CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › JAMIE FOXX IS DJANGO
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JAMIE FOXX IS DJANGO

post #1 of 108
Thread Starter 
by Elisabeth Rappe: link

Tarantino has found his man. Djannnngooo!
post #2 of 108

Ugh.

post #3 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 View Post

Ugh.



confused.gif What's the problem here? If Tarantino can make Eli Roth work, he can make Foxx work.

post #4 of 108

Foxx is a good actor. I have no issue with this.

post #5 of 108

I wanted that less famous black guy for the role. No, the other one. Ah nuts!

post #6 of 108

I'm more excited by the DiCaprio confirmation; if nothing else, Tarantino likes to poke certain actors into stretching their range, so Leo should be a hell of a villain in his hands.

post #7 of 108

Atleast it's not Will Smith.  Foxx can be good.

post #8 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anyawatchin Angel View Post

Atleast it's not Will Smith.  Foxx can be good.

 

Uh, Smith's a good actor too most of the time. Not sure what you're trying to say here.
 

 

post #9 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post

I wanted that less famous black guy for the role. No, the other one. Ah nuts!



Haha.

 

Yeah, Foxx should be great. How quickly people forget the work he did with Mann. It's only the people who got their impressions from reading a bootleg script that have the problem.

 

post #10 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post


confused.gif What's the problem here? If Tarantino can make Eli Roth work, he can make Foxx work.



I'm sure he has his fans, but I'm just not one of them. 

 

post #11 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 View Post





I'm sure he has his fans, but I'm just not one of them. 

 


*shrugs* Different strokes, I guess.

 

Didn't Tarantino want DiCaprio for Hans Landa at one point? I'm a big fan of Leo, and I'm sure he would've been fine in the role, but Christoph Waltz just owns that part.

 

post #12 of 108

I have zero doubt that Tarantino will make Foxx work like gangbusters, but he's still my least favoured choice.

 

Okay, I'm nearly at that time again now. Just as I did with Basterds, it's almost time for me to pull away completely and go full media blackout on it until I see it. The main cast is almost completely in place now so I don't need to know anymore. It made for a quite wonderful experience last time, so I'm quite keen to repeat the process.

post #13 of 108

Good point about the media blackout, RD.  You just reminded me that I got so much delight out of the fact that my expectations for what kind of film Basterds would be was completely wrong.  I will be joining you in this media blackout.

post #14 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post

I have zero doubt that Tarantino will make Foxx work like gangbusters, but he's still my least favoured choice.

 

 

Completely agreed.  I'm disappointed that he ended up with Foxx, but I also completely trust Quentin.  If he wants Foxx in the role, then I know Jamie will be great as Django.
 

 

post #15 of 108

Foxx can do drama, he can do comedy, and he'll be really good in this.  I wish the part would go to a younger man, as I think that fits the character arc of Django more naturally, but whatever.  Age is not as important (to my mind) for Candie, and I'd love it if Leo was confirmed.  It's going to be great, regardless.

post #16 of 108

Eh its not a choice that will elicit any real excitement but Foxx as was said above with the right filmmaker turns in terrific work.

 

I like it better than Will Smith and not better than Edris Elba but I think Foxx will do well in the role.

 

So its a shrewd move not a Box Office sure move but acting wise a shrewd one.

 

Tarantino just needs to match action, dialogue and make a hero worth giving a damn about.

 

Lord knows he can bring the villains.

post #17 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post



 

Uh, Smith's a good actor too most of the time. Not sure what you're trying to say here.
 

 



Of the 4 choices-Elba, Smith, Foxx, Ejiofor- Smith is the least interesting choice.  Smith hasn't done anything worth a damn sice 2001(Ali) and bedore that just fun summer blockbusters.  And his producing work hasn't been much to write home about either.  He never wants to step outside his comfort zone of shitty movies.

 

Smith just annoys me lately.  I think Fixx is naturally more charasmatic/funnier than Smith.

