ONTD

12:06 am - 01/09/2013

and here we go again....



Slavery-era action figures tied to Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained are raising questions about whether they’re appropriate.

A line of figures of the movie’s main characters are on sale online, manufactured by toy maker NECA in partnership with the Weinstein Co.

Najee Ali, director of the advocacy group Project Islamic Hope, plans a news conference Tuesday with other Los Angeles black community leaders calling for the removal of the toys from the market.

Ali called the action figures “a slap in the face of our ancestors.”

“We were outraged,” said Ali, upon learning of the figures. “We feel that it trivializes the horrors of slavery and what African Americans experienced.”

The action figures are collectibles recommended for people older than 17. Tarantino has had such figures made for all of his films, including his last, Inglourious Basterds. That film, too, reveled in a revenge fantasy set in history — Nazi Germany.

The Weinstein Co. and NECA didn’t immediately comment Tuesday.

We feel that it trivializes the horrors of slavery and what African Americans experienced
Ali made clear his objections were not with the film “Django Unchained,” which he said he liked and had seen twice.

Though controversial in its unusual melding of historical atrocity and movie mayhem, “Django Unchained” has proven a hit at the box office, where it has earned $106.3 million since opening Christmas. It’s also been nominated for five Golden Globes.

Source

i just came back from seeing django. i can't be the only person who rejoiced at the dudes getting shot in their dicks?!
manubibi 9th-Jan-2013 10:08 am (UTC)
EXACTLY. Action figures aren't Barbies and Kens, and I'm looking forward to the day when people will stop calling them "toys", it's so annoying. I'm not a collector but I'm in that sub-culture and I know what it means to a geek to have merchandise of that kind. I just rme every time I hear things like this -.-
howlin_wolf_66 9th-Jan-2013 11:47 am (UTC)
It's the 'action figure' phrasing that bothers me, though... If they were packaged as figurines I'd have less of a problem with it... but 'action' - even when not aimed at kids - is synonymous with glamourous and exciting, and there was nothing exciting about slavery, even if it's only by association through movie figures that people love.

Tarantino has the right to tell any story he wants... but there's a difference between telling a story, and merchandising treating the premise as something 'fun', when the movie deals with a serious subject... It would be in poor taste to produce a set of Schindler's List action figures, and doing so for a tale like Django amounts to much the same thing.
manubibi 9th-Jan-2013 12:14 pm (UTC)
but "action figures"... that's what they are called. Should they invent a new term for these specific ones? They're collectible merchandise for people who like to have them on their shelves, it's nothing else. It's not like one goes around waving them in the air and yelling "omg this guy is my hero". And people forget what the movie is actually about, since it overly condemns racism, so that's good, but everyone just keeps pointing out problematic details.
howlin_wolf_66 9th-Jan-2013 01:00 pm (UTC)
'Figurine' is already an existing and appropriate term... No need to invent it... so yes, call them that (and the Inglorious Basterds collectibles, too for that matter). If people aren't going to be waving them around and distorting their purpose (which I agree is true for most people... ) then there's no need to market them as something 'thrilling'. Be a bit more classy and adult about it, and just promote them on the basis that they're things some people might find pleasant to own...

If there's no action, then there's no point in calling them 'action figures'... As you rightly pointed out, they're not toys.
pervert_bitch 9th-Jan-2013 02:00 pm (UTC)
I think figurines are the ones that don't move because they have no articulations.
Action figures are the ones that have articulations. The "action" part is because they can be moved in "action" poses
howlin_wolf_66 9th-Jan-2013 02:32 pm (UTC)
... but why would you need to move them unless you were playing with them? The act of moving them or being able to move them means that you are playing with them, which reduces them to toys. This is just a basic problem with how it's classified... If you want to own a figure, then it had better be one that doesn't move, otherwise it's just the same as a toy.

Movie memorabilia is there to be looked at... If you can move it, then you're open to charges that they are capable of being used somehow, instead of just admired.
pervert_bitch 9th-Jan-2013 02:38 pm (UTC)
Because some people like to pose them? Because sometimes they get bored to have them in the exact same pose? Some like to use them for dioramas? Some people like to take pictures of them in interesting poses?
I guess you can call all of that "playing", but yeah they are not used for "playing" as a kid would, since they are freaking expensive and I wouldn't give these toys to a child. Specially the awesome Hot Toys one that almost look life-like.
Also, as a kid I did play with figurines that were meant to be toys, they were cheap plastic ones that didn't move at all, but I still played with them and were meant to be played with them so that made them toys.


Edited at 2013-01-09 02:39 pm (UTC)
howlin_wolf_66 9th-Jan-2013 02:45 pm (UTC)
IDK, to me, posing cheapens them somehow and makes it less about remembering the movie and more about recreating your own personal fantasies with them.

(which is all Tarantino did with the movie in the first place, I suppose... but somehow it seems less offensive when it's one person's personal vision... as opposed to mass culture, which takes the same attitude but actively endorses it by virtue of its popularity)
This page was loaded May 24th 2013, 10:36 pm GMT.