They say the robbery happened in 1822, '22, about 36 years before this scene, so the guy probably had not even met his wife when he committed the robbery and the murders. (The movie is happening in 1858)
I love how at 0:40 Schulz tells him “Don’t worry I’m not mad at you”. In a movie that’s filled to the brim with violence (I’m not complaining), moments like these really stand out in a good way. That’s what Tarantino has down to a science, his films aren’t just about the objective, they’re also about the character. Plus Schulz saying that really backs up when he says “I feel responsible for you”, he doesn’t view Django as a slave or a partner, but as if he were his own son.
Also this scene foreshadows Schulz's death. He's teaching Django how to read and shoot and be a bounty hunter, just like the soon-to-be-shot bounty down there is teaching his own son to till the land.
it kinda gives me goosebumps how the kid kinda chuckles the first few seconds after his dad is shot, like he thinks his dad is playing some joke on him, or a prank.
Shultz gives him the paper to hold for Goodluck. This really saved him from the Lequint Dickey mining company. He managed to convinced those guys about being a bounty hunter and they believed him when he showed them the paper.
@@EZ-D-FIANT this is silly logic. Its a clever solution to a problem. Plotarmor would be django convincing the slavers he was a bounty hunter without it
@@luisguevara-bolanos4046 Yeah, but it's about the kid. He didn't want to kill a child's father right in front of him, then go down to collect his body. That poor boy is now going to live a hard life.
@@jackiechan6460 Definitely, but he pays the price for his fathers crimes. I don't agree with this practise today, since we have the social integrity and prisons to hold people so it's unnecessary to kill them, but back then I understand that they didn't have the means to lock up all the criminals. Bounty hunt was dirty work, but it had to be done.
@@Mediados Oh yeah, pretty cool that part of the state budget goes to feeding and providing free home for some people. Hell, at least half the inmate's expenses should be covered by their family.
@@francotacha5487 Oh please you're acting as if the state is so poor and couldn't afford anything. Of all the states in the world, the USA can pay for almost everything.
The Smitty Bacall Gang must've done some real awful shit to have that level of bounty on them. This scene is almost like the darker version of 'Unforgiven' when you think about it.
@@hansolobutimdead $260,458.90 to be precise, pretty terrifying situation knowing that you really are worth an immense amount of money for your actions and at any time can be caught or killed
@@harrellt1405it was common especially during the proper Wild West days for the companies involved to pitch in large amounts too. After all, if a train or stage route gets consistently robbed, they don't just lose the money that was taken but also risk losing business due to not being safe. The last big robbery of Hole In The Wall Gang is a great example. By the end each of them had multiple thousands of dollars to each of their heads.
Smitty's corpse is worth over $200k when adjusting the $7000 for inflation O.o. Shit, the moment I found out about that, I'd have killed him myself without hesitation.
@@SuperMurray2009 I mean it was still very dangerous and many bounty hunters got killed by their quarry. Bounties are put on people that the law enforcement couldn't find or fight by themselves
I was thinking the same thing I'm like wait John bought a farm young after robbing and killing a bunch of people weird how when a story is told in 1 way you can see him as a hero but looking at a similar person from djangos perspective you see it totally different
"Crazy Craig Koons” (his name is spotted on a wanted poster); Koons is also the last name of Christopher Walken’s character in “Pulp Fiction,” the captain who visits young Butch to return his father’s war watch.
This is supposed to leave you conflicted. Who thinks it's right to kill a father in front of his kid? No matter what he may have done in the past. In THAT moment, he is a father, teaching his son... and by killing him, you are consigning that son to a hellish life. Who thinks it's right to let a murderer live out his days with a family, when he's done his share of destroying families and shattering lives? Having a son doesn't absolve you of your wrongs, nor does it protect you from the vengeance of the people that you've wronged. Who thinks it's right to kill for money, preying on the anguish of the bereaved to put cash in your pockets? You may be a servant of the law, but does that remove the moral responsibility from your shoulders? Does that make it ok to kill a man, no matter the mitigating circumstances? Who thinks it's right for murderers to go unpunished just b/c the people they've killed don't have anybody strong enough to seek justice? Should the weak/untrained be forced to watch their loved ones die just because they are not PERSONALLY able to take a life? ... These are all wrongs, and individually you can argue against each of them, but at the same time, they can't ALL be 100% wrong, because then none of them can be right.
@@braydenfarrell1177 The issue is from what lens of justice should it be served? To the children, where is the justice for them? In their eyes, they were robbed of their father in a brutal way. And before due process or does that get waived when it suits? It's why it's usually said "in the eyes of the law" rather than "In the eyes of justice". Because true justice is very hard to find and harder to be sure it is executed properly. Now, this isn't to say some version of justice wasn't served nor am I taking on some moral high horse. You bring up a good point and I can't answer it with my own that can stand up to scrutiny. And as a fellow Irishman myself, I do know some of the atrocities the IRA committed. But from their eyes, as we once felt under British rule, they wanted justice and freedom.
