Tarantino's Greatest Mistake

[@williamcurt7204]

The problem is that I politically disagree with you, therefore everything you say is now wrong. Sorry.

[@DM-mi4je]

B-B-Based?

[@drummerboy1779]

I always viewed Schultz's arc as a subvertion of the 'Gary Stu'. He effortlessly overcame every challenge he was faced with up until Candieland, where for the first time (possibly in his life), he failed, and his ego just couldn't take it. Some of the criticisms you brought up are legitimate (especially the one about the last twenty minutes of the movie), but most of the problems you listed don't seem exclusive to Django Unchained. Most of Tarantino's scripts are pretty rough, but people enjoy his movies for the memorable and entertaining moments more so than the actual plot. Take Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, where the story contains very little in the way of cause and effect, yet is brimming with entertaining scenes.

[@osian3854]

I completely agree with you. I think Tarantino is more about the aethestics and characters than having a perfect plot with no holes. Although i won't defend shultz recklessness at the end, there was a lot of small nit-picking which i would disagree with

[@mitchfindergeneral]

While I don't outright disagree with the bulk of the video, I think there is an argument in favor of Schultz's character. We see him doing many things over the course of the film that are extremely reckless, almost seemingly just to get some sort of personal satisfaction or a big reaction out of other people. Now, granted, we can call his luck in overcoming these situations plot armor, but I think it's at least worth thinking about. I don't think, by the end of the film, that we are supposed to think he was this perfect killer who never made any mistakes until now. I think we're supposed to view him as an eccentric who is often great at what he does but also often gets lucky. Another point: the anti-racism. I think that his character is okay with violence when he believes it to be lawful, but we clearly see that he finds a lot of violence to be unlawful. There definitely seems to be an implication that Candy's extreme racism is what sends him over the edge near the end. While he was smart enough to coach Django, he wasn't smart enough to realize that he could not handle this mission. He could not stay in character. He overestimated his abilities and his luck finally ran out.

[@andreyparente9610]

I really like your analisis

[@vincentmartin9667]

I think your 'argument in favor of Schultz's character' is a strong one. I think there are other flaws in the movies, but mostly minor. Also I might give the cut it down argument some more 'merit' if he could figure out what to replace it with at the end. I get what they where going for with that, but it was overly complex scene when it didn't need to be.

[@AliHasan-14]

Django freeing himself from the Australians solidified his character arc - he's now become completely independent and he's putting his wits and skills (Learned from Schultz) to use. I mean that sequence explicitly shows Django being clever and using the things he's learned along his journey in order to come out of the conflict.

[@AliHasan-14]

@@doomermedia 1. ''20 minutes of boredom'' is a subjective argument. I found the sequence entertaining. 2. Django was coming closer to ''fully independent'' as the movie progressed. I mean the movie literally begins with him as a slave. let's assume that is the Point ''A'' of his character arc. Point ''B''-: Shultz takes Django from the slave owner and ''frees'' him in a way. Yes he still works for schultz but he is no longer being subjected to the cruelties of actual slavery. he's free from that. Point ''C'' - Schultz introduces django to the world of bounty hunting, honing his shooting skills, getting revenge on racist slave owners, and teaching him ''street smarts'' about the world. Point ''D''-: After Shultz death, Django is able to use those skills and knowledge to achieve his goal. He's no longer a victim or a passive character. he's now completely independent and an ACTIVE character who makes smart decisions based off of his experiences with Schultz to not only get out of conflicts but also achieve his goals (rescuing his wife).

[@lampad4549]

@@doomermedia schultz doesn't get in his way. Django and her were the ones that gave away the plan, and django wasn't independent, he was free but he never did anything on his own that had to do with schultz plan.

[@rollrcoastrbacon2725]

@@doomermedia so the scene could have been justified if it were shorter? I think the runtime of the scene might have contributed to an element of build-up. To see Django brought back down to his lowest before powerfully yet patiently regaining freedom with everything he came to learn throughout the movie

[@Yuki-bk2my]

this was really good, Django Unchained is one of my favourite movies of all time but a lot of the criticisms in this video are valid. your video style really fits this sort of content

[@thefoochie2118]

“Poor people are stupid” -doomermedia

[@ReeseGaillard]

This puts into words how I felt about the movie. There was some disconnect between the first half and second half of the movie that I could not put my finger on. You put that feeling into words the last half of the movie always makes me feel disinterested.

[@jetflaque8187]

I WILL NOT BE FORCED TO ACKNOWLEDGE ANYTHING, GOOD SIR. ok fair enough its a pretty flawed script

[@MisterS.]

Yeah thanks for making this public again. Great video.

[@tonygalati2672]

The original Italian Django was vastly superior.

[@tekkaman6025]

Yeah I remember watching this when it fist came out and always being unclear as to why the hell they didn't just buy her I remember thinking that I missed a scene or something explaining why candie didn't want to sell her to them.

[@BlaineCraner]

You had my curiosity, but now you have my subscription. Great vid!

[@savagesharpshooter9370]

I mean, I would say there's a big difference between shooting people, often cleanly, and having someone ripped apart by dogs....if we're going to characterize Schultz as "brutally killing people" making him immune to that death

[@electricelephant7471]

And he wasn't killing slaves either.

