Does Django's Unchained's ending make sense? (SPOILER)

This kind of bothers me a bit. I really like Tarantino's "Django Unchained", but the first time I saw it, I assumed Candy was selling them a "mandingo" fighter for $12,000 and thus painting them into a corner where they had to get rough. I have watched it a couple more times and it now seems that the $12,000 was going to pay for Django's wife. Granted, $12,000 was a fortune back then, but King Schultz seemed to have some bucks. Wouldn't the final trade being for the fighter rather than the wife reinforced the roles of the good guys vs. the bad guys that much more? The enlightened vs. the uncivilized?

Perhaps I am missing something though because throughout the movie I thought Tarantino had a great eye for character development. For instance, King Schultz staving off thoughts of the dog attack while begging the harpist to cease with the Beethoven so as to preserve his admiration for the composition.

Now, if you excuse me; I am going to go rinse my mouth out for even using the word "mandingo." That, was some serious bullsh*t.

I thought it was dumb that he masqueraded as a human trafficker in the first place. He should have just offered a lot of money for the girl from the start.

@Aljosa23: pretty much. The entire plot doesn't make a lot of sense.

And his reasoning for buying her could just be that he's German and she speaks german

He did use the fact that she speaks German as a reason to want to buy her. They knew he wouldn't sell her to them if they ask directly since he's a violent racist that obviously wouldn't want to reunite a black guy with his wife, so they had to get into the house and then pretend to meet her for the first time and then buy her.

@toast_burner: well they didn't have to reveal the reuniting part when they bought her

I don't agree with that interpretation. Yeah sure he's a huge racist but I highly doubt he would care that much to decline a large sum of money from Django. To Calvin Candie black people are just property like a chair or some cattle on the farm, he didn't have any emotional attachment one way or the other to them. He only got mad because they wasted his time pretending to want to buy a mandingo fighter.

If I remember correctly they needed a reason for him to take them back to his home so that they could find the wife - and the only way to do that was to pretend to want one of the fighters. THEN once they got there they could say they wanted the woman because she spoke German.

They didn't. Candies servant was listening in on them and then told Candie.

Hmmm, I may have to re-watch it. I've only seen it once. But isn't that after they came up with their plan anyways

Altogether I'd say that:

1.) Anyone who likes shoot-em-ups should see this, and....

2.) Why Django Unchained requires a certain amount of suspension-of-disbelief it is far less than many other movies require. (For instance, I am bored as hell with all these item-of-power plots in Marvel movies; it's like watching a computer-generated kick-the-can game. Another example is George Lucas bringing back the Deathstar for Episode 6. Really, George? You got nothin' else?)

3.) And the only plot-point I might have a problem with is the one I originally highlighted. If they were not going to leave with the wife they would have NEEDED to shoot it out rather than WANTED to shoot it out. But even in this instance, Quentin let us know just how revolted Doctor King was by Candy. Shaking hands was not an option.

If Quentin cared what I thought -- and he doesn't -- it would be fun to ask him about this. If I ever spoke to Quentin -- and I won't -- it would be fun to ask him about this.

Yeah this. Problem was Samuel Jackson knew something was off there from the girl's reaction and the way Django was looking at her.

Never been a fan of the "well they could have" arguments against films. Sure they could have done something else, but they didn't. A viewer/reader etc. can always come up with other possible ways of going about a plotline - the whole point of a story is to show how something happens when those specific events occurred. No one wants to see the Django story that ends with "Can we please buy your slave? " "Well surely!" *credits*

I've only seen it once as well so maybe I'm wrong but the way I remember it is that they learn that Candie has Djangos wife. Doubtful that he will sell her to them if they ask directly they come up with a plan to go in looking to buy a fighter, while there the German guy would get to know Djangos wife and then ask Candie if he can buy her as well since it would be nice to have someone to talk in German with. The plan almost worked but shortly before they were going to sign the papers Candies assistant spotted Django and his wife together, which he then told Candie about. As they are about to sign the papers candy then goes on a rant about white superiority and then holds them all at gun point revealing to them that he knows their plan.

I agree offering an enormous fund (for the girl) would have gotten Candie's attention and he might have agreed; however the way I saw it was it would be weird for King to somehow know alot of about this one slave, whose only unique trait is she speaks German. I'm sure Candie would have wanted an explanation for it all; thus it is easier to masquerade and buy fighters, and 'happen' to find and get this random slave in the bargain.

I think it was because if Dicaprio hears that a slave wants to buy back his wife he might just kill her because he's such an evil son of a bitch. OR he might charge a ridiculous amount for her. It was just easier for them to pretend to buy a mandingo.

The movie was decent, not Tarantino's best work, might even be his worst work, but even that is better than 95% of whats out there.

I really liked Django Unchained. You wouldn't know that from my subject line above but softening my language made the title too long and unpostable. My top 3 Tarantino movies are:

1.) Pulp Fiction (or as Jack Black's character would say in 'High Fidelity'. "Very safe choice, Fire Wa11. Veeeeeeeeeery P*SSY!")

2.) Django Unchained

3.) Kill Bill Volume 2.

I don't get what exactly your confused about. They never planned on buying the fighter. The act they put on was to put on a fake interest for the fighter to get Candy's attention, and to invite him back to his home. Of course, they knew Django's wife was there, but acted surprise like "oh, you have a German speaking slave, I'd like to buy her from you because I'm German and miss speaking my language", and they'd of got her cheap versus the king's ransom they ended up paying. And then of course Schultz, Django & wife would leave with Candy under the assumption they'd be back to buy the fighter, which of course they never planned on doing. When learning that Django's wife was the real prize, that $12,000 for her is what they ended up paying after Candy learned that he'd be deceived.

The more confusing part about it of course was that they had Django's wife, and were free to go. And yes Candy was a despicable person, but the issue I have is would Schultz have lost his cool and killed Candy or had the sense to walk out with his life. Sure, it's a rough plot point for him to kill Candy. Then again it's probably worth taking note that Tarantino has nearly always kept one foot in the exploitation genre, stylistically at least. Maybe Schultz's death was just a convenient plot device for the rather exceptionally gratuitous and bloody shootout scene that transpired.

But the black guy did earn himself a nice tall beer, though. So was it wrong after all?

Offering tons of money for one slave would have been very suspicious. Hence the reason for getting the fighter first and her for a little extra. I don't see what is so hard to understand.

When Candy turns the tables on King and Django, it might have made more sense for the bad guys to force the $12 grand fighter on them rather than letting them buy what he really knew they wanted, Django's wife. I just see it as a missed story opportunity by someone who made a lot of money NOT missing story opportunities. I suspect Tarantino realized this as he has a good idea for making Django a somewhat believable story. I will give you an example.

django should never have been there in the 1st place.

schultz goes in, takes an interest in a german speaking girl, buys the girl and gets out.

but once again stupid things happen in fiction because that's the way they happen.

once you start pulling strings there is almost not one well written thought out story in any medium.

Hmm I only saw the movie once in Theaters and since it's on Netflix, I'll need to watch it and then comeback later to talk about it.