Tarantino Sells Slaves (Action Figures, That Is)

nighttimer · Jan 10, 2013

missesdash said:
So just to be clear, you agree that any black person who would buy a Django action figure most likely has "low self-esteem"?

Low self-esteem? Probably not.

A marked lack of awareness of the horrors of slavery? Possibly.

A complete lack of taste? Definitely yes.

Are you arguing that it was excessive and inaccurate in Django? Because nigger was, at the time period the film takes place, ~~a neutral and~~ very common word for black people.

Strikethrough or not, there is nothing "neutral" about "nigger" as a racial slur.

And yes, repeating that epithet over 100 times in the film is excessive. Tarantino wrote the script. He chose to overuse the word. He could have found another way and another word to insult his Black characters. But then he would have lost out on an opportunity to indulge himself while claiming it's only "art."

As far as whether the slur was as "common" as you claim, are you some sort of expert on the antebellum South? If you're not, you aren't alone. Tarantino isn't either. That's why he can invent contrivances such as a Black bounty hunter roaming the South killing Whites with impunity or stage "Mandingo fighting" when there is no evidence slaveowners conducted this sort of bloodsport.

Django is meant as popcorn entertainment, not a serious rumination on The Peculiar Institution, but history is not a cafeteria menu where you pick the Nigger on Steroids part is acceptable because, sure it sounds plausible, while the rest is made up Hollywood movie bullshit.

One thing about Tarantino that holds true in every movie he's made is that style always triumphs over substance.

missesdash said:
If he'd used another word it would only be because people tend to be sensitive about nigger and each utterance of it stands out to the audience even though it wouldn't have in the setting. Of course it's about delicate sensibilities. His fans aren't "fawning" over the utterances of the word, they're just unfazed by it.

Or they aren't bothering to engage in any complex, critical thinking.

That would get in the way of the fawning. :Hail:

missesdash said:
ETA: My mistake, I thought the film took place earlier than it did.

There's a lot of it about. Tarantino made the same sort of mistakes:

In Calvin Candie's villa, a decorative copy of the Nefertiti Bust can be seen. However, the movie is set in the year 1858, while the bust wasn't discovered until 1912.

Dynamite is used in the movie, but it wasn't invented until 1867 - nearly 9 years after the time the movie is set in.

The scene with the men in hoods pursuing Dr. Shultz and Django was supposed to represent the KKK. But the film was set in 1858 and the Klan wasn't founded until 1865.

Gale Haut said:
They're pretty much completely sold out every where I've looked, I think the controversy is helping sales a lot.

The same principle applies to gun sales after a mass shooting and probably for the same reasons.

robeiae · Jan 10, 2013

blacbird said:
Is it even remotely possible that you could display "certainty" about anything, other than your dislike of the current President of the United States?

caw

I'm certain about what I just said. Are you unable to follow it, or is your propensity to go off the rails (which I'm certain you will bitch and moan about in the near future when someone else does it) rearing its head once again?

Haggis · Jan 10, 2013

blacbird said:
Is it even remotely possible that you could display "certainty" about anything, other than your dislike of the current President of the United States?

caw

robeiae said:
I'm certain about what I just said. Are you unable to follow it, or is your propensity to go off the rails (which I'm certain you will bitch and moan about in the near future when someone else does it) rearing its head once again?

MOD NOTE:

Let's not travel down that path, please.

Thanks.

Sheryl Nantus · Jan 10, 2013

Total derail:

Nighttimer - LOVE your avatar! Robin is truly an inspiration to all of us.

We now return you to your original thread.

robeiae · Jan 10, 2013

Haggis said:
MOD NOTE:

Let's not travel down that path, please.

Thanks.

I can't help it, Haggis. I'm narcissistic. Or serendipitic. One of those, I'm almost certain.

nighttimer · Jan 10, 2013

For fans and foes and those in between, Django Unchained was nominated for Best Picture. Christoph Waltz gets a Best Supporting Actor nod.

Q.T. gets nominated for Best Screenplay. Passed over for Best Director.

Controversy sells tickets and crappy action figures, but it scares off Oscar voters.

Dave Hardy · Jan 10, 2013

Celia Cyanide said:
No, he doesn't. He's not bad, but there are plenty of directors who are better than him. He writes dialog that does little more than amuse himself and does not move the story along or reveal anything about the characters. I thought DJANGO was okay in that respect, because he finally got a new editor. But DEATHPROOF was ridiculous. The dialog scenes just went on and on. I wanted to shoot myself.

Since this seems to be the "is Quentin Tarantino a failure?" thread, I'll chime in. Death Proof was so boring I couldn't finish it. I rather liked Kill Bill, Jackie Brown, and Inglorious Basterds.I haven't seen Django Unchained yet.

But Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and True Romance are films I have watched again and again. I find them absolutely spellbinding. In terms of pacing, dialog, acting, and any other aspect they are what I want to see in a film. If Tarantino is a failure, then I hope I could come anywhere near failing so well.

