I just take it as weird promotion of the film. Slave action figures... Jesus...

[Edited 1/8/13 11:47am]

babynoz said:

In related news, slave action figures are now on sale for kids and collectors alike....wtf are the accesories? Whips and chains?

http://www.thedailybeast....gures.html

i find this slave action hero offensive. wouldn't it be would be just as offensive to market holocaust action figures for kids and collectors? i imagine the accessories for the H. victims would be freight trains, striped uniforms and yellow stars of david.

imo it is all very offensive!

free2bfreeda said:

babynoz said:

In related news, slave action figures are now on sale for kids and collectors alike....wtf are the accesories? Whips and chains?

http://www.thedailybeast....gures.html

i find this slave action hero offensive. wouldn't it be would be just as offensive to market holocaust action figures for kids and collectors? i imagine the accessories for the H. victims would be freight trains, striped uniforms and yellow stars of david.

imo it is all very offensive!

Have you seen the movie?

Anybody remember 'The Passion of the Christ' "collectible merchandise"?

Gunsnhalen said:

I Love Spike Lee. In fact I would say he is one of my favorite dircectors!, but with that being said. Whenever there is a movie revolving an African American main character in it he always puts in his 2 cents. I think his heart is in the right place at times, but I also believe he doesn't think a white director can tell a story revolving around African American history... which I think is not true. And besides all that it's a Tarantino movie!, it's not trying to be 100% historically accurate . That would be like saying the Xena and Hercules TV Shows were 100% accurate to mythology lol.

Also on the talk of the ''n'' word. It's a word no one likes to hear in movies, Tarantino has been known for saying that & many other non PG rated words.

And Spike Lee has also used the n word in many of his films to... So him coming after Tarantino because of his use of the word is strange.

plus, Lee and Tarantino have already had their fair share of bad blood in the past, this is moreso a personal thing then it is something moral.

[Edited 12/24/12 15:40pm]

There is a difference between being inaccurate about the mythology of Xena and being inaccurate about the murder and enslavement of millions of people.

I haven't seen the film so I cannot give too much opinion but from the trailer and the little I have heard of it, Spike Lee seems to have a point.

Look. I'm not offended when I hear the n word used in some contexts. Hell, I use it myself on occasion. Folk, and by folk, I am referring to my own people, blacks/African Americans/whatever, who find Tarrantino's flicks racists because of what they consider excessive use of the word, are just not being fair. A lot of us do use the word, whether negatively or in jest or even affectionately. For example, "He my niggah," is used as a reference to a good friend or ally. I was reprimanded at a job for using the word "Negros," for heaven's sake, and this was at a historically black institution. Give me a friggin break! First it was Negro, then it was Black, now it's African American. WTF!! I just get tired of folk getting their panties in a bunch over nomenclature. Back in the day, when "Negro" was the accepted term, calling someone "black" was considered an insult and could result in a beat down. Now, "Negro" is considered offensive. So should we now change "The United Negro College Fund" to "The United African American College Fund?" or "The Negro Baseball League" to "The African American Baseball League?" Come on people, get a grip.

Slave owners did not refer to their slaves as Negros in everyday language. They called them niggers. Female slaves were called "wenches" and men "bucks. Their offspring were called "suckers." It is a fact. If Tarantino had censored his films by having the slave owners or gang members use "Negros," I would have laughed because it would not be an authentic representation of the times.

OK, now for those who do not agree or find fault in my opinion,

Gunsnhalen said:

Glad most of you guys & gals agree!

I do love Spike and he is one of my favorite directors. But he is just so damn bitter all the time

Sometime i highly agree with what he says like his quote on Tyler Perry. And his quotes on Hollywood is afraid to do non sterotypical black movies quite a bit.

But his attitude about having movies with black characters, and a white director he just gets way to pressed.

And as mentioned him & Trarantino have had bad blood since the 90's when he commented on the use of the n word in Jackie Brown.

This was Tarantinos comment

''As a writer, I demand the right to write any character in the world that I want to write. I demand the right to be them, I demand the right to think them and I demand the right to tell the truth as I see they are, all right? And to say that I can't do that because I'm white, but the Hughes brothers can do that because they're black, that is racist. That is the heart of racism, all right. And I do not accept that ... That is how a segment of the black community that lives in Compton, lives in Inglewood, where Jackie Brown takes place, that lives in Carson, that is how they talk. I'm telling the truth. It would not be questioned if I was black, and I resent the question because I'm white. I have the right to tell the truth. I do not have the right to lie''

And a quote from Samuel L. Jackson

I don't think the word is offensive in the context of this film ... Black artists think they are the only ones allowed to use the word. Well, that's bull. Jackie Brown is a wonderful homage to black exploitation films. This is a good film, and Spike hasn't made one of those in a few years.

