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

[seiler88]

I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand I have been watching these movies since I was four and to tell the truth I AM tired of it. I hope that what they are trying to do is retire this and making a mistake in trying to force it instead of letting it happen naturally. Maybe this is the first step in retiring the original toys now that we have sequels coming and this is all a misguided attempt to score some Social Justice points and good press.

Then on the other hand there is a perfectly good narrative reason for the scenes and costume to exist. Now I do agree that those reason do support the arguments of people who say that the action figures should be pulled from child focused marketing since none of the reasons are child friendly. Overall this may be female positive but it is not appropriate for kids.

Finally, Am I the only one frustrated by how no one seems to pay attention to context anymore? I had this realization as I was reading the other posts. Not only are we losing good things but this is also giving us crap like (and I hate bringing these up as they are becoming the Bad Narrative Bogeymen) Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey. We as a culture need to relearn this skill.

 

[Something Amyss]

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?

I don't know about Bespin, but it was super easy to get her Endor gear here. I don't know exact numbers, but she was about as prominent as Han, Luke, and Chewie from the same run.

...not that I was looking for girl action figures or anything. >.>

<.<

...this is the point where I usually point out my brother was the one to play with dolls.

Are you PC brah?

A PC bra sounds really large.

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.

Disney doesn't have the rights to the OT, do they? Or did something change recently?

In the book 1984, Big Brother was constantly rewriting it's history. That is what I was referring to.

Unfortunately, "not releasing merchandise for slave girl Leia" is not the same as "rewriting history."

Also, there were multiple changes to Star Wars in the late 70s and early 80s, including the damn title of the movie. I still have some merch in storage somewhere that predates some of those. It's not so much that people have pushed back against the rewriting of "history," it's that they're pushing back against changes to the way it was when they were growing up.

Which also isn't so much rewriting history as changing a commercial artistic venture. And this has never been a pushback against historical inaccuracy, it's been a pushback from a culture that despises things being changed from the way they remember it.

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?

You forgot the part where they took the M-Rated video games out of the children's departments in Australia. I mean, if that's not Political Correct censorship, I don't know what is.

 

[Silverspetz]

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.

Yeah, and the big probem here is that you honestly would consider the act of not producing certain toys anymore to be "rwriting history". The two are not ven remotely the same.

 

[Elijin]

The scene should stay. In its whole context, she gets put in that awful position, but then she straight up strangles her captor with the very chain she's being held by. There's definitely something noteworthy there.

The merch? Lots of it is totally divorced from the power/context of the scene, and amounts to 'sexy Leia' bits and pieces. If it goes, its not like much is lost. If anything, maybe it will stop being the iconic image of Leia being eye candy, and we'll get more of her 'actually a badass' side focused on.

 

[Something Amyss]

The scene should stay. In its whole context, she gets put in that awful position, but then she straight up strangles her captor with the very chain she's being held by. There's definitely something noteworthy there.

The merch? Lots of it is totally divorced from the power/context of the scene, and amounts to 'sexy Leia' bits and pieces. If it goes, its not like much is lost. If anything, maybe it will stop being the iconic image of Leia being eye candy, and we'll get more of her 'actually a badass' side focused on.

But is anyone talking about changing the movie? Being serious here, because the closest I can come to finding that subject being broached by anyone in a real position of authority is that the outfit is "discouraged" in EU material.

 

[Yopaz]

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.

OK, so Disney is rewriting history in an Orwellian fashion?

Where is the recalls of merch already produced? Where is the recalls of the DVDs, VHS', digital downloads and the removal of all images of it from the internet? Or the removal of the people who remembers it for that matter?

All existing merch still exists. As long as Disney do not try to change the past Orwellian censorship is at BEST an exaggerating (I am being kind when I use exaggeration) and at worst a childish overreaction to a company simply choosing to not produce further merch in that product line. Kinda like Sony stopping to produce PS3. Dang them, tryin' to change the past, them big brother be tryin' to keep us down and erase our histry. Pa' always said them would do that.

 

[runic knight]

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.

