was the main protagonist of "The Three Musketeers" written by the French author Alexandre Dumas (who is therefore one of the authors that Candie admires), this French author (Alexandre Dumas) actually had African ancestors even though he was French. Thus Schultz managed to ridicule Candie by exposing his inadequate knowledge of history and limited intellect. However, it seems to me that in the film, unless I heard it wrong, maybe Schultz made a "trivia" kind of mistake and he might have said "Victor Hugo" instead of the intended name "Alexandre Dumas." If you remember the actual name that Schultz said in the film, this might be important to clarify. In any case, this is a historical remark, if Shultz did not say Alexandre Dumas then this would be a historical inaccuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FormalLogician (talk • contribs) 06:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Juszt seen the movie and Shultz says Alexsandre Dumas.89.142.47.150 (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Trivia moved here from Article: The movie, which is supposed to take place in 1857, is riddled with historical inaccuracies. In the film Ku Klux Klan members conduct a raid seven years before the South’s loss in the Civil War and the ensuing Reconstruction, which gave birth to the Klu Klux Klan. The dentist, Dr. Schultz, describes Richard Wagner’s version of Brünnhilde’s captivity twelve years before his Die Walküre (But entire text was privately published in February 1853). At the end of the film, Django uses dynamite to blow up the mansion although dynamite was first marketed in 1867. (Alandeus (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC))

Gray uniform

In the funeral, one of the Candyland characters is shown wearing a gray uniform. Since the film is from before the war, is it inaccurate? --Error (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's possible but Tarantino movies operate on a style sort of irrelevant to history. Regardless as has been mentioned the historical accuracy section for the article is meant to showcase issues that were brought up in the surrounding media related to the movie. Not whatever little "historical details" that may have been fudged. Duhon (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Cleopatra

For what it’s worth: The Gentlemen’s club in Greenville is named after the Egyptian queen Cleopatra, but the image used for sign on the door and more so the bust on display in the hallway is that of Nefertiti, which on top of that wasn’t actually discovered until 1912. Guess Tarantino is having irrelevant fun again. Alandeus (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Southern Slave Codes

There is some POV pushing by the editor who wrote the following and I question the use of their sources:

• "However, Southern slave codes did make willful killing of a slave illegal in most cases. Beginning in 1822, slaves in Mississippi were protected by law from cruel and unusual punishment by their owners. After 1820, in response to the inability to import new slaves from Africa, some slaveholders improved the living conditions of their slaves, to influence them not to attempt escape.″

I would reword this statement to make it less inaccurate. However, it may be best if these statements were completely deleted? As a historian who teaches American History at a well-known University, I can tell you that this was not the case. Some slaves were treated very poorly, some were treated ok, and some were treated well. The treatment of slaves was diverse, not uniform. See my references below.

Most of these slave codes included punishments for slaves, not masters--hence the name "slave codes." . There have been ample cases of abuse and murder under this system. One could read any slave narrative and find that this was the case. The killing of a slave was typically not considered murder. Although it would not behoove slave owners to kill valuable "property," it did occur if they deemed the slave particularly willful or a persistent runaway, etc. . One court case from Mississippi does not change this fact. Read the slave narrative of William Anderson . There is also a good article about the use of dogs in the Antebellum South for the retrieval of slaves. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Spike Lee and Tavis Smiley comments

I'm not clear on why the Spike Lee comments are included, he admits he hasn't seen the film so his commentary is based on a complete lack of knowledge about its content by someone who stopped being relevant a long time ago. The Smiley comments on the other hand say nothing. " Tavis Smiley also sarcastically tweeted, "Django Unchained --- a spoof on slavery: Hollywood's Christmas gift for Negroes. Thanks, you shouldn't have."[64]" What critical commentary does this contain? He "sarcastically" tweeted something saying nothing. Of the two, it clearly doesn't belong in the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful that not every single piece of criticism someone has directed at the film appears in the controversy section. The spike lee comments did play a part in the controversy and were widely reported, i see no reason to include a tavis smiley tweet however. Which was little reported by outside sources to my knowledge. Duhon (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Plot expansion