[@savagesharpshooter9370]

@@doomermedia Oh I agree that the end result was awful, and I agree that it very much was a stupid/arrogant plan, that was just my one nitpicky takeaway. Please use this video to fight with Sitch some more, your recent unofficial addition to the show has been fantastic 😂

[@leonconnelly5303]

That's the dumbest part of the video like how can you not see the difference

[@CakesWarden]

This was profoundly eye opening. Django is (still) one of my favorite Tarantino films and Schulz was my favorite character 😂. But I now realize that it probably had more to do with Christoph Waltz’ 10/10 acting, than the actual characterization. Great video Doomer! 😀. This is 100% going to trigger my girlfriend.

[@icarvs_vivit]

Good shit, my man. You made a bunch of really good points here and I can't wait for Inglorious Bastards.

[@vitalepitts]

22:00 I feel that Tarantino was knowingly writing cartoonish characters in this one honestly. I don't think any other of his films have this much comedy centered explicitly around a foolish character acting like an asshole. I'll have to give this a rewatch with these criticisms in mind

[@AlexGore511]

Django was always one of those movies I saw every once in a while and promptly left in the back of mind after viewing, which in retrospect is weird since I like picking apart the rest of Tarantino's work. After watching this, I guess I did it subconsciously for a reason. Still a banger of a movie tho. Nice vid.

[@DetectiveStablerSVU]

I think Tarintino has fallen into the trap of him needing to make a "Tarintino film". His early movies felt more like they were just what he was inclined to make and they just happened to have those elements, but now he has a short of formula with certain elements that he instead writes around. It happens 1 or 2 albums after countless bands' best break out album and to plenty of other film makers or artists in general. Just going to add that I didn't love Inglorious Bastards and it was the moment that made me put these observations into a conscious form of thoughts and observations. I am writing this right at the start at the video so I have no clue if this video touches it in at all but I wanted to share this among the people interested in this video and hope to hear what y'all think.

[@ryanwilliams2467]

I feel like critisisms in this video could have been really confusing themselves if this wasnt written better, but this review was really concise! Excellent work mr. Doomer, good show

[@osian3854]

Good review im general but if i was being critical it was a bit nit picky and not very concise at times

[@Y0UT0PIA]

Well argued, well edited, altogether super solid video. Wasn't expecting media criticism when I subscribed to this channel, but I won't complain!

[@Bushflare]

I disagree with the final 10 minutes of the criticism because it overlooks a few things that could not be accomplished without Django being reenslaved. Django frees himself and stands against Steven as a powerful freed man vs a powerful subordinate slave. Django needs to prove that he is now as adept in manipulating the lies and structures of slavery as Steven is, it is simply that Django uses it to destroy the system whereas Steven uses it to perpetuate the system because it makes him powerful. I would argue that the problem is not that the final 20 minutes of the story didn’t achieve anything but that the entire Candyland section of the story is so broken that what the story needed could not be achieved naturally. These things needed to happen but the compounding failures forced them into an unoptimised narrative structure.

[@k.b.9270]

Agreed. But who is Steven?

[@Bushflare]

@@k.b.9270 Samuel L. Jackson.

[@k.b.9270]

@@Bushflare Oh, my mistake, forgot his characters name.

[@Bushflare]

@@doomermedia Oh shit dude it's good to hear from you. Looking forward to the new vid! And yeah, Django's a really cathartic story about slavery with a good message of self-empowerment but it's a real shame how its parts just don't come together clean. Wasted potential's got a special kind of sting.

[@onecertainesquire486]

One of the most annoying things about Django in my opinion is how it overshadowed The Hateful Eight, the far better film in my opinion

[@Senumunu]

can you tell me what the moral of the hateful eight was ?

[@onecertainesquire486]

@@Senumunu put aside differences to do your moral duty

[@jimmyj5703]

I disagree. Django Unchained had the better pacing, and more overall creative storytelling. I loved The Hateful Eight don't get me wrong, but it was essentially just Reservoir Dogs: Wild West edition.

[@peterplopper269]

Great vid doomer, cant wait for your "Why Hasan piker is unironically evil" video coming next as well

[@2007Shockwave]

I know its unlikely to happen, but can't help but like this!

[@SS-nx2xx]

I'm also waiting for that one

[@theminister1154]

Too fish in barrel.

[@rollrcoastrbacon2725]

I expect a nuggy meme at the beginning of the video

[@rajatsinghbhandari9549]

He's not evil I think, just stupid

[@YA-ou1gl]

Excellent video my guy. Loving your channel. Hope it grows really big!

[@wyldetimesreviews]

Ever since I saw this movie, I always felt like Shultz would never have acted the way he did. That moment where he shoots Candie always leaves a terrible taste in my mouth because it always seemed so out of character for a cunning character like him. I like some of the action scenes in Django, the cinematography is great, and Christoph Waltz's acting really carries Shultz's character. But I've always had this opinion where a lot of the character writing/structure just isn't all that good in the movie. I'm just glad to see someone who managed to put those thoughts into a well-structured, well-written video. Excellent video my dude!

[@MisterA744]

If you want to see a critic provide fixes for a story, you should read some of Shamus Young's critiques. He's quite good at making general suggestions and providing examples that would be improvements on the material. His one on "Mass Effect: Andromeda" probably has the most instances of that, if not his series on "Rage 2". I appreciate it when critics do that, because it shows they have the mind of a storyteller and really understand the fundamentals and can strengthen the argument for their criticisms by doing so. (Anything better highlights what was missed out on, which bolsters the criticisms in the minds of the audience.)

