Disney May Ban Leia's Gold Bikini From All Star Wars Merch

Redd the Sock

New member
Apr 14, 2010
1,088
0
0
Meanwhile, no one questions how little Chewbacca is wearing. Come on, do we need near wookie nudity?
 

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
Honestly, Jabba was an asshole. It's the sort of thing you expect from a decadent, self-obsessed monster like him. And it's a wonderful turn-around when Leia strangles him with the very chain he tried to use to keep her under his control.

Context matters.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Oh no! Where will I see scantily-clad women in science fiction and fantasy now?

A KissLike Smile said:
I do not think that by no longer creating merchandise around it they are "confining it to nerd history". Unless they decide to edit the scene in all releases of the film from now on, it still exists as canon within the story line after all. Everyone who decides to watch the films is still going to see it.
And yet, somehow, someone will unironically post the "first they came" poem.

MarsAtlas said:
Then there's the fact that it would be placed in the toy aisle next to Disney princesses and Pokemon plushes because, and some people have a hard time understanding this notion, they're produced as toys for children.
Many people seem to have a hard time understanding that there are other people out there, period.
 

Lightspeaker

New member
Dec 31, 2011
934
0
0
I kinda thought the whole POINT of that thing was to contrast Jabba's base nature and his attempt to make her a subservient slave with her strong willed, rebellious defiance and strength as exemplified by her turning the tables on the notorious crime lord. Rather felt that was a pretty positive message to put out there honestly. The whole classic 'overthrowing the evil-doer from a position of weakness by utilising your own personal strength' trope.

I assume in the upcoming films nobody living will get bits chopped off them by a lightsabre then? Or die horribly like happened in the other films? You know, to keep it all kid-friendly and therefore violence-free?
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Something Amyss said:
Oh no! Where will I see scantily-clad women in science fiction and fantasy now?

A KissLike Smile said:
I do not think that by no longer creating merchandise around it they are "confining it to nerd history". Unless they decide to edit the scene in all releases of the film from now on, it still exists as canon within the story line after all. Everyone who decides to watch the films is still going to see it.
And yet, somehow, someone will unironically post the "first they came" poem.

MarsAtlas said:
Then there's the fact that it would be placed in the toy aisle next to Disney princesses and Pokemon plushes because, and some people have a hard time understanding this notion, they're produced as toys for children.
Many people seem to have a hard time understanding that there are other people out there, period.
Judging just from the number of people in this very thread pointing out the massive double standard in how the toy lines are being treated compared to the various other examples of skimpy outfits in disney properties, violent weaponry in disney properties, the context of the movie where an underworld mob boss was the initiator, and the general relevance of the context of the character in general, no, I don't think the issue is people not understanding there are others out there, I think the issue is the lack of consistency in the reasoning applied and the undercurrent of a larger problem that such a lack of consistency implies.

Makes more sense to me that the people here would understand better than the disney guy that there are other people are out there when they point out the flaws in how only pulling the slave leia outfit while ignoring the huge piles of other problematic outfits, characters, undertones and ideas.

As for my thoughts, in the vein of not constantly milking the past for products, I don't mind if the bikini goes away. But given the franchise itself pretty much exists to keep selling merchandise, the idea of the skimpy slave costume going away is ridiculously dumb. Logically, it is inconsistent since so many other elements are equally problematic yet are banked on to sell, thus it is inconsistent. Morally it is silly since the context of the movie using the outfit made it have an actually empowering purpose to a similar manner of a revenge fantasy thing. Practically, well, it is obvious what happens when you stop selling something that still has an audience, someone else makes and sells it instead. And the decrease in supply may cause a surge in demand because of the rarity effect. So yeah, practically, it is beyond pointless.
 

Quantum Glass

New member
Mar 19, 2013
109
0
0
That scene always bothered me.

Partly for the sexism, yes, but also because it was blatant fan service. There was no Watsonian reason for Leiah to be dressed like that. Jabba is a slug man, and probably breeds by dividing or something. He's not going to find Leiah any more sexually attractive than we find him.

In other words, the only reason that costume was added was because some shmuck said, "You know what? I know a way to get fans to buy merch and love this movie. Half-nudity."

And it worked. The fans loved it, like a bunch of teenagers watching Ecchi anime. It's disgraceful.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
I was going to make a joke where I comically overreacted to loss of the wet dream many a Star Wars fan had, myself included.

Then I saw the comments.

I lost my joking mood PDQ
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
runic knight said:
Did you mean to respond to Mar? Little of what you said seems to have any relevance to what I actually said.


I am sort of baffled at the number of comparisons that are outright false or absurd, but I'm not going to be arguing someone else's argument.
 

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
I really wouldn't approve if they got rid of it completely. It's not like they can wipe it from existence since it's firmly rooted into the lore (Nevermind other assorted reasons) anyhow, but I wouldn't mind seeing her in more than that outfit.
I mean I have, mind you. There's a 3.5 inch figure of her in the armored outfit/helmet she used to disguise herselfand the helmet is removable (Too tired to remember what the proper name of it is), and there's a good bit of her frumpy white robe, but I don't remember seeing it in any of the larger figures which could be part of the issue. Almost all of the smaller figures have shit for articulation for the most part, though that's beside the point, I guess.
 