 

post #18 of 108

All those guys have vastly different qualities.  Ejiofor and Elba are probably more interesting dramatic actors, but they might not have been better as Django.

post #19 of 108

To be honest I'd prefer Smith for this but as I always say "In Quentin We Trust."

post #20 of 108

Foxx versus DiCaprio with a side order of Waltz versus Jackson is drool inducing.

post #21 of 108

Like many here, I have faith in Tarantino, but Foxx is simply not an actor who gets me excited about anything.

post #22 of 108

People need to start rewatching some of Foxx's work. I feel like his public persona is overriding his talent for a lot of people. His Bundini Brown alone should be enough to get people psyched for this.

post #23 of 108

Truth be told, I don't know much about his public persona. Foxx is by no means a bad actor, I just don't actively LOVE his performances. He lacks a quality for me that I can't really put into words. The one exception is probably Collateral.

post #24 of 108

Foxx was great as Ray, Max, Tubbs, and Black Tony Blair......he'll be great in this. Have faith.

post #25 of 108

Foxx is resolutely good in pretty much everything. I was actually rooting for Will Smith just to see that dude push himself again, but this is also fine.

 

I'm also thirding the media blackout. Except for the trailers, I was an absolute saint when it came to Basterds. That experience was better for it. I expect the same here.

post #26 of 108

You know, I think I like the choice of Foxx better than Elba or Ejiofor. I almost feel like choosing either of the latter two would be like realizing fan casting. Not that they'd be bad-- they're both amazing-- but I like that Tarantino went with the more recognizable actor without forcing himself to take Smith.

post #27 of 108

For the record, I don't think Ejiofor would have been good casting.

post #28 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post

You know, I think I like the choice of Foxx better than Elba or Ejiofor. I almost feel like choosing either of the latter two would be like realizing fan casting. Not that they'd be bad-- they're both amazing-- but I like that Tarantino went with the more recognizable actor without forcing himself to take Smith.


Wasn't Smith Tarantino's first choice? What do you mean, forcing himself?

 

We'll all be praising Foxx's performance when this thing comes out, I imagine.

 

post #29 of 108

I think Foxx is a perfectly fine actor who won't take anything away from the film.  I just also feel like he's drawing a walk instead of getting a solid hit.

post #30 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anyawatchin Angel View Post





Of the 4 choices-Elba, Smith, Foxx, Ejiofor- Smith is the least interesting choice.  Smith hasn't done anything worth a damn sice 2001(Ali) and bedore that just fun summer blockbusters.  And his producing work hasn't been much to write home about either.  He never wants to step outside his comfort zone of shitty movies.

 

Smith just annoys me lately.  I think Fixx is naturally more charasmatic/funnier than Smith.

 



Doesn't the fact that he hasn't pushed himself outside his comfort zone automatically make him a more interesting choice?

post #31 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evi View Post

Like many here, I have faith in Tarantino, but Foxx is simply not an actor who gets me excited about anything.



What s/he said.

post #32 of 108

I'm sorta cross-posting so forgive me, but I think Foxx is fine and he's likely to be great in this. He's an interesting actor because he's all instinct. Really talented to be sure, but he's not an academic. I would not expect him to get all philosophical about what QT is trying to say about racial politics in the film. In fact, it's a testament to his talent that he can convincingly play people who are smarter or quite different than himself.

post #33 of 108

Will's paycheck for MIB III was probably bigger than Django's entire budget.
 

post #34 of 108

Honestly, of the casting decisions I'm less enthusiastic about the prospect of DiCaprio playing Candie. Django isn't a character that relies on great acting chops. He pretty much plays straight man to Schultz for much of the script. This isn't a character with a lot of great, Tarantino quips. Which is why I think it's strange that people want Smith, or Ejiofor. .

post #35 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3cii View Post

Honestly, of the casting decisions I'm less enthusiastic about the prospect of DiCaprio playing Candie. Django isn't a character that relies on great acting chops. He pretty much plays straight man to Schultz for much of the script. This isn't a character with a lot of great, Tarantino quips. Which is why I think it's strange that people want Smith, or Ejiofor. .