[@SS-nx2xx]

Yeah, finally baby. Been waiting for this a while.

[@axeldiaz7960]

I think Steve Bannon is a socialist

[@bangoskank7018]

The big plantation shoot out is one of the most cinematically disappointing experiences I've ever had.

[@Lolotrixx]

I always thought Schultz losing his composure is because he is a well cultured civilized man faced with the real horrors of Slavery. Sure, he is capable of murder but shooting someone with a rifle, criminals most of the time, is probably a lot less heavy on his consciousness than seeing an innocent man being slowly ripped to shreds by a pack of dogs. I also think that the point of Candyland itself is that it’s a horrifying place wearing culture, sophistication and politeness, which informs much of Schultze’s character, as a sort of skinsuit. A way to make all these horrible racist people seem better than the scum they are. I could probably see the justification work for me that the hypocrisy and horrific scenes he has witnessed over the last few days has eaten away at him so much that he can’t take it anymore but even I admit, that’s a bit of a stretch. I absolutely see your points as valid, and the movie really starts to nosedive once they get to Candyland. Great Video

[@aikikaname6508]

I completely agree, and all this could have been solved by having Candie double cross Schultz and and Django and refusing to let them leave and having the dramatic climax end there. That way there’d only be one reunion with Brunhilda, both the main antagonists would be present, the film would be shorter and the time saved could have been used to develop Hildy as a character and her relationship with Django, which would have been stronger.

[@johnguy7178]

21:00 maybe the answer is that he is very confident in himself. I haven’t watch django in a while, but with the evidence that you have shown in the video may support that. Like Schultz using flowery language that other people don’t understand and him getting close to people with guns to his face. It would also support his decision at the end, with him being beaten by an idiot getting him worked up enough to ruin the whole plan. Not that this explanation is super tight, but just something to consider.

[@somerandominternetdweller]

It’s been a while since I seen this movie. But their is such thing where smart people tend to overthink things to the point of it’s detrimental and worse then a simplistic plan. Then when Shultz was figured out, it probably was a hit on his ego, since he prides himself being smart and being good at what he does, then he does what he did in the movie. But that’s me being charitable about the character or also not really knowing of the intentions of the creator was trying to convey in the movie. Unless he says himself, why he did it this way, which is a sign of a good movie because it can be conveyed in many ways.

[@WanderOnward]

He viewed them as a vile pieces of trash and would rather die than let them go on living and causing more suffering. It's a sacrifice he's willing to make and it's beautiful in that movies respect.

[@somerandominternetdweller]

@@WanderOnward I would assume so, because people tend to act a bit out of character when they are dealing with things they don’t like. But that was one of my opinions to refute the criticism of the movie, about dragging a person character flaws in the movie.

[@WanderOnward]

@@somerandominternetdweller not just don't like, he blew away 20+ KKK members as well. This man despised the abhorrent acts these slavers committed. Which is in character for seeing Candy dead by his hand is fitting and a masterstroke

[@ForbiddenFollyFollower]

It's pretty crazy though, pretending to enjoy blood sports with evil people when you could just give them money.

[@AghoraNath]

He probably liked what he did more than he liked how you didn't do it....

[@MisterA744]

Schultz seemed strange to me, especially when he refused the handshake and killed a man, despite him and Django getting what they wanted, but I didn't stop think about why. Thank you for elucidating the reasons.

[@JoTheVeteran]

2:25 Schultz: Cunning, but brutal. Django: Brutal, but cunning.

[@timewarpdrive77]

Perhaps it could be partly fixed by tweaking Candy's character.... Perhaps he's fond on django's wife or she's valuable in some way (she makes food well?)... Perhaps, she tried to escape and he's vindictive? It wouldn't entirely fix it, but it would sorta patch the hole Perhaps, in the rewrite, scultz doesn't have the appriote amount of money and theres a "ticking clock"?

[@villecor8765]

Jesse what the hell are you talking about

[@boof6009]

you're not poor

[@obscuredsatellitesinflight6034]

I loved this movie when I saw it at the cinema in 2012, but on repeat viewings, the whole "let's pretetend we're Mandingo agents/buyers/traders" scheme to rescue Djangos wife seemed so needlessly convoluted and contrived, especially as you pointed out they had enough money to purchase her directly. I still love every other Tarantino movie (Reservoir Dogs is my all time favourite movie) but I kind of view Django as "The Last Jedi" of Tarantinos filmography, flashy on the outside, hollow on the inside. Also Doomer, here's a wrench 🔧 Don't tell Sitch 😉

[@WanderOnward]

That scene was a real historical happening. Something that's not taught in school. It's to give Candy no moral high ground and place our view of him as heartless and monstrous

[@obscuredsatellitesinflight6034]

@@WanderOnward I'm not too sure what you are talking about.. I have a problem with Djangos and Dr Schultz plan as a whole, not a particular scene.. What specific scene are you referring to?

[@willsoe]

I'm pretty sure they address literally this in the film. Schultz say that Mr Candy won't accept any amount of money to sell them Djangos wife if they were upfront and honest

[@lampad4549]

@@obscuredsatellitesinflight6034 they had enough money but they didn't want to pay that much, the amount they paid for the mandigo was well out of the price range for her. They felt that he wouldn't interested in selling her at the appropriate price range.