KissingSunlight

Molotov Cocktails, Anyone?
Jul 3, 2013
1,237
0
0
Either this is clever marketing or Orwellian-censorship to please Social Justice Scolds. I am hoping this is marketing. The best way to create demand for something is to ban it. If it's the other reason, what a way to alienate long-time fans of a movie series you are hoping to re-launch.

Either reason, I am inspired to put it as my avatar. You can't stop the Slave Leia bikini! It is such an iconic part of science fiction fandom. It is one of the most recognizable costume in movie history. Disney will get a tremendous amount of pushback if they try to be on the moral high road to get rid of it.
 

mysecondlife

New member
Feb 24, 2011
2,142
0
0
So kinda like Jennifer Lawrence trying to eradicate her pictures on the internet but 30 years after its leak?

Fruitless.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Something Amyss said:
runic knight said:
Did you mean to respond to Mar? Little of what you said seems to have any relevance to what I actually said.


I am sort of baffled at the number of comparisons that are outright false or absurd, but I'm not going to be arguing someone else's argument.
No, was directed at you, since you were the one who seemed like they were being dismissive of others under the claim that people have a hard time understanding there are other people out there, in particular in reference and in extrapolation to Mar's mention that the toys would be put next to other children toys, thus carrying the meaning that those complaining about the ban don't understand there are other people out there.

Since your remark seemed a very flawed one (this being because, as I explained in the last post, the people bringing up the issues with inconsistency, etc show they understand a wider spectrum where such clashes between people would occur, rather than the very selective conflict fueling the ban on the slave costume), I pointed it out as such. And since you were the one continuing and remarking on the argument Mars made by adding that few people understand there are other people out there as continuation of Mar's dismissal, I replied to you.

But if I am mistaken in reading your intent here, please, do tell me that you didn't intend to imply that the people calling the ban out are part of the refereed to "people who have a hard time understanding there are other people out there", then please explain what actually was the point of your addition to that line of argument you made. Because all I can see it as is a rather mean-spirited attempt to dismiss the opinions of others, but if I am wrong, well, got to ask, what is your point of mentioning 'people who can't understand there are other people out there' in the first place then?
 

KissingSunlight

Molotov Cocktails, Anyone?
Jul 3, 2013
1,237
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
KissingSunlight said:
Orwellian
Please don't call things "Orwellian" just because you disapprove of it. No longer producing toys that come with a certain outfit it not the same as deliberately creating a society where people are literally unable to think for themselves.
*sigh* I really don't want to get into hyper-detailed debate about George Orwell. In the book 1984, Big Brother was constantly rewriting it's history. That is what I was referring to.

George Lucas and Steven Speilberg have done this before with their popular movies. Each time, it received a much-deserved push back for their efforts to rewrite their cinematic history. One of two ways of looking at what Disney is doing with making an announcement to stop distributing Slave Leia merchandise is to rewrite Star Wars history. Which they have done with the Expanded Universe of Star Wars. According to interviews that J.J. Abrams did, he wants to rewrite what was established in the Star Wars prequels.

So, using "Orwellian" as an adjective in the previous post is justified.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
I'll make you a deal, Disney. I'll accept this no longer being part of your merchandise line IF you release a fully remastered blu-ray set of the original trilogy with their original cinematic edits. I'd consider that fair trade.
 

Veylon

New member
Aug 15, 2008
1,626
0
0
Something Amyss said:
And yet, somehow, someone will unironically post the "first they came" poem.
First they came for our Biblical toys and I said nothing because those things were lame.

Then they came for our sharp-edged real metal toy vehicles and I said nothing because plastic felt better.

Then they came for our realistic toy guns and I said nothing because I couldn't tell the difference anyway.

But now they're coming for our Leia bikini dolls. Why won't anyone speak for us?
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
I just hope there will be more Leia merch with her in her cool Hoth, Bespin and Endor outfits. As a young girl growing up on Star Wars it took me forever to find a Leia action figure with the Bespin outfit (but I could get Episode VI Luke or Han Solo anywhere), but when I did she became the centerpiece of lots of playing.

Honestly, if they pull the sexualized toys and replace them with toys that shows Leia in her usual outfits I'll be happy with it. It will let young girls have their hero fantasies and those that want to see Carrie Fisher in the slave outfit can just go watch the movies. Win/Win?
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
runic knight said:
No, was directed at you, since you were the one who seemed like they were being dismissive of others under the claim that people have a hard time understanding there are other people out there
Which, again, had little to do with what you actually said.

Though if you're going to insist on it, I do find it more than a little weird that a woman pimped out as a slave in trophy attire while a fat slug makes lewd gestures at her is somehow on part with Disney Princesses who are in no way treated sexually. Like, so weird I can't take the arguments seriously. Mars is the one who specifically addressed the toys in the manner that seems to have your dander up, though, and I won't be repeating myself on this point. If you have anything to say to me, or maybe to address things I said rather than ones you ascribed to me, by all means.