What about the parents and family of the people Smitty killed? Don't they deserve justice? What about their childhood that was taken by him or the spouses that never came home because he wanted to rob a stagecoach?
This movie has a ton of references to other greater films. Shultz's littler derringer wrist contraption is a direct reference to Taxi Driver for those who don't know. This movie is just fantastic through and through.
I have shot an older rifle like that before (springfield trapdoor) and there really is a bit of a delay and very audible slip even against dirt or paper targets from the blackpower slow burning loads they used. That was probably the most realistic gunshot in this movie.
Nah man this was a scene that you forget really quickly and people who watch it where like "oh no anyway" you never saw that kids face and you didn't feel bad for him that long. Its still a good idea but not for this movie tho it would be interesting for a movie like kill bill with that little girl that wants revenge bc the main character killed her mother
@@prestigehunter9729 i never forgot it. it just never sat right with me that these guys always had the choice to take in targets dead OR alive and they always chose death. and for the slavers? yeah ain't gonna sympathize with those guys dying, but with this guy, it was different. based on just what little we've seen.
It's sad because Smitty Becall most likely fell in love with a woman, which probably led him to stray from that life of crime and find peace in a loving family and the simple farming life. But like John Marston found out, the government has its toll.
I've got my own little theory that the Smitty he shot is actually django from the original 1966 django movie. In the original ending he gave up his gun and walked away. What if this was actually that django, who had given up on violence and started a farm.
@@ponkpunk0 i meant that bit when he's at the bar with the guy who asks him his name. When jamie foxx says "the D is silent", the other guy says "I know". it's a neat little cameo, because he was the guy that actually played Django in 1966
@@kingofburnttoast I don't think that's canonically THE Django though Or I don't know. Maybe it is. I hope it isn't. In the context of the movie that guy was forcing his slaves into blood sports
I get that the guy was a robber and murderer, but they could've probably just snuck up on him, held him at gunpoint, restrained him, then brought him to prison alive. didn't have to just assassinate the guy right in front of his kid which probably traumatized said child.
It was the Old West, the kid probably would’ve seen a dead body anyways, I think you’re viewing this in the perspective of a real child today instead of a gory spaghetti western setting. This shit did happen back then.
I gotta buy that 1874 Sharps rifle in Hunter classic now. 45-70 Gov't. Very powerful rifle with pretty good range on it too...at least for iron sights.
The 15th longest confirmed kill with a rifle is still held by one of these chambered in .50-90, Billy Dixon in the battle of Adobo Walls. Notably every shot above him is by a gun chambering either .50 BMG, 14.5 or .338. All of which are so much flatter shooting. Billy Dixon basically aimed a fucking mortar shot by comparison. Also, the only other black powder firearm in the top 20 is a goddamn Whitworth muzzle loading rifle which is insane. Those things were so ahead of their time.
@@tomaspabon2484 Wasn't the Whitworth a British gun but Britain wasn't interested because it was hard to load and was smaller in caliber than they would have preferred...even though the marksmanship was effective when it was used against them during the civil war...or have I got things mixed up?
Sometimes it's hard to remember that killing dangerous criminals for a bounty is the business that you're in when there's an innocent involved. But that's when you take a breath and remind yourself that it's a business and not personal.
Killing someone is never just business, especially in front of their family. He also had a choice to take his bounties alive, and always chose dead. If this was real life hopefully that boy had his own gun and got revenge for his pops.
@@redhothchilipeppers6299 Revenge for the revenge of his fathers own decisions? That doesn't make sense. The original revenge was to bring him dead or alive, and now you advocate for his son to enact revenge for his father which requires him to commit illegal acts, thus continuing the cycle? lol. Maybe you should think things through before you say them.
@@BadMannerKorea If someone just executed my father right in front of me and I had a chance to end the murderer's rampage then and there, I'd take it. It's self-defense at that point and in defense of future victims of this so called "bounty hunter". Makes perfect sense actually, not my fault you have a brick for a brain.
I wonder, what if this guy is trying to change his life...like regret what he did and start anew. I know its not fair to those who were victims but i always wondered about these situations
It seems like he did want to just live a simple life now. Had a boy, seemed like a good father. But murdering people caught up with him. The real loser here is the kid. He's going to have to fend for himself now.
Sadly, even if that was the case, him starting anew and probably had a redemption arc to atone for his crimes made no semblance of any difference as the government required him to pay for his crimes
I love how this scene showed that Django has empathy and compassion, he wants to kill white folk but then understands his little boy is with him and it’s difficult mental hurdle
Also, Django tells Shultz that his wife was an educated slave that belonged originally to a German Slaver and his wife, who taught Broomhilde to read and speak German.
