DJANGO SAYS DICAPRIO IS GOOD AND CHAINED UP

No more casting talk... give me this now.

I would love to see Quentin cast some spaghetti western favorites (Franco Nero, Tomas Milian, Terence Hill, etc.) in supporting roles, but I have no idea who they would play.  If for some reason Waltz doesn't end up signing on, Nero would be a great replacement.

Anyway, there are a ton of actors that I would love to see QT work with and there are plenty of colorful supporting roles in this project.  Following the casting on this sucker will be fun.

I hope Jonathan Loughran shows up. Should be right at home as a sleazy slave owner.

Dicaprio in a QT movie? Hell yes.

Since Leo has played a slew of paranoid, disheveled sad-sacks lately, I'm excited to see him embrace a truly villainous role.  Could this be the role that finally gets him some Oscar respect? 

A bit gutted to see DiCaprio in the role of Marvin Candie. Woefully miscast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by t3cii 

A bit gutted to see DiCaprio in the role of Marvin Candie. Woefully miscast.

Yeah just woeful. It's not like the guy that wrote the script cast him or anything.

Christ, the internet.

Have you read the script?

Jesus, the Internet. I mean...gah...really. Internet.

But the question really comes down to: do you trust Tarantino to write a role, cast it and direct the actor to get exactly what he wants? 

What Tarantino had in mind when he wrote the script (where DiCaprio may very well be miscast) and what he eventually decides to with it could be very different things. 

I'm not all that taken with DiCaprio's performances in general, but I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what Taratino can do with him.

Nobody cares that you read the script. Most of us are trusting in Tarintino's vision and that he knows what he's doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

But the question really comes down to: do you trust Tarantino to write a role, cast it and direct the actor to get exactly what he wants? 

 

Honesty? No. I've often read that Tarantino has wished to work with DiCaprio, and now that he's actually going to be getting the chance, it seems like he's crossing his fingers, hoping to make him work in a role he's not suited for. Supposedly Tarantino had wanted DiCaprio for the role of Hanz Landa. Would that have worked as well had it been DiCaprio, and not Waltz playing that role? I don't think it would. It's not as if directors can't make the wrong choices. Coppola might have thought Keanu Reeves was perfect for Bram Stoker's Dracula, but look how that turned out.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis 

Nobody cares that you read the script. Most of us are trusting in Tarintino's vision and that he knows what he's doing.

I can't say I give a shit if you care or not. I'm not mentioning having read the script so I can brag about it. The Rain Dog was suggesting that I was implying I knew more about the character than Tarantino. That's not what I'm doing. All I have to go by is how Tarantino himself wrote the script, and having read it, having read how Tarantino wrote Candie, I have to question the idea of casting DiCaprio. Before DiCaprio's name was even mentioned, people who had read the script were suggesting actors like Harvey Keitel, Powers Boothe, Ian McShane, and Keith Carradine. Do these actors sound anything like DiCaprio? Those of us who've read the script imagined the character looking and sounding a certain way, since Tarantino wrote him a certain way. If Tarantino wants to cast DiCaprio, fine, it's his movie. But that's not how the character is written right now, it's not the character I am familiar with, so I'm going to give my opinion.

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and trust in QT personally - he's not let me down yet. Cheers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by t3cii 
Would that have worked as well had it been DiCaprio, and not Waltz playing that role? I don't think it would. It's not as if directors can't make the wrong choices. Coppola might have thought Keanu Reeves was perfect for Bram Stoker's Dracula, but look how that turned out.

 

Considering what we got with Waltz as Landa, I would say that I'm very glad that DiCaprio didn't play that role.  But I also say that as someone who has trouble connecting to Leo's performances. 

But doesn't this very situation speak well of what Tarantino can do when thrown a curveball?  He didn't get his original choice (lots of filmmakers don't get their initial choice) and made do with it to fantastic results.  Perhaps he can turn what didn't work out with Basterds to Django's benefit.  Sure, directors can make 'wrong' choices, but Tarantino seems to be on a good run of casting luck (going from Beatty to Costner to Carradine!).  

Who knows?  Maybe something will happen and Leo will have to drop out.

There's also the fact that Tarantino will probably have to do some rewriting, which happens with any script. Who's to say he won't rewrite the character more to DiCaprio's strengths?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and trust in QT personally - he's not let me down yet. Cheers.

