Django Dolls

Django Dolls: Genius or GTFOH?

(AllHipHop News) Have you ever wanted a slave doll as a kid? What about a slave master doll?

Quentin Tarantino thinks you do.

Django has grossed over $100 million since opening Christmas Day. It’s even earned several Golden Globe nominations. Now the companies behind the film want doll replicas of the main characters to whup some ass in the toy market.

Last fall, the National Entertainment Collectibles Association, Inc. (NECA), in tandem with the Weinstein Company, announced a full line of consumer products based on characters from the movie. First up are pose-able eight-inch action figures with tailored clothing, weaponry, and accessories in the likeness of characters played by Foxx, Kerry Washington, Samuel L. Jackson, Leonardo DiCaprio, James Remar and Christoph Waltz. The dolls are currently on sale via Amazon.com.

A press release announcing the deal stated that the line was similar to the retro toy lines that helped define the licensed action-figure market in the 1970s and that the collection will include a full apparel and accessories line. At the time of the announcement, NECA president Joel Weinshanker said the company was “very excited to bring the stellar cast of Django to life and honored to be working with another Tarantino masterpiece.” [The Daily Beast]

Racist or marketing genius?

  • Tre C

    this is worse than shawty lo and “all his babies’ mamas”

  • Pingback: Django Dolls: Genius or GTFOH? « The Mes Hall Tv / Streaming Music Videos 24 Hrs A Day 7 Days A Week From Your Favorite Artists()

  • hoeyuno

    lame….

  • SpaceAge2012

    What’s funny is ppl don’t realize that Hollywood is usin this shit 2 make $ off clownin black ppl while they take census of da negros that actually support this shit.

  • Steelmatic

    Its just a movie, and these are just dolls. Not racist, just unnecessary.

    • yep, and it was just slavery that the movie was s’posed to portray

  • kered gnuoy

    I want it.

  • MuthaFuka Jones

    Yeah; lets let the youth play with slaves and masters and reinact slavery times. Let’s make it a mockery. The movie; I wasn’t too big on the racism thing. But dolls??? Who do dolls target?? CHILDREN. Who is going to have to explain who these characters are and their roles? ADULTS. Fawk gun control; control this.

  • Big Crimes

    not racist. still, these dolls are just as dumb as you saying this movie is racist.

  • anemia716

    I just bought three of them. I can’t wait. I collect figures so when I heard about this I immediately went to amazon. So dope!

  • Pingback: Django Dolls: Genius or GTFOH? - Naption()

  • Eli Pinilla

    Naw, not a good move at all…. if its like collectors dolls that are sold to the older heads at comic book shops, then I kinda get it. But if wal mart is selkin it to kids, that wont b a good look at all….great movie, horrible idea

    • I’ll take my GI Joe’s M4, Tac vest & helmet & make D’Jango’s job a little easier!

      • Eli Pinilla

        Lmao!!!^^^^ django was doin his thing with them revolvers though

      • I’m gonna download it now, it’s on 4UMF.

      • Eli Pinilla

        Yall gotta nice set up over there. I dnt know if your associated with the site, but I only know It cuz of u…if u google 2k movie site, u can stream it from there too. No lag…the movie is good. And the sence of humor does It justice. Jaimie did his thing, but not like decaprio and sam jackson. Them boys lived their roles

      • Good look!

        I added the 2K stream.
        I’m an editor at 4UMF & part owner, small part ( >>Holding 2 fingaz tightly together to signify how small a part ) but AHH is my home site.

        When it comes to news, we get it first!

        Always looking to hire writers & bloggers.

  • Brian Andrew Smith

    they aren’t toys for kids. they are meant to be collectors items, resembling the dolls and action figures of the sixties and seventies. These are directed at people like steve carrell in 40 year old virgin, not towards the audience of yo gabba gabba.

    • Q.

      Riiight. Mammy and Sambo dolls were “collector’s items” too. They sold well.

      • now you know you are talking about two completely different things. don’t play ignorant and try and make this into something its not.

      • Q.

        Are we talking about two different things? Please explain the difference. But be careful about the bullsh!t you justify. Is it okay if I sell some Schindler’s List dolls, emaciated Jews and mini-Hitlers? …Are you sure you want to play this game?