It's probably because a lot of us haven't read the script and spoiled the movie for ourselves. Will Smith was Tarantino's first choice, and Chiwetel Ejiofor is a great actor, and I know that's why I would want either to get the part. Foxx doesn't excite me at all. I liked him in Collateral and Miami Vice, but he always comes across as a twat to me. 

post #36 of 108

Foxx is a fine choice.  If QT is excited about it, then so am I.

post #37 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3cii View Post

Honestly, of the casting decisions I'm less enthusiastic about the prospect of DiCaprio playing Candie. Django isn't a character that relies on great acting chops. He pretty much plays straight man to Schultz for much of the script. This isn't a character with a lot of great, Tarantino quips. Which is why I think it's strange that people want Smith, or Ejiofor. .



Maybe because we haven't read the script.

 

I have a feeling DiCaprio won't do it.

 

post #38 of 108

Having just seen "Collateral" for the first time, I feel pretty good about this casting. I like the guy and while he doesn't exactly sound perfect for the role, I remember feeling similarly about Heath Ledger being cast in "The Dark Knight". I hope this ends up paying off unexpectedly like that casting did.

post #39 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreMrNiceGaius View Post





It's probably because a lot of us haven't read the script and spoiled the movie for ourselves. Will Smith was Tarantino's first choice, and Chiwetel Ejiofor is a great actor, and I know that's why I would want either to get the part. Foxx doesn't excite me at all. I liked him in Collateral and Miami Vice, but he always comes across as a twat to me. 

 

Okay, you haven't read the script, fair enough, but for all you know these actors could be all wrong for the role. Where did Tarantino specifically say he wanted Smith? As for Ejiofor, he's an adequate actor, but I wouldn't say he's right for this role. Really, it seems like he's the new go to, non threatening black actor of the moment.
 

 

post #40 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3cii View Post



 

Okay, you haven't read the script, fair enough, but for all you know these actors could be all wrong for the role. Where did Tarantino specifically say he wanted Smith? As for Ejiofor, he's an adequate actor, but I wouldn't say he's right for this role. Really, it seems like he's the new go to, non threatening black actor of the moment.
 

 


In all the trade announcements where it said Will Smith was his top choice. I am threatened by all black actors. They scare me. I'm a racist. Just pulling your chain, but really most people haven't read the script and we only have a logline to go on for what the character of Django is supposed to be like. We know he's a black slave who is freed and goes on a streak of vengeance or something to that degree. Will Smith sounded cool for the role because it sounded like a reversal from the typical kind of character he plays, Idris Elba was great in The Wire and I'd like to see him headline a feature, and Chiwetel Ejofor was just flat out awesome in Redbelt, and after see him own Mamet, I'd love to see him in a Tarantino movie.

 

post #41 of 108

Is there a specific casting decision or performance from a previous Tarantino flick that is making people worried about who he's casting for Django?  Some unusual choices, but I feel like there's no real reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt here.  

 

 

post #42 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop View Post

Is there a specific casting decision or performance from a previous Tarantino flick that is making people worried about who he's casting for Django?  Some unusual choices, but I feel like there's no real reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt here.  

 

 



Yeah I'm sure Foxx will be great in the role when I actually watch the movie. In actuality we shouldn't be worried at all, Basterds was filled with second choices and I don't even want to imagine Simon Pegg in place of Fassbender, or Dicaprio in place of Waltz. Pegg and Dicaprio are both great, but both Fassbender and Waltz were phenomenal in their roles. I'm sure Foxx will be just as good, it's just that I think the guy is a bit of a twat is all. 

post #43 of 108

I trust Quentin, but outside of Brad Pitt he's never went for the big name.  Smith and DiCaprio are quite the departure for him.  There is risk in that because people come in with alot of baggage with the actors. 

post #44 of 108

I get the feeling working with current big stars is something Tarantino is actively interested in doing at the moment - I knew if he didn't get Smith he'd go for another 'movie star', instead of a character actor like Elba or Ejiofor. Admittedly Foxx's career's stalled a bit, but at his best he's got something about him, so I'm on board with this.

post #45 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3cii View Post

Okay, you haven't read the script, fair enough, but for all you know these actors could be all wrong for the role. Where did Tarantino specifically say he wanted Smith? As for Ejiofor, he's an adequate actor, but I wouldn't say he's right for this role. Really, it seems like he's the new go to, non threatening black actor of the moment.
 