Fair enough. Hey, I'd probably be in the same boat as most of you if I hadn't gone ahead and read the script. So I would probably trust Tarantino's instincts. But the character that DiCaprio is playing is more than just a brief description to me, and I can't pretend like I didn't read the script. If the character was just described as being a southern man of undetermined age, I wouldn't be able to make much of a case for DiCaprio not being cast in this. But since the character is written as an older man, it's hard for me to see DiCaprio in the role, and it makes me a bit confused as to what Tarantino has in mind. I think some people might be under the impression that the role was written with DiCaprio specifically in mind, but reading the script I don't think that is the case. And that's true of Foxx as Django as well. When the character is described as being skinny (and I have reason to believe, young)  Jamie Foxx's name isn't the first name to come to mind.

     Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Considering what we got with Waltz as Landa, I would say that I'm very glad that DiCaprio didn't play that role.  But I also say that as someone who has trouble connecting to Leo's performances. 

 

But doesn't this very situation speak well of what Tarantino can do when thrown a curveball?  He didn't get his original choice (lots of filmmakers don't get their initial choice) and made do with it to fantastic results.  Perhaps he can turn what didn't work out with Basterds to Django's benefit.  Sure, directors can make 'wrong' choices, but Tarantino seems to be on a good run of casting luck (going from Beatty to Costner to Carradine!).  

 

Who knows?  Maybe something will happen and Leo will have to drop out.

 

I have trouble connecting to his performances too, and I'll admit that's where much of my bias against him is coming from. But I'm also not of the opinion that any actor can play any role. Sometimes outside the box casting can work (like with Ben Kingsley in Sexy Beast), but I don't know if DiCaprio has ever done anything to suggest he could tackle a role like Marvin Candie. Plus he'd be acting opposite Waltz and Jackson, two actors who I think would overpower him.
 

     Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

There's also the fact that Tarantino will probably have to do some rewriting, which happens with any script. Who's to say he won't rewrite the character more to DiCaprio's strengths?

I was under the impression that he would move right into filming once the cast has been set.  He might rewrite the character, although I think it's more likely that he'll simply won't comment on how old Candie is. The script didn't really comment on his age either, it's just through bits of dialogue that we assume the character is in his late 40's, early 50's. Some people think casting a younger actor in the role wouldn't change the character, but I think it would. I think an older actors are able to convey a sense of authority easier than younger actors, and in a different way than younger actors. Candie is a character who has been around the block, and I don't get that quality from someone like DiCaprio. 

I never picked up on any particular hints to CALVIN Candie's age in the script, merely that Stephen is older than him.  Also, "being around the block" in the Old West doesn't mean you have to be in your 50's.  People didn't tend to live as long back then and reached "manhood" in their teens.  I can easily seen DiCaprio (who is 36) being filthy rich and owning a ton of land/slaves.  He might not be the type I pictured in my head when reading the script, but he isn't blatantly miscast either.  Leo has it in him to pull this off, otherwise Quentin wouldn't have hired him.

I don't think DiCaprio "looking the part" is very important. This just makes me think back to "The Aviator".  I think that out of all the actors who could have been cast as Howard Hughes, he's one of the possibilities who looked the least like the man, a much more rugged, mature-looking person (even in his youth). Ultimately, it didn't matter, because DiCaprio seemed to really nail the character psychologically. Other than in "The Aviator" and "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?", I haven't found his acting very impressive. I feel that he tends to appear quite similar in every role, especially lately with so many consecutive 'tortured soul' performances. I like this casting because I think it will push him to try something different and break out of this tedious pattern he's been locked into as an actor in recent years. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by t3cii 

All I have to go by is how Tarantino himself wrote the script

 

 

 

Exactly. ALL you have to go on. So tired of the people who think they know what QT should do because they've read the script.

QT made me care about Michael Madsen, John Travolta, Pam Grier, Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, and Til Schweiger for the first time in my life. He's pound-for-pound the best casting director in Hollywood. He could cast Roseanne Barr and I would love it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

 

Exactly. ALL you have to go on. So tired of the people who think they know what QT should do because they've read the script.

 

Oh, for the love of...

I am basing my opinion on how Tarantino, not you, not anyone else in this thread, wrote the fucking character. If he wrote the character as being an old man, I'd think he should cast an old man, if he wrote the character as being really fat, I'd think he should cast an actor who was really fat. I'm basing my opinion on the information that he gives in the script. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Saying that QT, the guy who wrote the (possibly out-of-date) script, has woefully miscast a role when you have NO idea what revisions/alterations/approach the man is taking, is irritating bullshit. This character originated with him. I think he may know what will and won't work for the story he has in mind.