0:58 you ever notice that the Wanted Posters always say Dead OR Alive and yet Schulz never takes anyone in alive? Why not? Pretty sure two guys armed with rifles and a wanted poster with the guys face would be enough to force the guy to cooperate?
Because before Django he was a lone bounty hunter so he never could and Django is being trained to be alone too. There is a lot of risk transporting someone alive. You don't have to watch dead men, feed them, they can't run away, they can't fight, or try and kill you. It's just not worth the effort for no extra cost.
Live bounties are more trouble. They could try to escape, get friends/family to try and free them, come after you for revenge if they get free. Corpses are much easier
You have to take into account the context of the film. In the 1850s the risk vs reward of bringing in a wanted criminal was simply not worth it. A body simply needs to be kept in an identifiable state until it is handed off to the authorities. A prisoner has to be kept secure, fed, and watered, they need to be watched and monitored, any interaction with them has the potential to become deadly to the bounty hunter, and travel can take a long time. All that effort for what? A trial that if the person is found guilty, they're probably going to hang at the end of a rope anyway? Easier to persuade a corpse to turn themselves in than a person.
How do they collect the corpse? Won't the family start shooting before Schultz has time to explain that he is a bounty hunter who can't be interfered with by law?
Probably, but then they could shoot to, in there self defense in the performance of there duties. Tragic? Yes, but if it's you or them, you pick you every time.
This scene just blends well; so much in fact that even though they are just talking, you forget that they're there to kill folk. Now that's storytelling. 👍
Se necesita Honor para capacitar a alguien que no tiene derechos pero al mismo tiempo lo persuade para acabar con la vida de un bandido frente a su hijo
Tp put it in perspective, $7,000 in that time would be about a quarter million today. He was a bad dude. The scene only touches on the morality of killing him in front of his kid, which is bad enough, but it doesn't show them going down there in front of the kid to collect the body of his father, who, as far as he knows has never done anything wrong.
I think this was a turning point for Django's character and a sort of critique of what abolitionists like Nat Turner and John Brown were doing at the time; what their target was doing sure should be condemned, but killing him in front of his child like John Brown did with some pro-slavery settlers is just as disgusting. Here Django makes up his mind to not be entirely consumed by revenge and forget about freeing his wife.
Yeah that stuck out to me as well, the bounty amount in question is way high in regards to what the dollar was valued at in the 1860's. $7,000 back then was enough money to start your own company and then some. Just as a real life comparison, Billy the Kid - one of the most notorious outlaws in history - had a bounty of $500.
This scene has a giant continuity problem. Schultz said they would collect bounty through winter and go to Mississippi when the snow melt. This scene comes between two wintery scenes; when Django takes a bath in the snow and when he practice quickdraw on a snowman. But here the snow is gone. It’s all green and the man is plowing the field. This is clearly spring.
What Schulz’s didn’t understand at the time is that Django didn’t have an issue with killing the guy he just had a problem with killing him in front of his son. DJango was more worried about Smitty’s son having to watch his father die right in front of him rather than his dad dying in general.
And stagecoaches carried more than just money or trade goods, his point was that he probably let plenty of sons and daughters see their fathers die too, for nothing but greed and self service.
7000$ in 1858 is a lot of fucking money for one post car robber. Today that would be as much worth as 240.000$, which is a lot considering that the average prize for a hired assassin is about 20.000$ per contract.
Just to set the record straight; $7,000 bounties wasn't a thing in the 1860's. That amount was just Hollywood embellishment. In real life, bounties RARELY exceeded $1,000. For example; Billy The Kid's bounty was set at $500 and he was one of the most notorious outlaws in western U.S. history. He escaped jail and killed several people. (the exact amount of people slain is hotly debated even to this day)
I love comment saying that they should not have done that in front of the kid applying todays morality to the old west, witch is stupid. Was it messed up? Yes, so where a lot of things back then. The guy had $7000 on his head, so he was not a nice man. People say they could have brought him in alive? Yes, but then there's all the other factors to consider, other bounty hunters, him trying to escape, him trying to kill them, him fighting back, staying up and watching him, getting him to a place they can collect the bounty, because not every town has a place to do that, and it's not down the rode it could be a 3 to 4 day travel maybe even a week. Pulse the guy would hang anyway, he's not getting locked up, he will swing. They were there, he was there, in a open field defenseless dead to rights. It's not worth the time, effort, or trouble to bring in a live man that a dead one isn't for no extra cost.
I think would have are Django a much cooler character if he put his hatred for white men and slavers aside and at least attempted to bring his bounties in alive. He would still kill if he had to for self defense and to protect others. But it’d be cool if he tried to bring them in alive.
Smitty Bacall chose an unwise place to live (all those hills to shoot from), knowing that there was a huge price of $7000 on his head.