Kaiser-Kun · Jan 10, 2013

missesdash said:
I really don't see how it's relevant than children shouldn't have them when they aren't made for children.

If they're a problem because "kids will get their hands on them somehow" they're now grouped with every single thing ever made for adults ever.

*slight derail*

Reminds me of a mexican movie where two girls found their aunt's vibrator.

Girl 1: What's this?
Girl 2: A flashlight.

Then they threw it aside and started playing with the aunt's heel shoes.

backslashbaby · Jan 10, 2013

dah said:
I looked up what my favorite movie critic, Wesley Morris, African-American himself, had to say about it because I knew he would touch on a lot of the intricacies of the subject (art in film, exploitation, authenticity ...).

His review is lengthy and intellectually engaging. This part, at the end, stood out:

"I really like 'Django Unchained,' but I didn’t like watching it amid the moronic laughter of some of his movie-geek fans."

That quote sounds like how I feel I'd feel about it. I don't claim to be hip! I don't know what I am, but it's that quote, so I'm glad you brought it here.

I just don't think my taste matches up with Quentin's, although I like parts of everything he's done. It's the moronic laughter part I'd leave off if he asked my advice -- which would be idiotic of him, naturally

Ken · Jan 10, 2013

... a modern-era D.W. Griffith.
Not nearly as talented though.

blacbird · Jan 10, 2013

I so want a Quentin Tarantino bobblehead.

caw

Plot Device · Jan 15, 2013

muravyets said:
I don't dislike Tarantino because of social issues. I dislike him because I really believe he's a failed artist who thinks he's a successful artist.

Failed artist?

1) His films have collectively grossed nearly $900 million worldwide (and counting).

2) A-list actors of all stripes --including not just Oscar-winners but also many well-established foreign actors who rarely or never hit the American film circuit-- not only clamor for mere bit parts in his films, but they gladly go back to him again and again, begging for yet more roles, no matter how small.

3) He has won the Oscar for Best Screenplay for Pulp Fiction (making him a fellow writer alongside all of us varyingly accomplished folks here at AW).

I do not understand what criteria you are using in your measurement of "failure" here in regard to him.

You don't like his body of work. Fine. I can't stand actor Michael Douglas and I cringe at the idea of watching a film if he is in it. (In fact, he's the ONLY actor that has that impact on me.) But I do not consider him a failure as an artist, nor do I begrudge Michael Douglas the legitimacy of his career. I just see him as someone who really rubs me the wrong way.

muravyets · Jan 15, 2013

Plot Device said:
Failed artist?

1) His films have collectively grossed nearly $900 million worldwide (and counting).

2) A-list actors of all stripes --including not just Oscar-winners but also many well-established foreign actors who rarely or never hit the American film circuit-- not only clamor for mere bit parts in his films, but they gladly go back to him again and again, begging for yet more roles, no matter how small.

3) He has won the Oscar for Best Screenplay for Pulp Fiction (making him a fellow writer alongside all of us varyingly accomplished folks here at AW).

I do not understand what criteria you are using in your measurement of "failure" here in regard to him.

You don't like his body of work. Fine. I can't stand actor Michael Douglas and I cringe at the idea of watching a film if he is in it. (In fact, he's the ONLY actor that has that impact on me.) But I do not consider him a failure as an artist, nor do I begrudge Michael Douglas the legitimacy of his career. I just see him as someone who really rubs me the wrong way.

Good thing I explained my criteria in detail in that post and the subsequent post then, eh? No problem if anyone disagrees with me, but I did actually give my criteria.

Atlantis · Jan 15, 2013

I think people need to give Tarantino a bit a break and a little more respect. Just because he uses the word nigger a lot in this film does not make him a racist. A writer is not his characters. A character is not his writer. They are two separate things. I never hold back when writing. I'll let my characters do and say whatever they want including things that I, myself, might find offensive. I do it because I want to give my characters free reign and let them evolve naturally and sometimes that might mean watching them turn into unpleasant people.

I really hate censorship. I believe that as writers we should be able to express ourselves however we want and have our characters do and say anything as long as it is legal. I have no problem with Tarantino using the word nigger a lot. Nor do I have a problem with these dolls.

The dolls look tasteful and I wouldn't blink twice if I saw someone had them on display in their house. I myself collect Sailor Moon toys and have a cabinet full of key chains, dolls, figurines, and books. If other people want to collect dolls and figures from movies I would just be "Meh" how is any different from my hobby of collecting toys from anime?

People need to pick their battles. I actually read on Gawker that some people think Tarantino should give 100% of the profits of these dolls to victims of slavery. Oh yeah that's realistic. How about if you are offended by them just don't buy them?

We can't change the past. Slavery happened. We can't hide from it. When I look at these dolls I see them a bit like super hero characters. They are harmless. People shouldn't judge others for liking them. Just live and let live.

thebloodfiend · Jan 15, 2013

Atlantis said:
I think people need to give Tarantino a bit a break and a little more respect.

Do so if you wish. I'm not giving dude any respect for making a second rate blaxploitation film and sniggering like a white teenage frat boy every time he says "nigger."