I wanted to include a few things about the showdown at Candie Mansion. Specifically

• The reason Schultz found it irresistible to shoot Candie was because of the slave he had torn apart.
• In shooting Candie, Schultz essentially undoes all of the work that Django has done to rescue his wife. He knows this, and that's why he apologizes.
• The current summary simply says that "Django attempts to escape" but it doesn't do justice to the carnage that follows the shooting. I really want to use the word "bloodbath" here.
• In the aftermath, it is Stephen's recommendation that gets Django shipped to the coal mine, the current version does not accurately represent that.
• I thought it was worth mentioning that Django killed the slavers immediately upon being handed a pistol. It's kind of communicates the coldness of the betrayal.
• "Shooting Stephen" is so ambiguous, it doesn't accurately communicate the malevolent desire to make Stephen suffer by shooting both the kneecaps of a man who already walks with a limp. Further, it almost implies that leaving him to die was opportunistic cruelty, rather than planned.

Why shouldn't this information be included? PraetorianFury (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the addition because plot summaries here are usually 500-600 words in length in my experience, even though there is no exact guideline for plot summary length. A lot of what you've written above is borderline original research and speculative (specifically, points #1-3, #5, and #6). Point #4 is partially correct - it is Stephen's idea, and Lara takes credit for it. I will add that to the summary as it is a fairly minor addition. Please see WP:PLOT and WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE for more info. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 00:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Guideline is max 700 words unless the plot is too complex to be described in less. Django isn't particularly complex. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know WP:OR applied to talk pages, lol. I guess we're all missing a bunch of ref tags, eh? Let me just put up a warning template for all the readers who wander this way. Derp. And WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE is an essay, not a policy. Lara did not "take credit" for the idea, she agreed to it. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference to use

Heres a Vanity Fair interview with costume designer Sharen Davis that talks about the film's costumes and their influences. She also reveals why Zoe Bell's character wears the bandanna.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it, might could use some copy-editing though.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Billing

I'm surprised that Leonardo di Caprio got third billing in the picture, after Foxx and Waltz. Di Caprio is the biggest star and box-office draw among them, as shown by his various appearances on Quigley's Top Ten Money Making Stars lists (including last year's). Does anyone know why he was only billed third ? MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Screentime? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a Western

just a fake.

Not Spaniards? 1528 -1821 Texas was Spanish territory. Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca first european in Texas, he was from Spain (yes, Spain is european state) -Did you thinking about cities names "San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc."?

1821-1836 Mexico Not mexicans in Texas 1858?