He probably thought it was isolated enough that no one would find him.
He pulled a John Marston and decided to hide in plain view.
I think he counted on bounty hunters to not expect him to hide on a simple farm.
Maybe he thought no one would find him, i mean that handbill is probably super old considering his kid is fairly old as well. Maybe 10 or more id say
They say the robbery happened in 1822, '22, about 36 years before this scene, so the guy probably had not even met his wife when he committed the robbery and the murders. (The movie is happening in 1858)
I love how at 0:40 Schulz tells him “Don’t worry I’m not mad at you”. In a movie that’s filled to the brim with violence (I’m not complaining), moments like these really stand out in a good way. That’s what Tarantino has down to a science, his films aren’t just about the objective, they’re also about the character. Plus Schulz saying that really backs up when he says “I feel responsible for you”, he doesn’t view Django as a slave or a partner, but as if he were his own son.
Especially with the touch that he makes Django read the handbill, and was clearly teaching Django a few things during their time together
@@meonkrishnanan5920 "Consider that today's lesson" Indeed!
I felt that he was a father Django probably never had.
Also this scene foreshadows Schulz's death. He's teaching Django how to read and shoot and be a bounty hunter, just like the soon-to-be-shot bounty down there is teaching his own son to till the land.
it kinda gives me goosebumps how the kid kinda chuckles the first few seconds after his dad is shot, like he thinks his dad is playing some joke on him, or a prank.
Shultz gives him the paper to hold for Goodluck. This really saved him from the Lequint Dickey mining company.
He managed to convinced those guys about being a bounty hunter and they believed him when he showed them the paper.
You could say it was good luck ;)
👍
It really was lucky, one might say, plot armour lucky......
@@EZ-D-FIANT this is silly logic. Its a clever solution to a problem. Plotarmor would be django convincing the slavers he was a bounty hunter without it
@@boserboser6870 yea cos them believing a black man is a bounty hunter isn't plot armour......🤣
Love how he switches from teacher to bounty hunter 😂
At least he had enough morality to not wanna shoot someone with a kid
@@luisguevara-bolanos4046 Yeah, but it's about the kid. He didn't want to kill a child's father right in front of him, then go down to collect his body. That poor boy is now going to live a hard life.
I would’ve waited till the kid wasn’t around.
@@jackiechan6460 Definitely, but he pays the price for his fathers crimes. I don't agree with this practise today, since we have the social integrity and prisons to hold people so it's unnecessary to kill them, but back then I understand that they didn't have the means to lock up all the criminals. Bounty hunt was dirty work, but it had to be done.
@@Mediados Oh yeah, pretty cool that part of the state budget goes to feeding and providing free home for some people. Hell, at least half the inmate's expenses should be covered by their family.
@@francotacha5487 Oh please you're acting as if the state is so poor and couldn't afford anything. Of all the states in the world, the USA can pay for almost everything.
The Smitty Bacall Gang must've done some real awful shit to have that level of bounty on them. This scene is almost like the darker version of 'Unforgiven' when you think about it.
Victims of the stagecoach family must have pitched in the bounty xD
Yep. With the inflation rate, 7000$ in 1858 is around a quarter million dollars
@@hansolobutimdead $260,458.90 to be precise, pretty terrifying situation knowing that you really are worth an immense amount of money for your actions and at any time can be caught or killed
@@harrellt1405it was common especially during the proper Wild West days for the companies involved to pitch in large amounts too. After all, if a train or stage route gets consistently robbed, they don't just lose the money that was taken but also risk losing business due to not being safe. The last big robbery of Hole In The Wall Gang is a great example. By the end each of them had multiple thousands of dollars to each of their heads.
And the wanted poster saved his life... Damn good luck...
no such thing as luck in a scripted movie
@@123TheSimpsons no shit, Sherlock.
OkComputer relax hardo. then the original comment shouldn’t have said luck shoulda said good story telling
Selva G i love you
@@123TheSimpsons jesus, why do you have to get into technicalities. no excrement, William Sherlock Scott Holmes.
Smitty's corpse is worth over $200k when adjusting the $7000 for inflation O.o. Shit, the moment I found out about that, I'd have killed him myself without hesitation.
No freaking way
@@eeyore115 Being a bounty hunter was the dream job back then
@@SuperMurray2009 I mean it was still very dangerous and many bounty hunters got killed by their quarry. Bounties are put on people that the law enforcement couldn't find or fight by themselves
Yep me too
@@SuperMurray2009 Not the "dream", but definitely one people envied for the amount of cash they got
The dust kick up and sound of the impact are amazingly realistic. Tarantino has always had good gun realism, which makes it for me.
I also loved how the unchained horse in the pen reacted right after the round was fired.
