Tarantino Sells Slaves (Action Figures, That Is)

... it's good that the dolls are no longer going to be produced.
Kudos to all those responsible for bringing that about.
Goes to show what speaking up and making oneself heard can do.

missesdash said:

I hope all of these well meaning people go after the thousands of other adult-oriented action figures next. That should keep them busy for the next *checks watch* hundred years or so.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm kinda surprised that Gawker doesn't know about that.

I finally saw the movie... It was alright. I felt like I'd seen it before, which is what I was kind of expecting.

I really did not like the graphic wrestling scene.

And I have to concede that I don't know if it went out of bounds or too far. I definitely get the Uncle Tom reference after having heard how Tarantino considers it to be a sort of realistic depiction...

nighttimer said:

Slippery slope arguments? Seriously? That's original.

Click to expand...

I don't know if it was a slippery slope arguement. This line that missesdash quoted really surprised me:

The studio claims the action figures were intended for people over the age of 17, since every 18-year-old is dying for more dolls.

Click to expand...

Of course they're not. That doesn't mean there's a secret agenda to sell the action figures to kids. Cartoons are for kids, and yet South Park is not. There is a subculture of adults who collect action figures, as well as adults who collect memoribilia for movies they like. That's who the action figures are aimed at.

As I said, I'm kind of surprised Gawker, who regularly reports on pop culture, doesn't know about this. Either they don't know, or they were playing dumb.

nighttimer said:

Slippery slope arguments? Seriously? That's original.

I'm sure there was someone who was similarly displeased by Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds action figures and that is whom you should be aiming your Snark Gun at.

Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't read the link that was posted? The argument was that the action figures were inappropriate for children and that the studio was being disingenuous when they suggested they weren't for children.

How is it a slippery slope argument to point out the other action figures that are inappropriate for children?

nighttimer said:

Because every other action figure isn't inappropriate for children in the way the Django action figures are.

Click to expand...

Every other action figure? So porn star action figures are more appropriate for children than Django action figures? What about serial killers? Nazis? Texas Chainsaw massacre? Osama Bin Laden?

If the answer is yes, then I'd love some clarification on exactly what about Django action figures is quantitatively worse than all of these things. If the answer is no (and we both know it is) then my point wasn't a slippery slope at all.

missesdash said:

Maybe you didn't read the link that was posted? The argument was that the action figures were inappropriate for children and that the studio was being disingenuous when they suggested they weren't for children.

Click to expand...

Yes, that was the suggestion that I read in the article. It kind of bothered me because, to be honest, I find it hard to believe Gawker didn't realize that adults buy action figures like this.

Are they really action figures? I tend to call figures aimed at adults just "figures," since once you pose them, they stationary most of the time.

/almost-totally-off-topic

nighttimer said:

If a major motion picture studio licenses Sasha Grey, John Wayne Gacy, Joseph Goebbles, Leatherface and Zero Dark Thirty action figures I'll take a look at them on a case-by-case basis and decide how I feel about them.

Click to expand...

So it's only a problem if "a major motion picture studio" licenses it. All right. That makes perfect sense. Here's the leatherface action figure. It's distributed by NECA (That's National Entertainment Collectibles Association) just like the Django ones were. They also put out the Inglourious Basterds (you know, the nazis) action figures and Resevoir Dogs action figures. Don't forget about "the children."

I hope that clarifies things for you, missesdash, but even if it doesn't, that's all the clarification you're going to get.

Click to expand...

So making a blaxploitation movie about slavery isn't "making a buck off the backs of black people" but making action figures of the characters in said movies is. Seeing the movie = acceptable. Remembering the movie with small reproductions of the movie's characters = unacceptable.

I imagine Weinstein pulled the toys for the same reason Loews pulled advertising from All American Muslim when conservative groups began to protest. It was bad press and not worth the fight.

Still, I won't hold my breath for Al Sharpton or Najee Ali to protest the other NECA action figures that aren't appropriate for children. Doesn't fit in very well with their agenda or collective persecution complex.

missesdash said:

So making a blaxploitation movie about slavery isn't "making a buck off the backs of black people" but making action figures of the characters in said movies is.