That Tarantino quote is BS. Of course he has the right to lie. He can depict in his movies, whatever he wants. That's why he writes and directs.

Is he really telling the 'truth?' No reason to believe he is. His movie isn't trying to be historically accurate or depict actual events. Pretending otherwise is drinking the kool-aid he's trying to sell here.

I didn't like the movie. I thought it was empty and the grindhouse violence out of place.

Stymie said:

I just got back and Django was really, really, good. I haven't cheered after a movie in a long time.

What was there to cheer? I thought it was competent but not good. Not something I'd want to revisit repeatedly. Seeing it once was almost enough. Seeing it again would be wasting enough of my life on it.

SUPRMAN said:

missfee said:

Spinlight said:

Django was an exceptional movie. Not only was the cinematography and editing spot-on, but the story was interesting and compelling. Of course, it's a Tarantino film so the ending is never straightforward and can sometimes be a little too editorial, but overall this is absolutely my favorite Tarantino work behind Kill Bill 1 & 2 (with Reservoir Dogs coming in after Django).

The movie is acted superbly well. Leonardo DiCaprio's performance deserves an Oscar, quite frankly. He is vicious, cruel, disarming, charming, and covered in Mississippi swampjuice. He fits the role impeccably. Jamie Foxx's performance is subtle and virile; he captures the essence of his character effortlessly and is, thankfully, paired up with a brilliant cohort. Christoph Waltz's performance is the standout here. His character is intriguing, amusing, and gripping and, in the end, you really don't suffer from too much character development. It's brisk, but it feels right. While I think Christoph's performance is the standout, you walk away from the movie knowing much more about who Django is and what motivates him than any other character. Score.

Tarantino happens to be my favorite living director (behind the late Kubrick). X was the only movie I ever even dug by Spike.

Spike Lee is a joke. A played out has-been, longing for the days of New Jack Swing and rat-tails. Bye, bitch, bye.

[Edited 12/29/12 2:56am]

I have to say so myself. But Leonardo is an exceptional actor anyway and has been for many years now. He's one (along with Johnny Depp) that has been long overdue for an Oscar.

I also have to say that Samuel L. Jackson's performance as the "uncle Tom" house servant was a great performance as well. I say that because (even though he made you hate his guts), we have heard about the difference between the "house negroes vs. field negroes" discussion...there really hasn't been an accurate depiction of how calculating and manipulative the house servants were back in those times and how deceptive they were to their own people....until now. As Malcolm X said "the house negro loved his master more than himself"...I immediately thought of this line when Sam's character ran to Leo's side after he was shot and killed.

Anyway, I like the movie very much and it's something that I don't mind seeing over and over again. There were a few scenes that were comical, but not in a way that I feel "disrespected the history of my ancestors". I didn't walk away feeling funny about anything and the way it was depicted.

I don't think Tarantino was focusing on being historically accurate. Why do think the depiction is an accurate one? Just curious.

Why Django had no empathy or failed to offer any assistance to the Black men he was with I found troubling. He was obviously aware of their plight but could apparently care less.

He's passive whereas Sam Jackson's self hatred was blown up to a caricature.

Stymie said:

outsideofthebox said:

no, I said that the film was racist with the excession use of the n word....and you didnt clearly read that I actually said it. I never said that Spike Lee made that statement and I can see what he means django being disrespectful to our ancestors.

[Edited 1/5/13 16:44pm]

Unless you see the movie, you have no idea if it was racist or not. And I hate to break it to you, but much like to today, back then, some people used the n word quite a lot.

You're right. It's hilarious to hear a white person call a Black man a nigger. You don't get that kind of comedy in everyday life.

JoeyC said:

I finally got a chance to check out Django and i must say i enjoyed it. More importantly, i wasn't offended by Quentin's portrayal of blacks in the movie. There wasn't really anything in the movie that made me think Quentin was trying to make light of slavery or portray blacks in a negative light. Take Django and his wife for instance.

Django was portrayed as an intelligent, self assured and thoughtful man and his wife, she spoke German for Christ sakes !

As for some of the other black characters.

Samuel Jackson's portrayal of a self hating, sellout, house negro was disturbing but the fact is there was probably a lot of house negroes (and field negroes)that thought and acted the way his character did. Being enslaved, mistreated, broken and thought of as being only one fifth human most definitely produced a lot self hate amongst blacks back then. I looked at Samuel's portrayal as being authentic.