This is a very horrible film, not a western, just a fake

Like the film Pirates of the Caribbean. Spain's Caribbean without Spanish Galeones? WTF? Pirates belong English Royal Navy! *Sir* Arthur Drake was a pirate!! Just another f**** film rewriting History — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.137.184 (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what makes a film qualify as a Western (genre) production. And since when was the American Wild West "historical"? It's mostly glamorised by Hollywood, whether it be John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, James Stewart, Kevin Costner, or this. Can't rewrite history that was already fictional to begin with. The American "Old West" and Hollywood's "Wild West" are two very different realities. And if you think all pirates come from the English Navy, I suggest you start reading the news. Try Somalia for a start. As for historical pirates, look at Jean Lafitte (French), Roberto Cofresi {Porto Rican), or William Kidd (Scottish) before posting complete nonsense. If you want to post a review of the film, I suggest you go use IMDB.. Wiki isn't the place to promote your dislike for certain films. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You are right this is not for film review, but still thinking this is not a Western. I don't know whats mean a Western but I know what not is a western. Rocky is not a western. May be Westerns dies with John Ford. OMG I don't think that all pirates come from Royal Navy!, but at this time, England kingdom didn't respect commercial accords with Spanish Empire, sending pirates to America like Drake, a great marine, great pirate with a great life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.137.184 (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Still, "just a fake" is a nonsensical description, plus who cares what England did or did not do to Spain, this isn't the place for historical debate, though kicking up a fuss about one measly pirate when we chased Napoleon's troops out of Spain for you is hardly a balanced view of our alliances. :) And seeing as Ford died in 1973, you don't leave a lot of credit for Sergio Leone, Sam Peckinpah, and a multitude of other directors who created Westerns since then.. I have 300+ Westerns on DVD, dating from 1903 to present day, and Ford certainly was not "always" the best Western director, just as John Wayne was not "always" the best Westerns actor. And yes, there were some piss-poor efforts, especially throughout the 70s when Westerns were often B-movies and lacked credible effort. That said, there has been a growth in Westerns lately, people like Kevin Costner, Robert Duvall, Tommy Lee Jones, have given the genre a boost, and there have been some decent efforts. I have yet to see any of the Django films, but they are on my list.. but it's obvious from the synopsis that this is a Western. Django has been a lead character in many Westerns, though not always the same man, especially given that this instalment features Django as a black man, where the rest were not. Either way, consensus supports this being a Western, little is going to change that, even if it is a bad film. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs"

Does anyone recognize the "Seven Dwarfs" and "Snow White" in the Hillybilly Trackers whose dogs killed D'Artagnan? In the quite surreal scene where Django killed the bearded guys in their hut, i counted eight people, seven men and the mysterious women with the scarf before her face. The scene seemed so surreal to me, because one guy was repairing a bird's house in the same rhythm that three other guys played cards. The women (seemed to be a blonde one) looked at three-dimensional pics with a special viewer. One was sitting in a rocking chair, one in a bathing tub, and one was in the attic of the little hut. That makes seven guys and that very mean looking girl. 93.201.43.108 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wiki is not a forum, try IMDB, Rottentomatoes, somewhere film focused. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

MOS

The lead section, specifically this part "from a cruel and charismatic plantation owner" violates the MOS. I can't exactly remember which part, it may have been the weasel words section or something similar. Point is, we need to change that sentence so it is less subjective. Retrolord (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You probably mean WP:LABEL, but given that this is a film article, and that it describes a character's traits, it is probably important.. you wouldn't avoid describing a Bond villain as "cruel and charismatic" just because they label the character, just as you wouldn't avoid using words like "evil" to describe some of Tolkein's characters. If the description is how the character is portrayed, then it would not be biased, or a violation of MOS, because this isn't a BIO and so there is no real-life controversy. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Mandingo fighting- historical accuracy section

I don't understand this, I've read the same review in a number of places which suggests slaves weren't organised to fight each other (from one professor's comment that they never heard of it). Yet information about the fighter Tom Molineaux suggests this did happen. It seems a clear contradiction. I can understand if there was absolutely nothing to suggest it ever happened (which still wouldn't mean it didn't), but there is an example of it happening. There are a number of news articles stating that Molineaux won his freedom through fighting other slaves. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole Historical Accuracy section needs to go IMO and be merged into another one, people are abusing it like the film is a historical documentary when its nothing of the sort, it loosely occurs within the same universe as Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Basterds where a group of soldiers wasted Hitler in a theater. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The mandingo fighting part doesn't seem relevant, in light of reports that such fights did take place. If then the argument is that they weren't gladiator style, or to the death, what is the point that is being made? Who said they were gladiator style and were specifically to the death? The reference to the KKK has been pointed out as a reference to before the infancy of the KKK, so how would it be historically inaccurate? The whole section seems pointless.137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The "historical accuracy" section is a sub-section of "controversy". Clearly there have been critical remarks made of the film relating to gladitorial fights and the KKK, and the editors have used this section to put the record straight, using quotes and citations. The points being made aim to show that though the movie is set during a specific time and place, the events do not reflect historical reality and iit is therefore supposed to be fictional. The problem with critics, is that most of them are idiots who often fail to see the woods for the trees.. overpaid by the media to sit on their backsides and watch movies, and most of the time they totally miss the point, or allow their personal biases and misconceptions to guide their review. It seems someone has obviously been bitching about there not having been these fights or a KKK clan "in real life", and Tarantino's response is "this is not based on real life". This section is particularly useful, per WP:INUNIVERSE, as Westerns are often satirical, despite their historical origins, so this section negates any chances of original research being added claiming the movie was based on actual events. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but from the source cited Blight was only saying that gladiatorial fights to the death were not recorded, not that fights themselves were never recorded. It is one thing to say that fights never occurred, which is plainly wrong. It is another to say that they did occur, but that the specific events in the film are fictional, which is an entirely pointless thing to say. The section needs to be tightened up to be more specific about what has been deemed inaccurate.137.111.13.200 (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