Click to expand...

Can you show us, in this thread, where someone said it was (all of that) or supported someone else's statement of this?

Williebee said:

Can you show us, in this thread, where someone said it was (all of that) or supported someone else's statement of this?

Click to expand...

In the post directly above hers?

That's not really what it says, Miss Celia. It does not say QT (ETA: movie) wasn't "making a buck off the backs of black people"

As the last line of the quoted passage says:

He's just another race hustler.

Click to expand...

MOD NOTE: There's a lot of reading in and looking for arguments going on in a thread that has enough volatility of its own. How about we stick to the subject and not the members, folks?

Williebee said:

Can you show us, in this thread, where someone said it was (all of that) or supported someone else's statement of this?

Click to expand...

The quote says of the movie: I came out two hours and 45 minutes later feeling it wasn't Tarantino's best and it wasn't his worst. It was okay. Nothing more.

And then it says, speaking specifically about the toys: However, the Django action figures go far beyond bad taste...It's making a buck off the backs of Black people.

It pretty clearly implies that the film was all right (hence him spending money to see it) but the toys cross the line. If both were "making money off the backs of black people" would he have paid for the former?

And even NT has stated he paid to see the movie and found it distasteful, but that the toys are somehow more offensive.

The "the movie is all right but the toys aren't" sentiment is echoed all across the blacademic blogosphere.

Honestly, take those dolls out of context and hand 'em to my kids ('cuz I guarantee you they won't experience 'em in context,) and they're just dolls. The most that would happen is they'd go hang out with the other dolls, doing doll-things. Maybe they'd ride around on the toy trains, or hang out in the fire station.

That thing on Missesdash's bookcase, on the other hand, would probably reduce my kids to tears. I'd hear about it for months as they begged me over and over to fix it and help the poor people and why would anyone do that and so on.

The only way the dolls could negatively impact kids is if some parent saw the dolls, thought "Dolls are for kids, ergo, Django is a kids' movie," and then took their small child to see the movie. Which doesn't seem all that likely.

There are good arguments on the subject, but none of them have to do with children.

little_e said:

There are good arguments on the subject, but none of them have to do with children.

Click to expand...

Agree.

little_e said:

There are good arguments on the subject, but none of them have to do with children.

Click to expand...

But won't anyone think of the children?

This is why we can't get good anime theatrical releases in the US aside from Ghibli goddammit.

missesdash said:

The quote says of the movie: I came out two hours and 45 minutes later feeling it wasn't Tarantino's best and it wasn't his worst. It was okay. Nothing more.

And then it says, speaking specifically about the toys: However, the Django action figures go far beyond bad taste...It's making a buck off the backs of Black people.

It pretty clearly implies that the film was all right (hence him spending money to see it) but the toys cross the line. If both were "making money off the backs of black people" would he have paid for the former?

And even NT has stated he paid to see the movie and found it distasteful, but that the toys are somehow more offensive.

The "the movie is all right but the toys aren't" sentiment is echoed all across the blacademic blogosphere.

Click to expand...

Yup, I missed something. My apologies.

Hm, all I can see is that some people are reminded of the postcards, the caricatures drawn in comics and cartoons, and the dolls that are instantly seen as inferior.

And I'm hearing some responses as "Just get over it. These are just dolls."

Until we acknowledge that some people are reminded of the ugly past, especially when they are meant to portray the past, the people who are reminded are not going to let go of that anger and resentment until it is acknowledged.

The movie might be ham-fisted or elegant subversion, but the dolls seem unable to subvert.

kuwisdelu said:

But won't anyone think of the children?

This is why we can't get good anime theatrical releases in the US aside from Ghibli goddammit.

Click to expand...

I saw X/1999 in theaters back in the day.

But yeah.
People would be confused.

nighttimer said:

George Carlin had a three-word response to that.

Click to expand...

I think there are laws against fucking children.