      • truth

      • Sure I’ll play this game. Look, the difference is that Django Unchained is an homage to 60’s and 70’s explotation films where it was quite common for action figures such as this to be sold as a tie in to the film. The same thing was done when Tarantino released Inglorious Basterds, for which a doll of the Nazi character Col. Landa (the so-called “Jew Hunter”) was made. Schindler’s List is not a just comparison. Neither Inglorious Basterds nor Django Unchained are historical films in the same vein as Schindler’s List. They are nothing more than over-sensationalized historical exploitation films. That is where the major difference lies. Making Schindler’s List dolls of jewish prisoner’s in a concentration camp would be the same as making dolls for Roots and having a raggedy clothed Kunta Kinte doll bearing whip marks on his back. I looked and I do not see any evidence of those ever being made (and if they had been made, well then thats a wholly different story, for which your comparison to mammy and sambo dolls would be completely justified). I hope you realize you are comparing completely different things. Though you may take issue with the idea of creating the dolls/action figures, these dolls (and the ones from Inglorious Basterds) were not created with the blatant and overt racism, as dolls such as Mammy and Sambo.

      • Morena

        No, the difference is that the heart of Slavery, just like the heart of the holocaust, should NEVER be made into this kind of “exploitation” film.

        You notice that you NEVER see an actual holocaust victim in a concentration camp in all of Inglorious Bastards. It deals mainly with 2 soldiers, not swashbuckling holocaust victims and Hitler. I can bet you that the film would not have gotten off of the ground if it had been about that. The heart of slavery deserves the same RESPECT.

      • though the opening scene is nazi letting loose with machine guns into the floor of a farm house, and massacring the jewish family living below the floor boards.

      • Q.

        So here’s the breakdown, Brian:

        Whether racism is overt or covert, it’s equally WRONG. Now you put up a rational defense of Tarantino’s move to put out these toys, justifying it by saying they did the same with Inglorious Basterds… All that tells me is that they made the same dumbazz mistake TWICE! Bottom line: their decision to release these toys was distasteful and inappropriate.

        My position is this…you have the right to put out whatever film you want to within the confines of legality, but when you violate whole groups of people’s cultural sensibilities you should very much expect a cultural backlash–and this is what you see happening now. Tarantino has done a fair job of convincing a lot of people that everything he does is okay. Obviously, a lot of other people disagree and have taken issue with some of his “artistic” decisions. With that being said, I’ll be the first to say Tarantino makes some entertaining films, and I’m a fan of most of his work. HOWEVER, that doesn’t give him or anyone else carte blanche to run roughshod over one of the ugliest cultural experiences in human history, the ramifications of which are still being felt to this day by the descendants of that time. I could see if he was trying to genuinely lend some kind of moral truth or shed new light on the human condition, but that’s not what he did. What he basically did is what he does best: Tarantino made a sensationalistic, gory revenge cartoon designed to shock and titillate viewers and fill his and the producer’s pockets. The backdrop of slavery was merely a provocative stage prop. Then he takes it a step lower and releases some toys to extend the franchise. How are you gonna put out a goddamn SLAVEMASTER and HOUSE SLAVE action figure, and think that’s okay?? That tells you right there that this is pure exploitation, and has nothing to do with paying homage to the struggles of Black ancestry, but to make $$$. To underscore that point, the movie house refrained from issuing a public statement on the release of these toys… So again, they’re showing that they KNOW they’re on some bullish!t!

        I’ll say it again, Tarantino is a good filmmaker, but he’s an arrogant prick and somewhat of a sick fukck. He could probably use some therapy. If this guy wasn’t a famous director, he’d probably fill some psycho-analyst’s profile of a sociopath. He shows you how his mind works in his movies–and Django was a convenient delivery system for Tarantino to project his perverse racial fetishes onto the mass consciousness of moviegoers. Don’t be confused…this movie is more of a reflection of the filmmaker himself than it is of historical truth. Tarantino is a HABITUAL LINE STEPPER and a cultural daredevil, to say the least, because it takes a certain level of pomposity (i.e. recklessness) to pull off what he’s doing, and I’m certain he’s been getting his rocks off to the overall reception of Django. It should be noted that Denzel Washington actually stepped to this dude back in the 90’s over his disrespectful use of the N-word and almost laid hands on this dude. Apparently, he hasn’t scaled back his arrogance, and this is probably the same reason he got that black eye the other week. And unfortunately, too many people (mostly white) have taken the rock and run with it, defending Tarantino’s every decision to forge forward with the disrespect (he even sh!tted on the Roots mini-series in an interview), under the guise of “welp, it’s just what Tarantino does” and the classic N-word defense, “thatz how evryboddy talkt back then!” That’s a crock of horsesh!t. There is no Black director alive who could get away with depicting and franchising another culture’s history in the way Tarantino and his producers have done. And this doesn’t excuse Reginald Hudlin or the Black cast’s participation either (they want $$ too), but this is Tarantino’s vision.

        This is why it’s our job to remain vigilant and keep people informed of the continuous mindfukck games that TV/Hollywood plays on the masses. Because after the popcorn, soda, and ju-ju mints are all gone, you enjoyed a 3-hr diversion, but the controversy this franchise causes just stirs up a bunch of negative thoughtforms that keep bouncing back and forth, further deteriorating the spiritual condition of society. Does this make sense to you?