Now I want to know who the threatening black actors are, cause they sound more apt for a Tarantino ex-slave revenge flick.

 

Ejiofor's more than an adequate actor, however, and his role in REDBELT is where most folks are (well, I am) getting the idea of him playing a taciturn, slow-burning ass-kicker here, seeing as we've seen him do it extremely well once already.

 

But hey, it's Foxx's to lose I guess. Honestly, I have nothing but trust as far as Tarantino's casting decisions go, as long as he continues not casting himself. I'm way way more curious as to who he taps to replace Sally Menke.

post #46 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anyawatchin Angel View Post

I trust Quentin, but outside of Brad Pitt he's never went for the big name.  Smith and DiCaprio are quite the departure for him.  There is risk in that because people come in with alot of baggage with the actors. 


Not really.  Tarantino tried to snag Sylvester Stallone (and Mickey Rourke) for Stuntman Mike and still landed Kurt Russell.  Hell, Stallone (and Rourke) turned down Pulp Fiction.  He went to Warren Beatty and Kevin Costner for Bill before landing on David Carradine.  Leonardo DiCaprio turned down Hans Landa.

 

It's not like he hasn't worked with names before either.  John Travolta?  Bruce Willis?  Robert DeNiro?  Quentin doesn't chase A-listers for the hell of it, but he doesn't avoid them either.  If he wants someone for the part (Will Smith), then he'll go after them.  Sometimes they want to work with him but don't like that particular role or don't want to play it as written.  Sometimes it is merely a scheduling conflict that keeps them from doing the film.  Whatever the case, if his first choice doesn't pan out, Tarantino just moves on to another candidate.  In the end, he always seems to make the right choice from whoever is available to him.

post #47 of 108

Well said. As someone who isn't thrilled with Tarantino all the time I have no qualms with raving about the talent than occupies his films. The man is a master of casting.

 

Bastards would be nothing without Waltz who was indeed a revelation in the role.

post #48 of 108

While Foxx could do well here, I really wish this announcement said Eddie Murphy.   I think Murphy has the harder edge and QT could pull an amazing performance out of him that could restart non-fatsuit Murphy stardom.   But, I said it in the other thread, and I am saying it again here to no avail.

post #49 of 108

Way, way too much baggage. Murphy in the Jackson role could've been something great, though.

post #50 of 108

Just read about a quarter of the script, and while I obviously won't spoil anything, Foxx strikes me as WAY better suited to this than Smith. It'll be the role of his career. Actually the whole movie feels a lot like a companion piece to Basterds in its revisionist history tale of suffering minority groups obtaining revenge while aided by an eloquent white badass.

 

And to be honest, I'm getting sick of Tarantino's repetitiveness in story, character, theme, dialogue etc. Of course his dialogue flows excellently and has great rhythm, but the over-sophistication of it always struck me as so artificial. I suppose that's the appeal, but when compared to dialogue from the Coens, for example, it really pales since the Coens write character-specific dialogue that really evinces the individual qualities of those characters, and is extremely evocative of time and place in a way Tarantino can't muster in Basterds or, from what I've read, in Django (although maybe that's not his objective). Every character in a Tarantino movie, especially the (even vaguely) villainous ones, all have this exceedingly polite and articulate way of speaking that simply fails to impress me anymore, since seriously, anybody can write eloquent dialogue. Fucking PR reps for corporate businesspeople can write that shit. It takes a genuine artist to come up with a distinctive voice for each character, and that's something that Tarantino seems to be losing interest in since Jackie Brown -- not to mention, of course, that this will be his fourth revenge movie in a row (fifth if you count Kill Bill as two films). Originality just doesn't rank high on his list of priorities, apparently.

 

I view Tarantino sheerly as an entertainer these days who couldn't nail a theme or character arc (beyond the typical revenge story) if he wanted to. I would say his literary equivalent is someone like Stephen King (although King has at least mastered basic grammar). While there's nothing wrong with that (and he's at least conscious of it, since one of his movies is named Pulp Fiction after all), I'm having a hard time seeing him as a real artist. Anyway, sorry about the rant. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › JAMIE FOXX IS DJANGO