Lowkey shot John Marston
Ethan Turrano lol
😂
I was thinking the same thing I'm like wait John bought a farm young after robbing and killing a bunch of people weird how when a story is told in 1 way you can see him as a hero but looking at a similar person from djangos perspective you see it totally different
Goddamn Pinkertons
Noah ty exactly and people were mad at Joel dying int part 2
Not sure on the word 'gang' but 'stagecoach' rolled right of the tongue lol
What the hell is stagecoaching?
@@gabs_salem Not sure but on this video he says Stagecoach Robbery which is pretty self explanatory to be fair.
Gabriel Souza a stagecoach is the fancy looking thing with wheels the horses run around with, it’s used to carry people
It's like a wagon that usually has alot of money
Noah ty yeah in like RDR2 not real life
This is essentially Django killing John Marston when you think about it
Who is that ?
@@Etienne782let's play rdr series
@@Etienne782one of the main protagonists of the Red Dead Redemption series
Smitty Bacall's wanted poster is what saves Django from imprisonment later on in the film. It really was good luck.
"Crazy Craig Koons” (his name is spotted on a wanted poster); Koons is also the last name of Christopher Walken’s character in “Pulp Fiction,” the captain who visits young Butch to return his father’s war watch.
Makes sense due to Samuel Jackson being in this
This is supposed to leave you conflicted.
Who thinks it's right to kill a father in front of his kid? No matter what he may have done in the past. In THAT moment, he is a father, teaching his son... and by killing him, you are consigning that son to a hellish life.
Who thinks it's right to let a murderer live out his days with a family, when he's done his share of destroying families and shattering lives? Having a son doesn't absolve you of your wrongs, nor does it protect you from the vengeance of the people that you've wronged.
Who thinks it's right to kill for money, preying on the anguish of the bereaved to put cash in your pockets? You may be a servant of the law, but does that remove the moral responsibility from your shoulders? Does that make it ok to kill a man, no matter the mitigating circumstances?
Who thinks it's right for murderers to go unpunished just b/c the people they've killed don't have anybody strong enough to seek justice? Should the weak/untrained be forced to watch their loved ones die just because they are not PERSONALLY able to take a life?
...
These are all wrongs, and individually you can argue against each of them, but at the same time, they can't ALL be 100% wrong, because then none of them can be right.
They can all 100% be wrong. Why couldn't it? Not all moral questions have good answers.
@@braydenfarrell1177 The issue is from what lens of justice should it be served? To the children, where is the justice for them? In their eyes, they were robbed of their father in a brutal way. And before due process or does that get waived when it suits? It's why it's usually said "in the eyes of the law" rather than "In the eyes of justice". Because true justice is very hard to find and harder to be sure it is executed properly.
Now, this isn't to say some version of justice wasn't served nor am I taking on some moral high horse. You bring up a good point and I can't answer it with my own that can stand up to scrutiny. And as a fellow Irishman myself, I do know some of the atrocities the IRA committed. But from their eyes, as we once felt under British rule, they wanted justice and freedom.
@@braydenfarrell1177 He didn’t have to die, especially considering the death penalty is abolished there. You’re just bloodthirsty.
What about the parents and family of the people Smitty killed? Don't they deserve justice? What about their childhood that was taken by him or the spouses that never came home because he wanted to rob a stagecoach?
@@USMC49er Did you read tbe ENTIRE post, or just tbe first part?
The poster that saved his life
Anyone notice an interesting thing here, Django is using a 1874 Sharp's rifle, the SAME type of rifle Tom Selleck used in Quigley Down Under.
Which is anachronistic since this takes place in the 1858s, pre civil war. Still a good scene.
It's pretty tight, I mean it was right in the time of cartridge conversion.
Edit: in the time of the movie
This movie has a ton of references to other greater films. Shultz's littler derringer wrist contraption is a direct reference to Taxi Driver for those who don't know. This movie is just fantastic through and through.
I’m not saying you’re wrong but the Sharps rifle was used a lot back then. They make a specific point that LaBeouf Carries one in True Grit too
It's also a buffalo rifle
I think this scene is like a father teaching his son.
without glass scope and the air django did a good shoot!
Whats the distance?
300 yard?
@@arnoldel1474 Yeah I'd say 300-400 yard which for that time with a black powder rifle is incredibly impressive
@@Dregkar
Thanks!
@@Dregkar The black powder made it less accurate ?
The sight has a glass in it.
I can't stop saying "Smitty Bacall" after seeing this movie.. Driving my gf crazy. Tarantino is a genius.
You sound like my brother
I don't really understand the joke, I always miss this kind of jokes...
And..... Wait for it...... Smitty Bacall
The sound at 2:23 us just spot on. By far the best Hollywood scene of a man getting shot.
Pretty realistic tbh.
I have shot an older rifle like that before (springfield trapdoor) and there really is a bit of a delay and very audible slip even against dirt or paper targets from the blackpower slow burning loads they used. That was probably the most realistic gunshot in this movie.