      • I do understand the points that you are making, and i believe you opinion is completely valid. Now, i do want to know how you feel about Boondocks, specifically the episode about Catcher Freeman. Though it is not completely analogous to this situation, it quite similar.

      • Q.

        Catcher Freeman had a totally different context than Django Unchained. Ironically, it seems like Tarantino may have drawn directly from some of the characters in the Boondocks episode, specifically Uncle Ruckus (Stephen). But the major difference is that the Boondocks TV show has followed a long-running theme of parodying various archetypes found throughout American Black culture. In fact, Aaron McGruder, the creator, based the main character Huey Freeman on himself–and Huey always represents the Truth. The show as a whole is largely self-critical of various racial dynamics and Black culture in particular, usually offering some form of allegory. Django, on the other hand, didn’t offer much in terms of allegory or satire (other than maybe the scene with the Klansmen).

      • ok, i do agree with you there. I just wanted to see if you felt the same way about boondocks as you did django. I completely agree with you on everything you had to say about boondocks. I am a huge fan of McGruder, and have been since a kid reading boondocks in the sunday paper. Man, this conversation oh here reminds me of how it was years ago before the whole ill community fell apart. Thank you.

      • Q.

        No doubt. I dug the strip back in the day too, and what McGruder did with the TV series is just genius–but the voice actors are what make the show! F’n hilarious…Yeah, I used to consider this site like the CNN of Hip-Hop. It’s amazing how it fell off. I still have faith though… Next time.

      • Morena

        Exactly Q.

  • Pingback: Django Dolls: Genuis or GTFOH? : SoundwavezRadeo()

  • 4UMF (.) Com has the D’Jango movie download in “Word From The Streets” for those who want to see it…..for free 99!

  • Q.

    LOL They made these to show how stupid they think you are. I bet a couple of simple n!ggas actually ordered these sh!ts too. SMH

  • It’s unbelievable! He is literally selling slaves!

  • Who’s idea was this? It is in terrible bad taste. They don’t care about black people.

    This article should be in signs the world is coming to an end. We don’t do anything about it, so in return, we render ourselves subject to this abuse, over and over again.

  • $16906279

    It’s neither genius or GTFOH. They did the same for Inglorious Basterds. They are not “slavery” dolls. They are the figurines of the main characters.

    • johnblacksad

      i thought i was the only one who got this… thanks homie, i was feelin all alone no homo with all these ninjas screamin that ‘racist’ sh!t…

      Just figurines of the main character of the movie… who gives a fugg that they happen to be slaves or prostitutes or darth vader himself… wtf??!!

      Ninjas kill me sometimes… can’t help but see themselves as victims all the time…. that sh!t gets annoying

      • I think they’re just being insensitive to the older generation that experienced slavery since that is what the movie portrays. It’s not racist, just ridiculous.

  • ONE

    Slave dolls, wtf

    • Katherine McChesney

      Trashy looking. Why on earth would anyone want a bl ack doll.

      • same reason they sit in tanning booths to get blacker, go to doctors to get Black features like lip injections, cheekbone implants, etc. Jealousy is a sickness. Goodness, this country would have been NOTHING without the labor of Black folk, seems like they couldn’t survive w/out Black PEOPLE, skip the doll

  • Pingback: Django Dolls: Genius or GTFOH? | Channel Zero TV()

  • Sir_Salty_Mcginty

    These dolls are NOT for children. They are movie memorabilia for film heads. They sell them at comic book shops and what not.

  • Katherine McChesney

    Stupid, stupid idea. Cheap and crappily made.

  • It doesn’t matter if its not made for kids. Are drugs made for kids? Guns? Knives? Porno? Gangsta videos? It ends up in their hands regardless. The it aint made for kids line is just ready prepared propaganda statement to exonerate themselves before. And dont give me the old lame its up to the parents line… kids have acces to all type of stuff daily and parents are not always there.

  • Pingback: Are You Offended Yet? ‘Django Unchained’ Slave Dolls Marketed Online… [PHOTOS] | AutoBlog()

  • Pingback: Are You Offended Yet? ‘Django Unchained’ Slave Dolls Marketed Online… [PHOTOS] | Bred4Bread Music()

  • mo

    the movie was made as a study to see how black folks would react to black killing white folks for revenge. its just confirm what white already believe and that is if they allow it to happen black people deep down inside want to retaliate for what whites have done to them. to us it just a movie, to them it a census.

  • Pingback: Are You Offended Yet? ‘Django Unchained’ Slave Dolls Marketed Online… [PHOTOS]()