So apparently Will Smith turned down the title role in Django Unchained because it wasn’t the main character. Wow buddy, real classy. In interviews at the time, he claimed it was a scheduling issue, saying, “I was in the middle of Men in Black 3 and [director Quentin Tarantino] was ready to go, and I just couldn’t sit with him and get through the issues, so I didn’t want to hold him up.” But now that everything’s over and done with, for some reason Will is revealing the real reason that he wouldn’t sign on to the project, telling Entertainment Weekly:
“Django wasn’t the lead, so it was like, I need to be the lead. The other character was the lead! I was like, ‘No, Quentin, please, I need to kill the bad guy!’”
How charming. First of all, why are you even giving this statement, you big weirdo? I don’t think anyone was banging down your door looking for a second answer to the question, “Why didn’t you accept the role in that movie that Jamie Foxx played so handily and that most people stopped talking about over a month ago? I’m sure it wasn’t for the perfectly plausible reason you gave before — there must be some more selfish reason that you can reveal exclusively to our readers! We won’t take no for an answer!”
What’s even weirder though is that Django really is the lead in Django Unchained. See how his name is right in the title? Yeah, Christoph Waltz won an Oscar for his portrayal of the bounty hunter, but it was the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. That word, ‘supporting’, it comes from the Latin ‘soporific’, or sleep-inducing. It doesn’t have a negative context in this scenario, it just means that the supporting character is less compelling. Christoph Waltz was more sleep-inducing than Jamie Foxx, ergo he was the supporting character, ergo Django was the lead. Did you follow that, Will Smith? I hope so, because in another three months you’re gonna need to give another statement about exactly why you didn’t take this role, and I won’t take ego for an answer!
(Image: Dominic Chan / WENN.com)