[@obscuredsatellitesinflight6034]

@@lampad4549 I would agree with you if this was a different situation where Django and Dr Schultz were trying to purchase something as unimportant and replaceable like, for example, a horse from Calvin, then that would actually warrant them bargaining for if it was an unfair price. But this is Djangos wife we're talking about! His only love, his only family and his only companion in his godforsaken slave life. She was priceless to him and he would have (and could have) paid anything for her as she meant more to him than all the money in the world. The fact they tried to hatch this unnecessary convoluted plan in order to save a few bucks that put all three of their lives at risk is asinine.

[@kye4216]

I feel like it’s not 100% out of character for Schultz to do what he did at the end. He thinks very highly of his own intelligence and ability to manipulate others. So when Candy (someone he considered an idiot and beneath him) outplays him his ego can’t handle it and he snaps. That’s why it was over something so minor as shaking hands, his ego just wouldn’t let him.

[@onlyonewhyphy]

I put too much cold water, in my coffee 🙁

[@LightningNC]

I liked the movie when I saw it. I still liked it when I re-watched it, probably even a bit more. But I'm looking forward to being challenged.

[@user199x]

I mean.. I would think the plot is trying to say that the Doctor is for once over his head in his abilities. Everything from pretending to enjoy something he doesn't, to his ego being bruised. This one mission is just too much for him to turn a blind eye to. The only thing that I think breaks that whole character arc is why- Why this one, why now? And I have to guess again, it has something to do about being closer to racism more than ever; and that he cared about that all along? But an even BIGGER WHY in that is why does he give a damn about racism seemingly all of a sudden?- He's so unhinged in very aspect of life I don't see why he would bat an eye, he also just *destroyed* everything they worked for and it *can't* be because he actually cares about the people affected by racism here clearly, rather it now seems to be over his narcissism about *supposedly* caring about people affected by racism and not doing a good enough job at it?(???) In a way though, this inconsistency character trait is all too familiar in real life, isn't it. I wonder if it's intentional writing in that way or just telling of the author. Either way, I always considered the Doctor a Villain, someone just the same as Candie in the end. They don't really give a shit about evil, they just have an hypocritical ego to protect. EDIT: Which is pretty insulting to think about because it essentially means tarantino literally made a film where not a single white person is allowed to be good. And I know we shouldn't really see colour here but something tells me tarantino does.

[@RickyFSeiei]

"Homeless people right now have much better health care than Kings back then." Well no Shite Sherlock ever heared of "The Advancement of Technology"? And even if homeless people live in an Era of Technological Advancement. They can't accessed it to make their whole life better.

[@austinmaurer1776]

Good points, really not a fan of "there is no defense for this" which is not true most of the time you say it. I am also really not a fan of "he is shown to be these things in act one, that is his character, and then he breaks that in act 2." "also here is him acting that exact way in the first act that I said contradicted with the first act".

[@Kroraptor]

I loved this film, but yeah it haves major flaws I remembered when I first watched it and saw Shultz's final actions I scream hard at the screen. Lol

[@David_J.E.]

Fucking hell youtube. I've been saying for weeks "I cant wait for Doomers Django video that he mentioned on EFAP!" Despite being subscribed with notifications on I didnt know this video was out until Doomer mentioned it being finished on an Adam and Sitch sundaycast. A *month* after it it had already came out. Reee.

[@anthonydellimuti4962]

I think discounting Schultz death as pointlessly throwing their life away is discounting his character flaw. It’s clear throughout the film that pride is their flaw. It’s exemplified by Schultz being opposed to slavery, calling it barbaric but participating in the practice when he deems it advantageous or justifiable. Arguably we see this when he kills the sheriff and boldly assumes that the people were too stupid to shoot him immediately. Finally we see it come out when he has an outburst at candy’s sister for playing Beethoven because they are simply aping European/German culture. The nail in the coffin is when Schultz is made to take part in what he sees as the inferior culture of the American south by shaking hands to confirm a transaction. Sure it’s not exactly spelled out and the movie does have flaws but if you think of characters in terms of their flaws, their misdeeds become more understandable from a narrative perspective.

[@whatno5090]

Yeah there is a sort of disconnect in logic here, but the logical disconnect in Landa is far more vivid to me. Everything about Landa's character, and frankly everything about Inglorious Bastards the movie, is pretty flawless, up until suddenly Landa decides to make his deal. The illogicity of Landa's deal was so much more confusing to me that it ruined the immersion of the movie, whereas the illogicity of Shultz's plan wasn't really enough for me to consciously object.

[@mynameisjeff869]

but that's the point. Tarantino is a post-modern filmmaker. did you see any other film of his? he includes a lot of out of place things to get you to think that you're actually watching a film. this whole critique is lacking. it analyzes the story like it's from the 19th century. stories don't have to be logical and sound, they can be creative in many more ways. doomer here is so concerned with logic that he completely forgot that art is about emotions. for me the final part of the film was very dramatic, emotional and cartoonish, it was perfect it didn't matter that it was irrational...

[@InnercoreDeception2]

Definitely agree with the anti-climax. I always forget about that sequence until I rewatch it.