EDIT: Just to expand so as not to come across as being rude: you're second-guessing one of the most gifted film-makers of our time based on one building block of the finished film. This is why I have a generally negative view of reading scripts before release - you've let one element of the finished poduct dictate your reaction to it. You now have an idea of Calvin Candie that QT has to live up to. You can try and argue that's not the case, but it's pretty obvious from your reaction to this news. It's such an assbackwards way to approach an upcoming film. You're putting your film-making insincts on a higher pedestal than those of the guy who wrote the script!

What are some previous QT roles that were woefully miscast?  I find this fascinating.  Help me understand why people aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt here.

Remember three years ago, when everyone was lamenting pretty boy Brad Pitt being in a QT movie, in a role that was so obviously supposed to be played by a Lee Marvin type? Remember, Internet, how everyone read the script and started harrumphing that Aldo was miscast?

Yeah. Shut the fuck up, Internet.

Well said, Greg.

Also....ACTING! And make up, costuming, any physical conditioning. You'd be surprised at the sheer amount of stuff you can do to a person to make them look different. Leo is great at what he does and if QT thinks he can do it, then alright.

Some audio commentary that I listened to said filmaking had three distinct methods of influencing a film's final quality: script, shooting, and editing. A crap script with great shots and a fabulous editor can do well. A great script with the other two being mediocrely handled can turn out poorly.  That's why I love watching the butterfly, not the stupid ass egg sac that spawns a catepillar.

"Gutted"? Hahaha

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

Remember three years ago, when everyone was lamenting pretty boy Brad Pitt being in a QT movie, in a role that was so obviously supposed to be played by a Lee Marvin type? Remember, Internet, how everyone read the script and started harrumphing that Aldo was miscast?

 

Yeah. Shut the fuck up, Internet.

I don't remember this being a common sentiment. Tyler Durden/Jesse James pretty much nullifed Pitt's perception as a mere pretty boy, alone. Heck, I'd say as far back as 12 Monkeys, folks were already percieving Pitt as a character actor in a movie star's body.

Plus I'm pretty sure Quentin actually wrote the role for Pitt. He's wanted to work with him for years and was waiting for just the right project. He'd always been grateful for what he added to Floyd in True Romance.

The man even made Mike Myers bearable.  Allow it!

I remember when QT cast Carradine in Kill Bill. I was disappointed. I couldn't see it, I was stuck imagining Warren Beatty for the role. Then I saw the movie, and I never doubted QT again. As much as I would have liked to see someone other than Jamie Foxx (just spelling his name with two x's bugs the fuck out of me) in the title role, I have to trust QT's decisions. I'm sure DiCaprio will be excellent in the film.

EDITED to salvage my grammatical holocaust  

Pitt had long left being just a pretty boy behind when he did Seven and 12 Monkeys, but there was pretty prevalent moaning that he wasn't right for an authoritative military man in the vein of Lee Marvin or James Coburn. Then we got our first glimpse of him and BOOM! the tunes were changed. 

Moreso, it feels like the same routine every time Tarantino gets behind the camera: he's repeating himself, he's getting too far away from what made us like him in the first place, the cast doesn't fit, blah blah blah blah blah--and of course, the movie comes out, and of course, it's brilliants.

People said he couldn't do action before Kill Bill. People said his best days were behind him before Inglourious Basterds. Maybe, JUST MAYBE THIS ONCE, we just trust his judgement?

Put it another way: Tarantino went after Daniel Day Lewis for Vince in Pulp Fiction. DDL turned it down. QT went with his second choice, John Travolta. If the internet had existed then, the screams would have been nigh unthinkable. But look what that got us.

Uh wait, I thought DDL pursued the role of Vincent, and Tarantino turned him down. Otherwise, I completely agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

 

Put it another way: Tarantino went after Daniel Day Lewis for Vince in Pulp Fiction. DDL turned it down. QT went with his second choice, John Travolta. If the internet had existed then, the screams would have been nigh unthinkable. But look what that got us.

Another fantastic example.

But man, would I love to have a glimpse of the alternate timeline where DDL got the part... so curious.

EDIT:  Spider, IMDB trivia confirms your post.  But then again... it's IMDB.  Hehehe

I've heard it both ways, but the one I hear more often is Tarantino had DDL in mind, DDL said no (and later expressed supreme regret about it), so QT cast Travolta. 

Course, in early drafts is was supposed to be Michael Madsen from Reservoir Dogs. More alterna-universes!

To paint another picture: it's 1970. The Godfather's getting ready to be made into a motion picture. Paramount wants an Italian to direct, asks living film god (and Most Italian Man Ever) Sergio Leone. Leone says no; Paramount goes with a lesser known director, Francis Ford Coppola, who had never directed anything even remotely similar. Point is, you never know how great a not-obvious choice can be.

