WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

man, you are one British Bulldog,

_________________
We're all actors, Laurie. I'm just an actor who read the script.

The final piece of the puzzle has been added. And he's going to be played by....Sasha Baron Cohen? :http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Sacha-Baron-Cohen-Could-Take-Role-Quentin-Tarantino-Django-Unchained-27859.html

He'll be playing a role that Jonah Hill supposedly turned down. With this last bit of casting I can safely say I was totally, utterly wrong about these characters. With the exceptions of Waltz and Jackson, Tarantino has cast opposite of what I was expecting. But these last few casting announcements make it sound like he's just giving away roles to whatever actors he wants to work with.

_________________


"Heard them Walthers like to jump some" "As will you, with one in your elbow."

_________________
" Funny STORY. Sounds UNBELIEVABLE. Probably TRUE."

Tarantino always makes odd casting choices. I remember hearing that people were absolutely baffled by him casting John Travolta in Pulp Fiction. Let's not forget the very odd casting of folks like Samm Levine, BJ Novak, Mike Myers in Inglorious Basterds. At least he's making choices based on people he wants to work with and not on what some studio wants to put on the poster.

_________________
My unofficial and offical work-> http://www.youtube.com/movieboyandco

Mike Myers was an odd choice indeed, but Levine and Avery are understandable.

_________________

You're right. What was I thinking? Joseph Gordon Levitt is absolutely the right person to be playing the bit part of an Australian character. A character that is on screen for less than 5 minutes, who reportedly is still Australian. I'm sure that's the reason he got the part and that it has nothing to do with him being an actor he wants to work with. And Cohen? Shit...even though Hill just passed on the role, I'm sure Tarantino has the time to completely rewrite that pivotal character, a character which Cohen doesn't resemble in the slightest, who would make a significant change to the story if the character were rewritten. I mean, it's not like he's directing a movie, or anything.



Like the studio is going to complain that he's giving parts to Levitt, or Kurt Russell? Or that he's given a large role to DiCaprio? No, he's simply being given the chance to cast whoever he wants, and since he's a director whom just about everyone wants to work with, he's throwing as much star actors he can into this. At least with Bastards he was using mostly unknowns, giving us our first real look at some of the actors. There is no reason to put Levitt in this other than him wanting to work with Levitt.

_________________


"Heard them Walthers like to jump some" "As will you, with one in your elbow."

Right because Brad Pitt, BJ Novak, Mike Myers, and Eli Roth are TOTALLY unknown.

_________________
My Blog of Movie Reviews and Such

I'll be right back. I gotta go see a man about a mule.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying I'd rather have him casts whoever he wants than have a studio force him on it. I'm not really sure if studios love Kurt Russell all that much, though.

But in anyway, all we can do is wait and see. My example with guys like Travolta and the Inglorious Basterds was that choices that may seem odd at the time ended up paying off very well. By the way, is this supposed to come out next year or in 2013?

_________________
My unofficial and offical work-> http://www.youtube.com/movieboyandco

YEAH GUYS TRUST ME I KNOW
ALSO THAT IS CLEARLY A BAD THING

_________________
" Funny STORY. Sounds UNBELIEVABLE. Probably TRUE."

The dude's a chameleon, he looks like a completely different man in every role he plays

_________________
Say, Doc, did I ever tell you I'm the only metal that's liquid at room temperature?

Actually, I'm starting to wonder if the opposite is true. I wouldn't be surprised if the studio distributing it felt a bit nervous about the film. Schindler's List was a success despite the fact it was about the Holocaust, which is a pretty grim subject. But that film dealt with the subject with dignity. I'm not sure Tarantino does the same with slavery. I mean, this is Tarantino, with any topic he tackles there is a fair amount of gore to it. Without spoiling much, Django Unchained has scenes where men play cards and use the ears of dead slaves as chips, where slaves are driven like cattle, branded, humiliated, etc. Django's wife is shown to be raped several times, and spends a good amount of time being naked. Others are casually killed as if they were animals, and one character is ripped apart by dogs. Basically, whatever horrible act you can do to a black person is done in this script. What this leads me to wondering is, maybe the studio wants to fill this film with as many recognizable actors it can as a way of trying to get people interested in seeing this? A film about slavery, even if it's a film about revenge, might be a hard sell. Slavery isn't a subject the American public like to talk about much, and I'd suspect it's one they'd like to forget ever happened. This is a film that casts whites in the worst light possible. And the studio might fear blacks would be uncomfortable seeing such a violent history play out on screen.



I think it's not coming out until Christmas of 2012.



I said he used "mostly unknowns". Even then, BJ Novak and Eli Roth weren't, and probably aren't, household names. No, I was talking about Waltz, and Laurent, Fassbender, Schweiger, and all of the German actors cast in smaller roles. In the cases of Waltz and Laurent, American viewers were unfamiliar with these actors.



It's a bad thing if he's casting celebrity over talent. Imagine if Zach Snyder was buddies with John Stamos and told him that he could play the part of Bernard if he wanted to.



I didn't just mean that literally, I mean the character is a young man barely in his twenties. I don't think this spoils much, but he's basically a homely looking man whose mother buys him a slave so that he can have a companion. Part of his youth and naivety plays a part in a critical scene involving DiCaprio's character. I suppose Tarantino will just make Cohen an ugly, awkward looking guy, but I don't know how well his scenes will play out compared to how they might have played out with a younger actor.

_________________


"Heard them Walthers like to jump some" "As will you, with one in your elbow."

you sir, are a jerk.

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

_________________

_________________
We're all actors, Laurie. I'm just an actor who read the script.

Well..............it's a cowboy movie town.

Not much to it really !

_________________

Maybe.
Back in the day (1977), the TV adaptation of Alex Haley's Roots was a long shot, but was one of the most successful mini-series for a long time to come. For TV back then, it really didn't pull a lot of punches, and it threw the cat amongst the pigeons in domestic discussions all over the U.S. from what I recall. So there is something of a precedent.

_________________
...evidently chicken-town.

So there hasn't been too much news on this movie, as it seems to be a pretty closed set. But we do get our first glimpse of Waltz:

_________________


"Heard them Walthers like to jump some" "As will you, with one in your elbow."

Commence nerdboner in 3... 2... 1...

_________________
Fire Rises

Well shit, I had no idea Waltz was even in this movie.

Don't know if this is or isn't a good thing, he's going to burn out pretty quickly if he doesn't leave Hans Landa behind.

_________________

just as long as he doesn't do any green hornet shit, we should be fine.

_________________