[@adamantiiispencespence4012]

I feel like i know where this is going.

[@teddyjaxn]

DOOMER MEDIA IS BACK LETS FUCKING GOOOOOOOOOOO. I don't agree with many of your takes, but you make good content, and I'm very glad I get to hear more from you

[@MisterS.]

Thank god I found a link to this video. It's excellent and it expresses my views on the movie very well

[@JamieZero7]

I've begun to question Taranto quality as a filmmaker. He does far too much referencing other movies but a fine line between stealing an idea and just referencing if you get my meaning. Like a lot of people might not watch Asian cinema but Tarintino does. And well he takes scenes from that. I've just begun to question his quality. After all Hollywood has stolen a lot from Japan. In movies. And not giving proper credit to the original works. Like even Leon took Yojimbo to make a fistful of dollars. If you take a guys entire plot. Maybe I'm just annoyed at no credit given to original creators.

[@Senumunu]

Hollywood as such is an institution that takes from all across the world but then licenses it on scale without giving proper credit. it is a den of cultural criminals.

[@jordyundieground3270]

But fistful is italian ha haaaaa !!! Gotcha!!!!

[@whiteowlwizard2714]

Dude do you want the house with or without furniture

[@capyboi-776]

I love Dr. Schultz, I'm sorry. Christoph Waltz' acting is too good, and he is well-written in the first half of the film.

[@Senumunu]

nah. the purpose of his character is to signal that cold blooded murder for profit is not as bad as slavery. its tired, old and everywhere these days.

[@BayaRae]

At least it was an original story for once. More than I expect from Tarantino.

[@The_Pleb_King]

Now that's a fucking title. Cant wait to see your arguments

[@The_Pleb_King]

Damn, mans got valid as fuck points

[@electricelephant7471]

Nice marmot.

[@arczero1623]

The horse buying analogy has logic to it! If you have ever tried to bargain for something someone doesn't want to give up, they can be hostile and closed off. In this case, showing up and wanting a specific slave for no discernable reason makes no sense. A suspicious man like Candie would detect that there is a reason you want that slave. That is exactly what they were worried about. As Schwartz says, if you instead purport to buy something else and in the process of spending time and buying that, you have taken a liking to their writing pen, carriage driver or any other rather personal affect, you will be much more likely to get that as part of "sweetening" a larger deal rather than just showing up on their doorstep and announcing you want to buy their favorite pen. They'd be like "that's weird bro, why do you need THIS pen?" Money is not the only thing at stake here, there is also pride, reputation and the feeling of having the upper hand in a trade, things that Candie and Schwartz both care very much about. Alternately they could have done something similar like say they want to buy a dozen slaves, then while they are there schmooze up with the girl and negotiate to purchase her as well. But that's not much different than the mandingo thing, so I don't see a meaningful distinction.

[@Fenris86]

Yeah, Django Unchained was weird. I think they wanted to go for Schultz being disgusted by Candie and Candie toying with him, but that did not work out at all.

[@leehunts4327]

I don't agree with much of any of this. The plan, where they offer to buy the "farm," instead of the "horse," works because it places the seller in a mindset where he's thinking about giving up something he would usually never give up. It also masks the motives of the buyer, so they can't be taken advantage of. You're assumption that the farmer is either too attached to the horse, or simply wants a higher price, is a false dichotomy. People's motivations are often a bit more complex. The point is that the farmer is attached to the horse, but is amenable to change once primed to by the outrageous offer for the farm. Once you've considered selling the farm, an insane idea, then settling for a horse that you are otherwise attached to is now an option. As for why Schultz broke character: character complexity. You place two possibilities onto the screen: Schultz can't act, and shouldn't have proposed a plan; or Schultz can act, but shouldn't break character. Neither of these positions is sensible. You're completely omitting the obvious writer's intent, which is that Schultz is simply a flawed character who is overextending himself. He thought he could act, but it turned out that he could not. This is a good thing. That makes his character more human, and more interesting. I can accept that Tarantino might have pushed it too far by having Schultz break character too much, but it's obvious that Tarantino intended to create tension. The entire point is that their plan is falling apart. Schultz shooting Candie is not a problem. As before, he is flawed; he simply snapped. He overestimated his ability to get over Candie's Mandingo fighting, and he blew up their plan. The only sense in which it is inconsistent is in the sense that there is a fundamental contradiction at the core of his character: he is a cold, calculating character, but with a limit. This is a good thing. You want your characters to be like this; this is what it means to be complex. I see the point about the ending, however. I remember feeling fatigued, because it felt like the climax already came. But I also understand the writer's motivation. The point is to have Django hit a low, which he rises back up from. I understand the story telling reasons, while also acknowledging that it has pacing issues. A lot of writing is dealing with trade-offs, and this is a good example.

[@PortlyPete]

my previous comment explaining my take was deleted. the reason the movie won an oscar is because it was anti-slavery. shultz was anti-slavery on principle. his arc is that of 'the person who benefits from slavery' but he is too enlightened (smart, speaks french, above all the dimwits who love slavery) to cope with what that means. this is why he 'broke character'. this is also why he snaps and kills candie at the end. your analysis is all spot on and makes sense, but it is too literal and is missing the obvious aspect of this movie being anti-slavery. this is effectively a virtue signal film in my eyes, which is why shultz could not be the ultimate saviour and why there had to be gratuitous gunfights and re-enslavement scenes tacked on to the end. the plan to rescue broomhilda was in fact ridiculous and made absolutely no sense UNLESS you think about it with what i wrote above in mind.