Also the slave owners and some of the other white racists were accurately portrayed as being the dogs and evil bastards they were. Also he made the hooded fools look like idiots.

As far as the excessive use of the word Nigger in the movie.

Me personally i don't use the word and i get uncomfortable when people do but fuck it. Some of us African Americans use it like its going outta style so what should we expect ?

I understand the whole racist use of the word vs the term of endearment use of the word argument but i don't buy it. My feelings about using the word to excess in the movie... Whatever.

In closing. I agree that slavery is nothing to make light of but i think Spike Lee should see the movie before he decides to get all high and mighty.

P.S

Now that i know the movie isn't a pile of crap i can now do the right thing and pay full price to watch it at the theater in addition to watching it in the comfort of my . Theres some excellent of the movie floating around the net.

[Edited 1/7/13 2:59am]

Where do people get the idea that this movie is historically accurate because it depicts slavery as evil? I don't understand that. Accurately portrayed?!! I don't think Tarantino would say that.

SUPRMAN said:

Cerebus said:

babynoz said:

In related news, slave action figures are now on sale for kids and collectors alike....wtf are the accesories? Whips and chains?

http://www.thedailybeast....gures.html

No. Because none of those characters used a whip. Other than Django, which he used to brutalize a white man.

Only Django and Broomhilda were slaves. Both of them are freed in the movie (Django is a free, freethinking, freewilled character for nearly all of the movie), and their masters killed.

Collectible action figures like these are done for a majority of genre movies these days, but they never make the news. Are these appropriate? I don't know. I have to say, for me, they're not something I would want. But I don't find them offensive, either. Just kind of odd.

What about the men Django was chained with at the beginning of the film? Were they not slaves or just invisible to you? What about the other slaves he was being sent away with in the cage? I guess they too weren't slaves, just in chains in a cage, out for a ride?!

When they visited the plantation where Django killed the two white men, no slaves there?

Samuel Jackson wasn't portraying a slave either?!

SMH . . . . .

Stymie said:

SUPRMAN said:

What was there to cheer? I thought it was competent but not good. Not something I'd want to revisit repeatedly. Seeing it once was almost enough. Seeing it again would be wasting enough of my life on it.

I thought it was worth seeing twice and cheering after twice. You didn't. End of story.

Duh. Why bother posting that? It's self evident. You expressed your opinion and I mine.

End of story.

Stymie said:

SUPRMAN said:

You're right. It's hilarious to hear a white person call a Black man a nigger. You don't get that kind of comedy in everyday life.

where in the hell did I say it was hilarious? You didn't like the movie. So fucking what?

Reading is fundamental . . .

I am not quoting you. Therefore it should be obvious I am not saying you said anything.

You like it. So effing what? How is that more valid? It isn't. It just is.

SMH . . . . . I can see why you like it.

missfee said:

Urgh, I saw this yesterday and my first thoughts were why doesn't he just shut the fuck up. Seriously. This isn't anything new with him, he does have a right to an opinion, but damn, he's always bitching and moaning and bitching and moaning about somebody else's film...especially if the stars of the film or the cast is predominantly African American.

What I really don't get is that how he can have an opinion on a film he hasn't even seen? I mean its one thing to say, "I don't have any interest in seeing it. That's it"...but it's another to say I don't have any interest because it "disrespects my ancestors"...how do you know what the film does if you haven't seen it??? His reasoning doesn't make sense and seems like it's just yet another dig to make at Tarantino whom we clearly know from past criticism that he doesn't care for.

I think Spike is salty because his films generally don't do well at the box office...and not only that, his films don't get decent promotion....as both Tyler Perry's and Tarantino films do.

[Edited 12/24/12 16:27pm]

This!

SUPRMAN said:

Well that didn't take long to blow up... it's just a movie for crying out lord.

SUPRMAN said:

Cerebus said:

No. Because none of those characters used a whip. Other than Django, which he used to brutalize a white man.

Only Django and Broomhilda were slaves. Both of them are freed in the movie (Django is a free, freethinking, freewilled character for nearly all of the movie), and their masters killed.

Collectible action figures like these are done for a majority of genre movies these days, but they never make the news. Are these appropriate? I don't know. I have to say, for me, they're not something I would want. But I don't find them offensive, either. Just kind of odd.

What about the men Django was chained with at the beginning of the film? Were they not slaves or just invisible to you? What about the other slaves he was being sent away with in the cage? I guess they too weren't slaves, just in chains in a cage, out for a ride?!

When they visited the plantation where Django killed the two white men, no slaves there?

Samuel Jackson wasn't portraying a slave either?!