*"always keep the handbill of your 1st bounty"* for good luck
Dully noted. I'll keep that in mind
Should be a sequel where Smitty Bacall's son comes after Django for revenge.
Nah man this was a scene that you forget really quickly and people who watch it where like "oh no anyway" you never saw that kids face and you didn't feel bad for him that long. Its still a good idea but not for this movie tho it would be interesting for a movie like kill bill with that little girl that wants revenge bc the main character killed her mother
I'd like to see what happens to Django in the Civil war.
@@prestigehunter9729 Kill Bill, Assassinate Nate, Decease Louise, Delete Pete, Destroy Roy.
@@prestigehunter9729 Forgetful scenes have set up sequels and become relevant in TV series especially. All you need is a good flashback scene.
@@prestigehunter9729 i never forgot it. it just never sat right with me that these guys always had the choice to take in targets dead OR alive and they always chose death. and for the slavers? yeah ain't gonna sympathize with those guys dying, but with this guy, it was different. based on just what little we've seen.
7K in the time this movie takes place would be around 250K today
“If Smitty Bacall wanted to start a farm at 22, they never would have printed that.” Father/Killer. Both are true. This is Django’s lesson in reality.
Why would you put a watermark on something that isn’t yours?
It's sad because Smitty Becall most likely fell in love with a woman, which probably led him to stray from that life of crime and find peace in a loving family and the simple farming life.
But like John Marston found out, the government has its toll.
I've got my own little theory that the Smitty he shot is actually django from the original 1966 django movie. In the original ending he gave up his gun and walked away. What if this was actually that django, who had given up on violence and started a farm.
Can't be, because he shows up later at the meeting with Calvin Candie. Heck he was played by Franco Nero.
@@kingofburnttoast no that was the villain not django himself
@@ponkpunk0 i meant that bit when he's at the bar with the guy who asks him his name. When jamie foxx says "the D is silent", the other guy says "I know". it's a neat little cameo, because he was the guy that actually played Django in 1966
@@kingofburnttoast I don't think that's canonically THE Django though
Or I don't know. Maybe it is. I hope it isn't. In the context of the movie that guy was forcing his slaves into blood sports
@@kakroom3407nah he was just drinking at the bar too, pherphaps he was just watching it
This is the greatest film in cinematic history
Revenge is a fools game
-Arthur Morgan
He killed a lot of peple as well. Arthur is an hypocrite, preteding to have better morals cause he was dying.
If you convert the money from the 1860s to when this movie was made in 2012, the 7,000 dollars is equivalent to 127.5k in 2012, or 164k in 2022.
Imagine the akward conversation afterwards
Oh hello kido, we just need to come take your papa, hope you don't mind
Feel bad for the kid :(
I don't! :D
@@suicidal_loner Then a person you love should be killed. You would not be sad, right?
@@mek9186 sucks for his kid but this pos had it coming
Uff that kid
Django just made Jack Marston
OP can clearly see the spelling of "Bacall" in the clip but still managed to misspell it
I get that the guy was a robber and murderer, but they could've probably just snuck up on him, held him at gunpoint, restrained him, then brought him to prison alive. didn't have to just assassinate the guy right in front of his kid which probably traumatized said child.
Django didn’t want to but the dr didn’t care
It was the Old West, the kid probably would’ve seen a dead body anyways, I think you’re viewing this in the perspective of a real child today instead of a gory spaghetti western setting. This shit did happen back then.
@@Kolvat07 there is a big diference of seeing your dad killed infront of you and know he is being taken to jail
@@Kolvat07 1984
@@Kolvat07 He wouldn’t be taken to jail, they would just hang him. See, not deleted.
I did the conversion: They just made the equivalent of $254,400 in 2022 dollars. A quarter million.
i wonder what happened when they both walked down the hill for the body
Smithy Bacall son will find Django hunting for ducks near the river once he grew up
I gotta buy that 1874 Sharps rifle in Hunter classic now. 45-70 Gov't. Very powerful rifle with pretty good range on it too...at least for iron sights.
The 15th longest confirmed kill with a rifle is still held by one of these chambered in .50-90, Billy Dixon in the battle of Adobo Walls. Notably every shot above him is by a gun chambering either .50 BMG, 14.5 or .338. All of which are so much flatter shooting. Billy Dixon basically aimed a fucking mortar shot by comparison. Also, the only other black powder firearm in the top 20 is a goddamn Whitworth muzzle loading rifle which is insane. Those things were so ahead of their time.
@@tomaspabon2484 Wasn't the Whitworth a British gun but Britain wasn't interested because it was hard to load and was smaller in caliber than they would have preferred...even though the marksmanship was effective when it was used against them during the civil war...or have I got things mixed up?
Well you see the carbine sharps is a ...