[@intellectualproperty3381]

why would candie entertain a $300 purchase randomly? doesn’t that seem suspicious? furthermore if he found out she was being bought to be a wife of a free man, I highly doubt he would restrain his cruelty. Similar to the previous plantation visit, in search of the brittle brothers, where, when the plantation owner found out that django was there for his own benefit and then proceeded to try to lynch him

[@TenemaesLament]

As a wise man once said, "everything woke turns to shit". The point of this movie wasn't to deliver an intellectual ride. It was to deliver an emotional one. And nothing's more emotionally satisfying these days than "racist white man gets what he deserves"

[@omarsabir1210]

I don't think you get it lol

[@drunkenknight]

idk why you would self report your lack of media analysis and racism all in one go

[@JasperLane]

I will be honest, I was ready to watch and argue as many points as I could but honestly I can not. The only one I came close to consider was the issue of money, as in my head I recalled there was a time skip so perhaps that massive 11k bounty had been somewhat spent. But no, the time skip was profitable and really the only reason they would need to do this is if Candy charges them absurdly to much. So I tip my hat to you good sir. Still love the movie though, I guess that's do to the charisma Leo, Samuel, Chris, and Jamie bring to the movie. Never a dull moment

[@degree5305]

20:28 So generally, in the old west, the average person wasn't allowed to walk around carrying a gun. Google "gun control in the old west", if Schultz knows the town had a Sheriff he should be safe to assume that they had similar strict gun laws. The part about Schultz's and money could be attributed to him actually being in love with the game of being a bounty hunter more than the actual money. I dunno, a lot of this criticism seems nitpicky for a work of pulp fiction. Like in Kill Bill we were shown the bride knows how to use guns and she charged Bills mansions with a hand gun ready to shoot him. So she seemed to be okay with getting her revenge with a gun. So why did she charge into every enemy with a sword and not just snipe them from a distance? They shot up her wedding with machineguns so don't think it was an eye for an eye type of thing. Why didn't she blow up the Crazy 88(who the bride knows guards O-Ren) before challenging her in the open? Again, cause its pulp. A lot of your criticism of Schultz also hangs on how he is described in the script. Which doesn't matter, its like justifying the plot holes of LOTR with the books. The book is the book and the screenplay is the screenplay. Most people seem to perceive Schultz, from the movie alone, to be a savvy bounty hunter that turned out to have a softer heart than he lead on at first. Or that was softened by spending time with Django. And that perception seems to, for the most part, justify his actions in the film regardless of how the script described him. I think Tarantio is talented enough to have noticed the flaws in his script but said "yeah but this is cool and is what audiences will love" and that in itself is good writing regardless if it breaks tradition.

[@ChuckEldon]

could it be that Schultz was also.....unchained

[@sicklyflower]

Please, PLEASE, make more film videos!

[@illustriouspics1]

Yo where’s the Inglorious video? 😭

[@myklaaron7879]

True Romance and Pulp Fiction. This is all

[@RonnieJamesDeodorant]

Hey doomer, loved your appearance on EFAP for Arcane. I disagreed a bit with a couple of your points but understood a couple others. Wish you came on board for the third part, as I'm just now catching up on those. You're always a good guest. Join Literature Devil sometime for his Morning Nonsense show. I think you two would click well.

[@JamieZero7]

I honestly think if candy was a real-life person just going asking to buy a German-speaking girl would be enough. Like I mean if he was German and part of that time. And spoke like a Gentleman. Now I mean gentleman as in how the term was used in the era, not the modern or at least how it's used term referring to all men. A gentleman was part of the noble class. An agreement would be made. But from the start script, it seems to jump from serious to over the top outlandish comedy. But I enjoyed your breakdown.

[@JamieZero7]

I feel you are right to see if they cut after the scene of him making the deal. And being defeated and the 3 of them leaving the area. That would have made an interesting ending. Defeated. But got what they came for. Rather than a revenge plot. Like they were trying to fool him and being defeated in their deception. Would have been a good ending. And clearly, because we know history south loses. Slavery is stopped. But they had to put in the comedy action scenes. Like this is an issue I saw with Inglourious basterds too. It wanted over the top action. And inserting modern values within a different time. And modern hatred for that time. if you get my meaning. Like self-inserting your own fantasies. Like killing Hitler in IB.

[@JohnSmith-zl1tr]

I think there it's not quite as bad as you've argued(and argued very well with the evidence to back your claims). There are two reasons for the plan, what if Candie is just ornery and refuses to sell and while they do have the money $3,000 to $12,000 is a heck of allot of money back then. For point one, while I think the movie treats this as a possibility I don't think it's likely and there are ways around it even if Candie refuses. The second item, which is that Schultz wants to avoid paying so much money, is valid(though as you pointed out not what the farmer and horse analogy), though it has risks. I do think his breaking character wouldn't completely unmask him. It would be very suspicious but as long as he's still plausibly offering the money it's just very suspicious and not a complete give away especially as he does withdraw his offer when Django says to. But regardless of that you are correct that the Schultz either should have known his squeamishness would be a problem or more likely given his history should have been squeamish. Anyway, fantastic video, it was concise, well supported and well ordered.