Heath Ledger as The Joker.  Daniel Craig as Bond.

OK, I thought I had heard it that way, but it certainly could've been Tarantino's own idea to pursue DDL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

Remember three years ago, when everyone was lamenting pretty boy Brad Pitt being in a QT movie, in a role that was so obviously supposed to be played by a Lee Marvin type? Remember, Internet, how everyone read the script and started harrumphing that Aldo was miscast?

 

Yeah. Shut the fuck up, Internet.

Dear Greg,

Never change please.

Sincerely

The Rain Dog.

Opinions are like Assholes everyone has one. Pitt did fine and DiCaprio will not be terrible. So what.

Aldo had what 3 scenes? He certainly wasn't Lee Marvin.

QT has a great eye for talent that isn't up for debate from me.

I like diversity especially opinions. DiCaprio is taking risks and I admire that pure and simple and again QT to me is not above reproach (Basterds either).

God bless gods garden of different colored people and their different opinions.

Let's not pretend QT has a perfect casting record. The first group of girls in Death Proof were horrible and so was Eli Roth in Basterds. And Lucy Liu, as much as I'm madly in love with her, was laughable delivering her fancy monologue in Kill Bill. Least convincing badass crime boss that side of Tom Wilkinson's toothless Carmine Falcone

On the other hand, over the last half decade I've come to have enough confidence in Leo to assume he'll do fine.

Leo's had very little chance to chew the scenery in his career up to this point. I have a sneaking suspicion he's going to relish this villain role and come up with something quite special.

I think most people would disagree with you on all those points, Bucho.

I don't know Elvis, nobody I know likes the first half of Death Proof and Eli was widely fingered as the weak link in Basterds.

Heh ... "widely fingered".

To be fair Lucy Liu was good during most of the rest of her Kill Bill role but the lameness of that speech always stuck with me.

As much as I've voiced misgivings about the Django script recently-ish, DiCaprio is going to own this role. His boyishness has an inherent insecurity that Scorsese has of course capitalized on to no end -- the immature vibe he projects, and his characters' efforts to suppress it and compensate for it, is much of what makes DiCaprio a compelling actor. That quality is ripe to be exploited in a villainous role, and Tarantino clearly knows it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

I never picked up on any particular hints to CALVIN Candie's age in the script, merely that Stephen is older than him.  Also, "being around the block" in the Old West doesn't mean you have to be in your 50's.  People didn't tend to live as long back then and reached "manhood" in their teens.  I can easily seen DiCaprio (who is 36) being filthy rich and owning a ton of land/slaves.  He might not be the type I pictured in my head when reading the script, but he isn't blatantly miscast either.  Leo has it in him to pull this off, otherwise Quentin wouldn't have hired him.

what is Harvey Keitel up to these days?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucho 

I don't know Elvis, nobody I know likes the first half of Death Proof and Eli was widely fingered as the weak link in Basterds.

 

I actually prefer the first half of Deathproof - Russell just seems like hes having more fun.  Maybe the second group of girls are better, but once they get on screen, the movie is covering familiar ground and I get bored.  Deathproofs issues lie more in the script than the casting.

As for Eli, its obvious watching him that hes not an actor.  But he plays it broad and cartoony and after seeing the movie, I couldn't imagine anyone BUT Roth in the role.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucho 

I don't know Elvis, nobody I know likes the first half of Death Proof and Eli was widely fingered as the weak link in Basterds.

 

Heh ... "widely fingered".

 

To be fair Lucy Liu was good during most of the rest of her Kill Bill role but the lameness of that speech always stuck with me.

Hi, I'm Bancroft Agee and I liked the first half of Death Proof (in fact I liked both halves of Death Proof but that's another debate) and didn't consider Roth a weak link. So now you know at least one person.

I'm more worried about DiCaprio trying to muddle through some half assed Southern accent than I am his ability to portray and embody the character of Candle.

I dunno, Pitt's ridiculous Southern accent worked in Basterds, didn't it? I can see DiCaprio having a similar kind of fun with that kind of exaggerated voice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee 

Hi, I'm Bancroft Agee and I liked the first half of Death Proof (in fact I liked both halves of Death Proof but that's another debate) and didn't consider Roth a weak link. So now you know at least one person.

 

I'm gonna go ahead here and say I flat out love the first half of Death Proof. Two persons!

In my opinion, the worst cast actor in any of Quentin Tarantino's movies is Quentin Tarantino.

Things must be pretty slow around here if Leonardo Dicaprio being cast in a Quentin Tarantino film is cause for anyone's concern.