The thing is Schultz had already shown that he was willing to participate in slavery when he bought Django from the men at the beginning of the film. Now he made up for this by turning the purchase into a mutual arrangement where he would give Django his freedom if he helped him, but he showed that he was willing to…

Yeah, I remember Samuel L Jackson saying Tarantino was hurt that people didn't love Jackie Brown more and that may have affected his future decisions. Still, while very self indulgent, I think it was pretty ballsy to release Basterds in theaters. He could have easily made a fun, crowd pleasing "Nazi scalp hunt", but…

Yeah, I remember Samuel L Jackson saying Tarantino was hurt that people didn't love Jackie Brown more and that may have affected his future decisions. Still, while very self indulgent, I think it was pretty ballsy to release Basterds in theaters. He could have easily made a fun, crowd pleasing "Nazi scalp hunt", but…

I don't know, I'm actually kind of torn on whether or not it made sense for Waltz's character to do that. I definitely think Waltz needed to die before the third act so that Django would have to save Broomhilda alone, but part of me has a problem believing that he would have shot Calvin like that. Was he not the guy…

I don't know, I'm actually kind of torn on whether or not it made sense for Waltz's character to do that. I definitely think Waltz needed to die before the third act so that Django would have to save Broomhilda alone, but part of me has a problem believing that he would have shot Calvin like that. Was he not the guy…

@avclub-cf50b28ef624912ff106c57ca9be41dc:disqus I've seen the film and Django becoming a bounty hunter is apart of a deal he enters into with Schultz in order to develop his skills and eventually rescue his wife. He definitely does get to enact vengeance on certain people, but its never his main goal, only a bonus.

@avclub-cf50b28ef624912ff106c57ca9be41dc:disqus I've seen the film and Django becoming a bounty hunter is apart of a deal he enters into with Schultz in order to develop his skills and eventually rescue his wife. He definitely does get to enact vengeance on certain people, but its never his main goal, only a bonus.

I don't think its correct to call Deathproof or Django revenge fantasies. The revenge element at the end of Deathproof is a twist that turns the slasher formula on its head, but the movie isn't really a revenge fantasy. Even in Django, his main aim is to rescue his wife and in Basterds Shosonna is one part of a larger…

I don't think its correct to call Deathproof or Django revenge fantasies. The revenge element at the end of Deathproof is a twist that turns the slasher formula on its head, but the movie isn't really a revenge fantasy. Even in Django, his main aim is to rescue his wife and in Basterds Shosonna is one part of a larger…

"I think he would prefer fans open to multiple interpretations of his
work, not dogmatic acolytes who can demand one interpretation."

"I think he would prefer fans open to multiple interpretations of his
work, not dogmatic acolytes who can demand one interpretation."

You should read Alan Sepinwall's take on the finale since hes one of the biggest critics who does believe that Tony doesn't die. His main reasoning is that the show didn't usually operate in that way, because we usually knew if there were any forces conspiring against Tony. I find the argument to be kind of weak…

You should read Alan Sepinwall's take on the finale since hes one of the biggest critics who does believe that Tony doesn't die. His main reasoning is that the show didn't usually operate in that way, because we usually knew if there were any forces conspiring against Tony. I find the argument to be kind of weak…

That may be the case, but considering how long the NY/NJ conflict had been building up and how much screen time he gave to certain other story lines, particularly in season 6A, I guess I wish he would have used more balance. Instead of spending all that time on Vito, Hesh, Artie, or Tony's sudden gambling problem, why…

That may be the case, but considering how long the NY/NJ conflict had been building up and how much screen time he gave to certain other story lines, particularly in season 6A, I guess I wish he would have used more balance. Instead of spending all that time on Vito, Hesh, Artie, or Tony's sudden gambling problem, why…

David Chase has flat out said that a lot of people don't get the ending, and seemed genuinely disappointed by this even wondering if he could have done better. He also proudly singled out a blog post that got it. I think all of this says that Chase genuinely wants the audience to walk away with a single interpretation…

David Chase has flat out said that a lot of people don't get the ending, and seemed genuinely disappointed by this even wondering if he could have done better. He also proudly singled out a blog post that got it. I think all of this says that Chase genuinely wants the audience to walk away with a single interpretation…

If the show had ended like that, I would felt about it the same way I did much of season 6B. Brilliant unto itself, but disappointing when put in the larger context of the rest of the show.

If the show had ended like that, I would felt about it the same way I did much of season 6B. Brilliant unto itself, but disappointing when put in the larger context of the rest of the show.

It may not matter to the larger point that Chase intended to make with the finale, but I agree with the point @Reagan2:disqus   is making. And I'm not even saying definitively that Tony died, but it doesn't make sense to me to reject an interpretation because it robs it of the mystery or its too simple.