[@mushycookies6470]

It is hilarious that you think your Opinion could matter to anyone. Give up KZbin. Your content is redundant.

[@lloydgush]

Now do inglorious bastards, that takes way too much suspension of disbelief.

[@lloydgush]

Also, make a better script for both.

[@lloydgush]

I have no idea on how to put jango on that farm without putting a bounty on candy's head, or his men.

[@jimmysroomexposed7109]

I would like to apologize about my bad faith sniping at you on Twitter for you liking a post I made last month Doomermedia.

[@lukassubstanzentanz3053]

I agree that the writing of the plan was pretty stupid. But i saw a video just a few days ago that Schultz's behaviour at candieland as follows: He was always the Cunning, intelligent and very educated european, and when he meets candie, he feels that all of this real intellectualism that he has has been abused to the point where candie is just playing a character of a 'distinguished intellectual'. This makes him so mad over the course of the dinner that he decides to just shoot him. And i think the reason is that he cannot admit defeat to someone who is playing a character of just him. He realizes that he is also kind of a slaver and it all kinda short circuits when he has to give the handshake. But yeah, definitely some weird writing if you look at it that way.

[@jordyundieground3270]

I was prepared to not like this video but hey, you convinced me, those are some really glaring issues. Those are for sure some really obvious writing problems, good job

[@AutomHeshA7]

Cold logic doesnt translate well to artistic critique, your logic follows, however human storys are known to show rise fall and reception of characters. Change in a person you "know" on the screen excites you because you relate to them and their changes Logically it tracks, but its art it doesnt have an answer " I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." I think this is a good reference for my opinions

[@stupendous7848]

Thank you. Im glad someone said it.

[@oldensad5541]

You constructed your criticism on a flawed foundation. It is absolutely possible for a person to act contrary to itself. I easily imagine confident person like Shultz, can come up with some plan HE thought he can handle, but stunned and surprised immediately, by realization he actually can't. Something like this is literally experience we all had at some point in our lives - overestimate our abilities. Most obvious potential point of break is... Violence. The fact, Shultz have experience with it, can give him illusion he desensitized to suffering, but seeing slaves being tormented is not the same as killing people. So, here you go, compelling explanation, why confident person, loses composure. Is this what actually happened in a movie? Have no idea, probably it's just an inconsistency and flawed script, but i assure you, even if it is, you can tell exactly the same story, and not contradict anything about Shultz character at all. All you need is an illustration of painful realisation how deep in shit Shultz is, and emphasize lost of control. Not anger, but helplessness. And it would be compelling enough. If you think about it closer, who is the better candidate to actually outplay Shultz, than slow, stupid, and extremely thick brained Candy? It would be frustrating to lost control in confrontation with such pathetic opponent, wich would lead to such illogical and dangerous finale

[@Silverxvi]

"There's nothing wrong with enjoying a film that has flaws" thank you for justifying my enjoyment of the Star Wars Prequels, Doomer :)

[@infernocanuck]

1:55 You forgot the complete the quote: "I am going to use this slavery malarkey to my advantage. Still, having said that, I do feel guilty. So, I would like the two of us to enter into an agreement.." He does not treat Django as a slave, even if he is on paper. He enters into an agreement with Django, and is the first person, ever, to treat him as a human being who will consent to an agreement rather than do as he is told. Django does not object to assisting in killing the Brittle brothers, and in fact by his words and facial expressions, is quite eager to the agreement. You edited the entire context of the scene to reinforce your argument, it was much more complicated then, "Shultz enslaved Django". Bad form.

[@josiahz21]

“The audience is bad at fixing the movies problems”. I don’t know man. I’ve heard quite a few fixes for GOT season 8 that were much better than what we got. Only thing I’ll disagree on tho. I’ll even go a step further and say his last movie was even worse than this one. I even forgot I was watching a Tarantino film til the last 10 min and even the last 10 min were underwhelming for me.

[@slavicsandvich5967]

Still am yet to watch it, good vid!

[@SpectralAtlas]

I love Django and you are correct on all points, great video.

[@bullmoose5502]

Remember doomer, making fun of inglorious bastards is S-Class level content. I don’t want you to make that mistake

[@retrozombie29]

The moment you mentioned Schultz I knew where this was going. I always had this feeling that something was lacking or somehow wrong with Django Unchained, this video hit the nail on the head.

[@thedude3288]

Still prefer it over once upon a time in hollywood. the entire Sharon Tate stuff can be axed and is there just as an excuse for tarantino to film margot robbies feet.

[@jordyundieground3270]

Naaaaaah braaaaaah YOU DONT GET IT!!!!!!!