German protagonist

I was wondering why the main White character had to be German. Dr. Schultz, it appears to me, was chosen because of the previous Tarantino's movie, so after "demonizing" the Germans, they are presented in a favourable light. Just a wild guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historienne2012 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Here just a couple of wild answers: 1) Broomhilda also spoke German. 2) Brunhilde/Broomhilda had to be freed from a ring of fire, i.e. slavery. 3) Germans, especially in the early 1800s, can get very philosophical/romantic. 4) Germans are good at going on guilt trips. 5) Waltz is a darn good actor - bet on a winning horse. Alandeus (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In contributing to the above contribution, the Germans and the Irish were the majority of the immigrants from Europe for about the next 50 years. (The Irish much more so in the later 19th century and early 20th.) Germany at the time was also a very notable center of philosophy (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason's author, is a notable example of comtemporary philosophy) but also was advanced in the world of mathematics and science at the time. It would probably be historically accurate to present a learned man (Schultz was a dentist) as a well rounded individual versed in religion and philosophy to some degree. (To support this idea, he speaks several languages. Most immigrants to America only spoke two.)207.65.70.194 (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of Violence

The topic of violence in Django Unchained has been discussed widely in the media. I think this topic belongs in the article. I put a section in with a quote from Thomas Frank, who is a well regarded writer. This topic and the quote were removed, but I am going to restore them. The topic belongs in this article. I welcome more quotes concerning this topic. Chisme (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave you a quote in the edit summary. Why does this one person require an entire section and why do you need to commit a copyvio to copy and paste a huge chunk of text about this one person's opinion? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

We're supposed to give people's opinions in Wikipedia articles. I enlarged the section and put another quote in it. Rather than cut quotes, why not enlarge the section? Find some quotes from experts or critics that give different takes on the violence in this movie. (Not sure what you meant by "I gave you a quote.") Chisme (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Why does this have a "historical inaccuracies" section?

Just checked inglorious basterds and it didn't have this section. Is there something amiss here? Since when were films treated to a "historical inaccuracy" reception on wikipedia? Or any other venue? Who was advertising the film as historically accurate?

The plot centers around the so-called Mandingo fighting. Quentin Tarantino said in interview about Mandingo fighting, "I was always aware those things existed."[1] In fact, there is no historical evidence that slave owners ever staged fights to the death between male slaves. Jamie Foxx said that "This is the truest depiction of slavery"[2]. Stephen Marche wrote: "The amazing thing about watching all this is that it's all perfectly Tarantinoesque, but it's also for the most part historically accurate."[3] Richard Brody writes: "Tarantino rightly depicts slavery as no mere administrative ownership but a grievous and monstrous infliction of cruelty. The movie shows slaves forced into fights to the death for the entertainment of owners, and one fighter ripped to death by dogs when he refuses another bout. Whipping, branding, cruel punishment, and casual murder are the lot of slaves and the caprice of owners..."[4]. In fact, Mississippi's law prohibited the "cruel or unusual punishment" of a slave, including unnecessary and excessive whipping. Like any slaveholding society, there were good and bad slave masters:

Mississippi: A Documentary History, pp. 70—72, Smith Simmons's childhood memories: "I can remember good and well going out with one of Master's sons and catching birds under a trap and cooking them in the field. ... Master blowed the horn at daylight for the field hands to get up. At sundown the work stopped. When the hands came in from the fields, they could do what so ever they pleased. Master sure wasn't hard on nobody. There was very little punishment that went on; if any of the slaves ever got whipped I is never heared of it. ... It was very seldom a slave ever ran off. My oldest brother tried that once. He was caught by the patrollers and brought back so quick he never tried that no more."[5]

Since when were films treated to a "historical inaccuracy" reception on wikipedia? See Braveheart, 300, Gladiator, Gangs of New York, Apocalypto, The Alamo, The Patriot, Amazing Grace, Kingdom of Heaven, Rome, or The Passion of the Christ. Tobby72 (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just advance the position that slaves weren't whipped? I may have misunderstood, but that seems to be what you are intimating. As for slaves not being made to fight to the death, that is clearly a different issue than being made to fight at all. The screenplay includes dialogue whereupon the matter of Big Fred having beaten his opponent to death was broached, with the suggestion that it was more than was expected. Why mention that he beat the man to death if winning automatically meant the opponent would die? So it seems it is a strawman to say that gladiatorial fights to the death are not historically accurate, because the movie did not suggest that such fights were specifically arranged, but rather than the circumstances of the fight lead to that (eyes being removed tends to lead to the inability to fight). That slaves were pitted to fight other slaves is, however, a matter of record. Tom Molineaux being one such example.137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Whipping was the most common form of slave punishment. It survived in some U.S. prisons and juvenile institutions even into the second half of the 20th century.[6] There's a huge difference between boxing match and brutal fight to the death. Tom Molineaux was an African American boxer, born a slave in Virginia. He won his freedom in a boxing match. Tarantino said: "I was always aware those things existed. Mandingo fighting, which is what we call it, was part of the underbelly of slavery. It would be a perfect vice for Candie to indulge in, watching two men are fighting to death like dogs."[7] Tobby72 (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Butch killed his boxing opponent in Pulp Fiction too, I don't recall there being an issue with artistic licence there. You have yourself made reference to the fact that slaves were made to box each other. That the Candie character watched a fight to the death illustrates the depravity of the character, and the audience is left to entertain the notion that such fights probably did take place, given the historical backdrop of slaves being made to fight each other (Tom Molineaux, as you have reinforced, for example). To make the suggestion that slave fighting is historically inaccurate by referencing the specific fight to the death in the film seems like a linguistic sleight of hand. Or is it merely the suggestion that the exact fight that occurred in the film did not occur in real life? What exactly is the point of all this?137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding The Boston Globe's Wesley Morris comparing Samuel L. Jackson's Stephen character to black Republicans like Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain, maybe some people ought to read A History Lesson From Clarence Thomas (Correcting a liberal smear about the conservative Supreme Court justice) by Damon W. Root, Reason, April 2013: "It was not the first time a liberal writer had taken a cheap shot at the conservative Supreme Court justice. … the comparison to the slave power system was particularly contemptible, especially because no Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall has written more frequently or powerfully about American racism than Thomas. … Many of his critics may be too ignorant to know it, but Thomas’ writings are steeped in African-American history and grapple repeatedly with the long shadow cast by slavery and Jim Crow. He may not be a modern liberal, but there is no question that Clarence Thomas is part of a civil rights tradition that started with Frederick Douglass." Asteriks (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this section?137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding previous statements about 'punishment and murder of slaves', pray tell, how exactly is this ever documented anywhere? On the off chance that a man of the law is in the vicinity of a ranch a hundred miles away from the nearest town, who is going to snitch on their boss? The self owned and well paid henchmen? The slaves kept in the area? There is no way that this NEVER took place just because there was a law stating it to be illegal, as there would be no registration of breaking this law in most of the cases. 2001:610:1908:8000:20EA:2893:B002:4293 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