Some of the responses to the dolls are rather extreme, but Tarantino is not the paragon of racial equality and art that some of his fans make him out to be. And the dolls, added to the weirdness factor of a white dude making a blaxploitation film, is just odd.

But thanks for telling us that slavery is over. It's not like some of us didn't know, being black and all. If I had a nickle for every time I've heard "pick your battles," I swear I'd be Oprah.

Williebee · Jan 15, 2013

Atlantis said:
I actually read on Gawker that some people think Tarantino should give 100% of the profits of these dolls to victims of slavery.

I wondered about something related to this when the story broke. Would it make a difference if the money went to a charity, an education program, or some such?

I dunno.

nighttimer · Jan 15, 2013

Atlantis said:
People need to pick their battles.

And once they do they don't have to justify them to others who don't find it worth battling over.

Williebee said:
I wondered about something related to this when the story broke. Would it make a difference if the money went to a charity, an education program, or some such?

Doubtful. The insult isn't lessened by a charitable contribution in the name of Calvin Candie to the United Negro College Fund.

backslashbaby · Jan 16, 2013

I would feel better about them if the proceeds went to charity. If folks want to enjoy the dolls as collector art -- and only as collector art -- and the money helps the right people, I'm a means-to-an-end kind of Machiavellian that way, really.

(My great-uncle was a loan shark enforcer, so it's probably genetically impossible for me to be a complete liberal idealist, you know

?)

little_e · Jan 17, 2013

Kaiser-Kun said:
*slight derail*

Reminds me of a mexican movie where two girls found their aunt's vibrator.

Girl 1: What's this?
Girl 2: A flashlight.

Then they threw it aside and started playing with the aunt's heel shoes.

What kind of kid doesn't play with a flashlight????

Torgo · Jan 17, 2013

thebloodfiend said:
Do so if you wish. I'm not giving dude any respect for making a second rate blaxploitation film and sniggering like a white teenage frat boy every time he says "nigger."

Does he snigger about it? Would be interested to see that.

William Haskins · Jan 18, 2013

The Weinstein Company, the studio behind Django Unchained, has asked toy maker NECA to halt production on a line of action figures based on the controversial movie. Several civil rights groups had taken issue with them, saying they are offensive to children and trivialize the brutality of slavery.

http://gawker.com/5977173/the-weins...-django-unchained-action-figures-is-offensive

missesdash · Jan 18, 2013

Genuinely surprised at how may people think these are for children. This line from the gawker article:

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.

Is kind of weird give the context. I suppose I understand the outrage if so many people (mistakenly) associate film action figures with kid's toys. It's still misguided.

And the price on amazon has tripled.

nighttimer · Jan 18, 2013

Good-bye and Good Riddance!

missesdash said:
Is kind of weird give the context. I suppose I understand the outrage if so many people (mistakenly) associate film action figures with kid's toys. It's still misguided.

And the price on amazon has tripled.

Great. Let the suckers waste their cash on that trash.

The price can quadruple. The Django dolls are going bye-bye. :wag:

"The controversial 'Django Unchained' action figures have officially been DISCONTINUED ... after several African American groups called for a boycott of the dolls ... TMZ has learned," the TMZ website reported Friday.

Later in the day, the Weinstein Co., the film's producer, said in a statement, "We have tremendous respect for the audience and it was never our intent to offend anyone," Christy Lemir reported for the Associated Press. Toy maker NECA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

". . . The studio said Friday that such collectibles have been created for all of director Quentin Tarantino's films, including "'nglourious Basterds,' and that they were meant for people 17 and older, the audience for the film," Lemir wrote.

The earlier TMZ dispatch said, "Sources connected to the toy production tell us ... shortly after advocacy groups like Al Sharpton's National Action Network and Project Islamic Hope spoke out against the figurines ... the Weinstein Company (which produced the film) reached out to the toy company and told them to put the kibosh on the toy line ASAP.

"We're told the toy company agreed, insisting they never intended to offend anyone ... and halted production immediately.

"Sources tell us ... the toymakers only released somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 dolls before shutting down production."

I don't know what's sadder. That someone thought this was a good idea in the first place or that some Black folks whose opinion I usually respect thought this bullshit was all in good fun.

missesdash · Jan 18, 2013

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.

Dave Hardy · Jan 18, 2013

There's a whole hobby of scratch-building action figures. I think there's a forum for it, One Sixth Warriors of some such. I recall seeing a remarkable Judge Holden action-figure there.

Tarantino Sells Slaves (Action Figures, That Is)

No Gods No Masters

Touch and go

Evil, undead Chihuahua

Holding out for a Superhero...

Touch and go

No Gods No Masters

Don't let your deal go down,

!

~~~~*~~~~

A woman said to write like a man.

Old revolutionary

Cory

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

No Gods No Masters

~~~~*~~~~

Trust: that most precious coin.

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

poet

You can't sit with us!

No Gods No Masters

You can't sit with us!

Don't let your deal go down,

*

*