[@electricelephant7471]

I think You've completely misinterpreted Schultz's character. For one he clearly shows a strong empathy for slaves and the enslaved. He says he despises the institution. His empathy for slaves and hatred for slavers is his primary weakness. But he knows that he has to work within the confines of the society he lives in. He can't be a revolutionary or straight vigilante. He both has self interest and knows it will be impractical. Him paying the guy at the start could be interpreted as his intent to hold true to order and his word, but it really comes off as adding insult to injury. A cruel joke. His polite demeanour clearly stands intentionally in contrast to the brutality and uncivilised nature of ghe conversation. Yes, he kills people for a living but generally those he considers deserving of death or at least not terribly virtuous or worth saving, not slaves who he empathizes with. I agree more with your criticisms of Candy's character but you describe these scenes as if Schultz has knowledge that he does not. My interpretation was that Schulz expected Candy to have great ill will towards slaves and those who would wish to free them, and on top of that no reason to think Schulz should know about Hildi. Candy may well see Schulz's knowledge of her as suspicious and be unwilling to sell, especially if it means she could be bought with the intent of freeing her. Thus the deception and attempt to become relatable and amiable to Candy as a Mandingo fighter enthusiast. Butter him up and hide the importance of his true goal so as not to arouse suspicion of his true character. You can argue his faltering stretches what Candy should believe, but it's very clear to me that he has gotten in over his head with the level of brutality he will have to sit through. It's clear that against those he empathizes with, the cruelty hurts him on a deep level, and his typically steely resolve is weakening. When Candy uncovers their plan and still is willing to sell Hildy, it seems odd, for sure, and the reason is that it almost seems like an uncharacteristic degree of generosity. Because it's not about generosity. He despises Schultz and Django (in a way probably Schultz more because he "expects it" of Django but not a wyt man like Schulz, and the exchange, on top of being a good monetary deal, is designed to make them feel beneath them, to strip them of their dignity. That's the entire point of the demand of the handshake. Knowing they despise him utterly, but being bent to his will and forced to treat him as a reputable and respectable man. And with this final blow, Schulz snaps. What he does is absolutely stupid, selfish and suicidal, but it is totally built up in his character. He thinks Candy is a monster and has been struggling the whole second act to treat him as if he doesn't want him to suffer a most cruel death, and he just can't give him the satisfaction. He just "couldn't resist". It's an emotional snap. You could say his elephant took over. Django is actually one of my least favourites as well, for some of your other reasons and for the tonal clash, but I will defend Schulz's character because it feels like you missed so much which I think is pretty blatant.

[@electricelephant7471]

@@doomermedia Are you serious? He gives them the power to free themselves AND get revenge on their owner. It's totally in character. It actually establishes his character really well.

[@WanderOnward]

@@doomermedia nobody is the epitome of good willed in a Tarintino film. You're reaching for an expectation that was never even given to you. You're post -hoc justifying your reasons for not liking the film for what it is, an interesting and fantasy slave revenge story.

[@electricelephant7471]

@@doomermedia What Schulz does is exceptional within the world he lives in. Freeing them was the most important part. They also have a fair bit of Speck brothers cash, well over $100 minimum, and weaponry. How far is he supposed to go in this encounter? Cross state lines?!!! Joke. Could he theoretically do more? Sure. But he's not selfless and has his own goals as well. But like I said he is pragmatic and has his own self interest as well. My point was that he does have empathy for them and as a result, when exposed consistently to absolutely brutal cruelty, he becomes less and less in control of his emotions. It's an arc of him becoming increasingly affected until he can no longer work within the system.

[@JohnSmith-zl1tr]

@@doomermedia He does free Django, he could have just lied and then sold Django when he was done and then he helps Django get his wife back. He has a certain level of altruism. Also Schultz has at least 5 years of experience, and Django is a random person he's training, Django isn't earning an equal split. I do agree he could do more to help the slaves at the start, so he's definitely not running a charity and helping them at all was a matter of convince. Though they probably took the money he 'paid' for Django and the 'nag'. On the more cynical side it disposes of the last non-slave witness to the Spec deaths(and while I think Schultz was somewhat justified I don't think the 'surviving' Spec would agree with me) and it makes the only other witnesses aside from his new slave a bunch of murderous runaways that very well might be executed for killing their master if(and most likely when) they're caught.

[@SaltpeterTaffy]

Damnit, Schultz was my favorite character in the movie. But that's because of Christoph Waltz's stellar performance more than anything. It's the only part of the movie I remember well enough.

[@tuskinradar8688]

Almost a side point, but the Stoat profile pic and rebranding channel banner looks pretty good

[@Shanghai2433]

Really great analysis, even if as a Schultz fan this hurts man.

[@JoTheVeteran]

7:27 Because "ma'diversity", it looks that way from a quick glance, but if you pay more notice the reality is that Tarantino just wants to create a powder keg, that will result in gallons of spilled blood, shocking violence, and maybe some gore. It's classic setup, and payoff, but it's lazy writing. The setup makes no sense, and the payoff is more predictable than a soap opera script.

sadly these types of movies are EASILY predictable... This movie did not deserve the accolades it received... the Hateful 8 was FAR more better in quality... similiar elements... but it is the only movie that centered the problems of that Era, the characters were complex and the finale I'd never expeced, A black bounty hunter and former southern soldier (who didn't quite like each other at the beginning) team up to bring justice to a pack of murderers... excellent film.

[@JoTheVeteran]

@ Agreed, but I never watch Tarantino movies to learn about history.

[@kalev_knight]

3 weeks?

[@TwentyPercentDash]

I like the movie, but I agree it's dumb for him to shoot Leo at the end. They got what they came for; just walk out the door. It feels like it's only in there as an excuse to trigger a fight scene.

[@fesimco4339]

Is her name really 'Broomhilda'? Surely it's 'Brünhilda' like in real life unless there's some in universe reason.

[@fesimco4339]

@@doomermedia Haha no way, how weird.