Django at the beginning of the movie “seven, zero, zero, zero”
Django at the end “nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine”
0:34 Is there a bounty on that woodpile?
lol..just thinking he just was contemplating LOL
Did anyone else get “The Rifleman” vibes from Smitty and his son?
That hand bill saved his ass from getting sold to the Lequint Mining Company too.
I love this scene the best.
Sorry kid, but your dad had it coming. If you grow up and you still feel raw about it, I’ll be waiting.
That is from "Kill Bill" 😁
Sometimes it's hard to remember that killing dangerous criminals for a bounty is the business that you're in when there's an innocent involved. But that's when you take a breath and remind yourself that it's a business and not personal.
Killing someone is never just business, especially in front of their family. He also had a choice to take his bounties alive, and always chose dead. If this was real life hopefully that boy had his own gun and got revenge for his pops.
@@redhothchilipeppers6299 Revenge for the revenge of his fathers own decisions? That doesn't make sense. The original revenge was to bring him dead or alive, and now you advocate for his son to enact revenge for his father which requires him to commit illegal acts, thus continuing the cycle? lol. Maybe you should think things through before you say them.
@@BadMannerKorea If someone just executed my father right in front of me and I had a chance to end the murderer's rampage then and there, I'd take it. It's self-defense at that point and in defense of future victims of this so called "bounty hunter". Makes perfect sense actually, not my fault you have a brick for a brain.
For comparison, $7000 today would be about $170,000 today.
I wonder, what if this guy is trying to change his life...like regret what he did and start anew. I know its not fair to those who were victims but i always wondered about these situations
well ..he still was gonna did for all his past crimes so ......
It seems like he did want to just live a simple life now. Had a boy, seemed like a good father. But murdering people caught up with him. The real loser here is the kid. He's going to have to fend for himself now.
Sadly, even if that was the case, him starting anew and probably had a redemption arc to atone for his crimes made no semblance of any difference as the government required him to pay for his crimes
The actor for Smitty played a kid in Columbo Season 8 episode 1
I love how this scene showed that Django has empathy and compassion, he wants to kill white folk but then understands his little boy is with him and it’s difficult mental hurdle
Back in 1858, how many slaves were able to read like Django just did?
10% They viewed educated slaves as dangerous,
That and Shultz was teaching him how to read.
Also, Django tells Shultz that his wife was an educated slave that belonged originally to a German Slaver and his wife, who taught Broomhilde to read and speak German.
Why does smoke just materialise from him, it comes right out of his back, at first I thought it was the ground but it comes directly from him.
Dust and dirt on his clothes
still waiting for a third kill bill movie where that little girl comes for revenge
What rifle is that tho? I kinda want one
Replace Smitty Bacall with John Marston and the scene still makes complete sense
0:58 you ever notice that the Wanted Posters always say Dead OR Alive and yet Schulz never takes anyone in alive? Why not? Pretty sure two guys armed with rifles and a wanted poster with the guys face would be enough to force the guy to cooperate?
It’s a Tarantino film
Because before Django he was a lone bounty hunter so he never could and Django is being trained to be alone too. There is a lot of risk transporting someone alive. You don't have to watch dead men, feed them, they can't run away, they can't fight, or try and kill you. It's just not worth the effort for no extra cost.
Live bounties are more trouble. They could try to escape, get friends/family to try and free them, come after you for revenge if they get free. Corpses are much easier
7 racks wanted dead or alive 🤔 id take my chances bringing them in dead less stress
You have to take into account the context of the film. In the 1850s the risk vs reward of bringing in a wanted criminal was simply not worth it. A body simply needs to be kept in an identifiable state until it is handed off to the authorities. A prisoner has to be kept secure, fed, and watered, they need to be watched and monitored, any interaction with them has the potential to become deadly to the bounty hunter, and travel can take a long time. All that effort for what? A trial that if the person is found guilty, they're probably going to hang at the end of a rope anyway? Easier to persuade a corpse to turn themselves in than a person.
How do they collect the corpse? Won't the family start shooting before Schultz has time to explain that he is a bounty hunter who can't be interfered with by law?
Probably, but then they could shoot to, in there self defense in the performance of there duties. Tragic? Yes, but if it's you or them, you pick you every time.
Lmao at how cold the doctor is
Crazy Craig Koons is the ancestor of Captain Koons in Pulp fiction, he's the guy that returned the Gold Watch to Butch
Huh, nice catch. 😉
And also Maybe Gearld Nash is the ancestor of Officer Marvin Nash from reservoir dogs
This is my nigga character from red dead redemption
0:12😂
2:35 Hell of a thing. Takin' a man's life.
It's never explained how they find him.
If this was Last of Us, the sequel would have that kid kill Django with a golf club
This scene just blends well; so much in fact that even though they are just talking, you forget that they're there to kill folk.