SMH . . . . .

Man, go shake your unnecessarily judgmental, pot stirring head someplace else.

I was talking SPECIFICALLY about the characters that were made into action figures. Not every person in the movie. Context, ya know? And I corrected myself regarding Sam Jackson two posts later in response to babynoz. Yes, he was a slave. But his character was not played as a powerless slave in chains, either.

And this right here...

"It's hilarious to hear a white person call a Black man a nigger. You don't get that kind of comedy in everyday life."

You're trying to start a fight, where as everybody else in this thread, for five pages, has been having a conversation. Have fun with that. Every white person in the movie who used that word (other than Schultz, who was clearly uncomfortable at having to say it) was portrayed as bad, evil, nasty and low. And nearly all of them (maybe all of them) were killed. That's something you don't get everyday.

Timmy84 said:

Well that didn't take long to blow up... it's just a movie for crying out lord.

Actually, it did take long. It took five pages of people actually conversing intelligently about a serious topic, something that rarely happens at the org.

Stymie said:

SUPRMAN said:

Reading is fundamental . . .

I am not quoting you. Therefore it should be obvious I am not saying you said anything.

You like it. So effing what? How is that more valid? It isn't. It just is.

SMH . . . . . I can see why you like it.

You did quote me. I can see why you didn't like it. And I never said my opinion was more valid. Damn I was wondering where you were and now I wish you'd go the fuck away again.

Grown up already.

You have your opinion and I have mine.

Where did I quote you? Please post.

[Edited 1/8/13 20:28pm]

Just got back from seeing it.

And I can't lie I liked it.

I thought the score choice was interesting, but hey I expected that from a Tarantino flick.

Definetly enjoyed it more then Inglurious Blasterds, which was just plain boring.

It did make me squirm a bit. And I did feel conflicted watching it, especially when the audience would laught at certain parts that weren't really (in my opinion) suppose to be funny.

I can definetly understand why someone would be offended by the movie.

But all in all, it's a harmless western, and goes out f its way to depict the cruelty of the southern mentality during Slavery.

I think Spike should see it before he criticises it.

Whilst I did like the movie, I think the action figures go to far.

A. because the movie isn't for children (as it shouldn't be)

And it does send a warped idea about Slavery...

I don't necessarilly blame Quentin, I blame the producers for that dimwitted idea.

Action figures is usually their area.

SUPRMAN said:

missfee said:

I have to say so myself. But Leonardo is an exceptional actor anyway and has been for many years now. He's one (along with Johnny Depp) that has been long overdue for an Oscar.

I also have to say that Samuel L. Jackson's performance as the "uncle Tom" house servant was a great performance as well. I say that because (even though he made you hate his guts), we have heard about the difference between the "house negroes vs. field negroes" discussion...there really hasn't been an accurate depiction of how calculating and manipulative the house servants were back in those times and how deceptive they were to their own people....until now. As Malcolm X said "the house negro loved his master more than himself"...I immediately thought of this line when Sam's character ran to Leo's side after he was shot and killed.

Anyway, I like the movie very much and it's something that I don't mind seeing over and over again. There were a few scenes that were comical, but not in a way that I feel "disrespected the history of my ancestors". I didn't walk away feeling funny about anything and the way it was depicted.

I don't think Tarantino was focusing on being historically accurate. Why do think the depiction is an accurate one? Just curious.

Why Django had no empathy or failed to offer any assistance to the Black men he was with I found troubling. He was obviously aware of their plight but could apparently care less.

He's passive whereas Sam Jackson's self hatred was blown up to a caricature.

Although did enjoy it as entertainment, I wasn't expecting a history lesson from Quentin either. With that said. I do agree with your point about those slaves that were initially traveling with Django.

I noticed that Quentin made an attempt to point out the transition in that one "hater slave" is what I called him (for the lack of a better term). You know the one, he was constantly mean-mugging Django with great hatred or jealousy in his eyes. Afterall Django did mistreat him and the others while putting on his "Slaver Show". But by the end of the film he appeared to be proud of Django for saving his woman and killing the slaveowners while doing it. But what about Mean-Mugging Dude and his crew in the cage? Sure, they were free to go as they pleased but I think I was wanting a little more than that.

JoeyC said:

Being enslaved, mistreated, broken and thought of as being only one fifth human most definitely produced a lot self hate amongst blacks back then. I looked at Samuel's portrayal as being authentic.

^Just for the record. The bolded statement is incorrect.

My bad.

Edit: Lot of self hate. Damn, the older i get the dumber i get.

[Edited 1/9/13 23:11pm]