German language co-original

I'm wondering why the fact German is a substantial part of that movie's very story is against better judgement stubbornly not admitted here.
1. The plot's logic is partly based on some of the (including one of the two protagonists, accidentally an Austrian actor) characters speaking German. (Furthermore, even Django's rescuing his wife in the end is a reminiscence to the earlier this movie depicted Nibelungenlied).
2. There's a German word every now and then in the film -- due to the plot, not by chance.
3. last but not least A nearly five minutes dialogue in German between Dr. Schultz and Brunhilde (what a random name --> compare Nibelungenlied) as a decisive aspect of the storyboard.
I mean, just because some time in the movie there's a "bonsoir" I do not intend to put French in the list of languages, but the case of German is most different here.
I am now looking forward to hearing some of the "watchmen" here bring their funny definitions of "significant". Another thing, always important amongst anglophones: even if you couldn't understand -- it is really German what they speak :-p 150.161.208.55 (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, the IP wishes to add German to the language parameter in {{infobox film}} because there is some sporadic German spoken in the film. I've even explained on the IP's talk page that the template says not to do this, but ...--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Just so it's clear: Before writing about or assessing a movie in any kind of a way, simply watch it.150.161.208.55 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

How many Westerns that feature Mexicans are considered co-original Spanish? Some “Si señor” and “¡Caramba!” doesn’t qualify even if the vaqueros occasionally have subtitles. German culture is used as an auxiliary plot device here and the language is used a ploy as a secret code. Additionally, the few minutes of ‘dialog’ is basically a monologue held by Dr. Schultz with Brunhilde giving just curt responses. No, for a film to be co-original, the other language(s) really should be much longer than just five minutes. Alandeus (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's all explained at the infobox documentation: "Only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films, enter separate entries with a line break". This is not a multilingual film, it just has some German in it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This does not need to be categorized as German or billingual, but in its current version, this article entirely obmits the fact that German is spoken at several points in the film, and the language's relevance to the plot. -- Imladros (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Leading, Major or Supporting Actor

Dr. Schultz, played by Christoph Waltz, is the major character of the film besides Django. So, there is no way to define this role as "supporting actor". However, why did the Academy twist the rules and categories in this case? Have they been bribed by the Austrian state as perhaps sometimes before, considering the extreme amount of Awards for Austrians in the last years? Did Schwarzenegger, the governor, have the last word in this decision? Discordion (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Discordion, this is what I found. It appears to be about how The Weinstein Company campaigned for nominations. This in November 2012 mentioned the possibility of campaigning for Waltz as Best Actor, but this the following December says the TWC would instead campaign for Waltz as Best Supporting Actor. Hope that helps! No Austrian conspiracy here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

In popular culture

This section is a bit backwards, normally these sections refer to influences a film has on other aspects of popular culture, not the things in popular culture that influenced the film. What is described is a historical influence, and a character that informed the writing of Tarantino, so this should be mentioned under Writing, or Prodction if anywhere. -- 109.79.100.59 (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. I suggest this section be removed. Unless there is some serious protest, I'll remove it by the end of the week. Alandeus (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I was only suggesting it be retitled and moved. Deleting is easy, fixing is hard. -- 109.79.121.186 (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Casting Audition

Actor Tyrese Gibson send in an audition tape for the role of Django. Source: Video: Exclusive Never Before Seen: Tyrese's Django Unchained Audition!. DepressedPer (talk) 8:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Action Figure Controvery

I seem to remember there being a brouhaha about "Django Unchained" dolls. They were boycotted by Al Sharpton or something? Banned from eBay, I think? A friend of mine says her Sam Jackson doll is worth hundreds of dollars, so I came to Wikipedia to learn more. Disappointed to find nothing.24.152.130.45 (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)