Now that's storytelling. 👍
Django conned bought and killed them slavers with that 7000$ kill
I'm sweating right now
Se necesita Honor para capacitar a alguien que no tiene derechos pero al mismo tiempo lo persuade para acabar con la vida de un bandido frente a su hijo
Nobody going to talk about him shooting at right and hitting him on the left with wind going to the right side?
Oh grow up 007
$7,000 in 1863 is about a little over $175,000 in todays money.
PA!
Tp put it in perspective, $7,000 in that time would be about a quarter million today. He was a bad dude. The scene only touches on the morality of killing him in front of his kid, which is bad enough, but it doesn't show them going down there in front of the kid to collect the body of his father, who, as far as he knows has never done anything wrong.
FUN FACT:
REWARD is $261,720 in today's money.
I think this was a turning point for Django's character and a sort of critique of what abolitionists like Nat Turner and John Brown were doing at the time; what their target was doing sure should be condemned, but killing him in front of his child like John Brown did with some pro-slavery settlers is just as disgusting. Here Django makes up his mind to not be entirely consumed by revenge and forget about freeing his wife.
How did Schulz even get that body? By slapping aside the son?
I really don't believe in karma. On the other hand, I feel like things do come around.
Yeah it's called karma
Wanted Dead Or Alive
this scene showed Django has a better conscious than Shulz.
7 grand regardless of dead or alive. That much money is already a damn high price. Whom he killed? An oil baron?
Yeah that stuck out to me as well, the bounty amount in question is way high in regards to what the dollar was valued at in the 1860's. $7,000 back then was enough money to start your own company and then some. Just as a real life comparison, Billy the Kid - one of the most notorious outlaws in history - had a bounty of $500.
Btw bounty hunting was the easiest profession in the 1800s
Hmmm I’m surprised gang tripped him up and not stagecoach. That’s a more weird looking word I would thing. That soft g and all.
I hate how the angle of the barrel and the target don't match at all. I love this scene but that's infuriating.
Honestly all I can think of is John Marston :(
This scene has a giant continuity problem. Schultz said they would collect bounty through winter and go to Mississippi when the snow melt. This scene comes between two wintery scenes; when Django takes a bath in the snow and when he practice quickdraw on a snowman. But here the snow is gone. It’s all green and the man is plowing the field. This is clearly spring.
Spring at different elevations has snow or is ready for plowing. It’s the mountains homie. I live in them.
Show this scene to John Marston fans lol
What Schulz’s didn’t understand at the time is that Django didn’t have an issue with killing the guy he just had a problem with killing him in front of his son. DJango was more worried about Smitty’s son having to watch his father die right in front of him rather than his dad dying in general.
And stagecoaches carried more than just money or trade goods, his point was that he probably let plenty of sons and daughters see their fathers die too, for nothing but greed and self service.
Sad for the men. Im happy that we dont have the death sentance.
7000$ in 1858 is a lot of fucking money for one post car robber. Today that would be as much worth as 240.000$, which is a lot considering that the average prize for a hired assassin is about 20.000$ per contract.
Dang
$7,000? Back then....shiiieeet forget my girl i can always get more
7000$ in ~1870. What would that today?
Roughly $150,000.00 give or take a few thousand
@@HawkensMD ty
This does not take place in 1870, it takes place in 1858
Just to set the record straight; $7,000 bounties wasn't a thing in the 1860's. That amount was just Hollywood embellishment.
In real life, bounties RARELY exceeded $1,000. For example; Billy The Kid's bounty was set at $500 and he was one of the most notorious outlaws in western U.S. history. He escaped jail and killed several people. (the exact amount of people slain is hotly debated even to this day)
Brown Larry Allen Angela Harris Mary
I love comment saying that they should not have done that in front of the kid applying todays morality to the old west, witch is stupid. Was it messed up? Yes, so where a lot of things back then. The guy had $7000 on his head, so he was not a nice man. People say they could have brought him in alive? Yes, but then there's all the other factors to consider, other bounty hunters, him trying to escape, him trying to kill them, him fighting back, staying up and watching him, getting him to a place they can collect the bounty, because not every town has a place to do that, and it's not down the rode it could be a 3 to 4 day travel maybe even a week. Pulse the guy would hang anyway, he's not getting locked up, he will swing. They were there, he was there, in a open field defenseless dead to rights. It's not worth the time, effort, or trouble to bring in a live man that a dead one isn't for no extra cost.
Could've brought him alive. This just shows how much of piece of $hi* bounty hunters were. Sadly, people still romanticise them.
I think would have are Django a much cooler character if he put his hatred for white men and slavers aside and at least attempted to bring his bounties in alive. He would still kill if he had to for self defense and to protect others. But it’d be cool if he tried to bring them in alive.
He wanted to in this scene, but Schulz told him otherwise.
Django did want to spare him, that was the whole reason for his hesitation.