Except the part of my post you cut out of the reply where I explained exactly how it related to what I said previously. So, you know, there is that. Still sitting there too if you'd like to address it you know. I'll recap further down, just to be sure it is more clear this time around in how it applies to your comment.

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.

I tried, you dodged my attempts and continue to do so. Even when pressed to clarify, you would rather complain about me than actually put yourself out there and clarify your stance. Still, I'll try again.

What is the purpose of extrapolating the "people don't understand it shares a shelf with children" into a larger statement of "people don't understand other people are out there"? What possible point or benefit does that have? What does it add to the discussion beside being a rather mean-spirited jab and dismissal of other people?

Lets stick with that part for now and see if you are willing to actually defend or explain the statement you made or if you will try to deflect. I'll worry about the dismissal by Mars through use of missing the point being raised when comparing a sexy outfit in a movie where the fat slug monster is rather brutally chokes to death and thus likely not quite meant for kids without parental supervision in the first place to not just other sexy outfits worn by other disney characters, but also the various violent weapons and such within the franchise and company to showcase a very selective application of "protect the children" if they wish to argue it with me. However that argument itself isn't required to address your statement as flawed.

My point raised was that your implied association of people calling the ban of the outfit with "people who don't understand other people are out there", and that is the point I would like you to actually clarify and address. The arguments showing the lack of consistency is merely example that those people do, in fact, understand other people exist, and likely do so better than the disney employee themselves as unlike the disney employee, they don't limit the idea of "save the children" from a single 30 year old costume and instead ask about the myriad of other possible things children must be saved from, from other outfits to violent behavior, to mature themes and etc.

Thus your implied statement, which you for some reason have yet to clarify or defend, that the people complaining about the ban are people who "don't understand that other people are out there" is demonstrably untrue. So what was the purpose of it here?

 

[KissingSunlight]

If you ever wonder why some people think that Social Justice Scolds are the pox of the internet? This is why. They take one word out of context. Then they extrapolate their own narrative of what they think that the person meant by that word. Even when the person tells them what was meant by it. They will still insists that their interpretation is the only correct way to read it.

If a company is putting out a line of toys based on a movie series, then makes a big deal of not putting out one toy based on an iconic moment in the series. It sounds like censorship(Orwellian or not).

If you want to argue that the Slave Leia action figure isn't appropriate for little children. That is a different argument. Adults are the ones who would fondly remember that movie series. They will even remember playing with those action figures as a kid. Some of them might be nostalgic enough to buy them again. Thusly, none of these action figures, Slave Leia or not, should be marketed to little children.

So, can we agree that Slave Leia merchandise are acceptable if they are marketed to adults?

 

[Elijin]

The scene should stay. In its whole context, she gets put in that awful position, but then she straight up strangles her captor with the very chain she's being held by. There's definitely something noteworthy there.

The merch? Lots of it is totally divorced from the power/context of the scene, and amounts to 'sexy Leia' bits and pieces. If it goes, its not like much is lost. If anything, maybe it will stop being the iconic image of Leia being eye candy, and we'll get more of her 'actually a badass' side focused on.

But is anyone talking about changing the movie? Being serious here, because the closest I can come to finding that subject being broached by anyone in a real position of authority is that the outfit is "discouraged" in EU material.

I dont know. I was more coming at it in a sense of 'If you're going to drop something, you need to look at the big picture.' As in, if this isnt suitable for merch, is the original material still worthy of its spot? And thats where my statement came from. Looking at it as 'Yes, the full scene with context is cool, but the merch is a little sleazy.'

From the bits I've read, I dont think you and I disagree, really.

 

[Quellist]

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.

Don't even suggest it...they just might

 

[Buckets]

Tell you what lets ban Chewbacca because he is naked, ban the death star because it looks like a tit. FFS, I wish they would just leave this shit alone.
Its like when the yanks removed references to the twin towers in existing movies. (Die Hard 3, Antz).
Star Wars was over 40 years ago, the world was a different place, the outfit is technically a historic artifact now.

 

[Erttheking]

If you ever wonder why some people think that Social Justice Scolds are the pox of the internet? This is why. They take one word out of context. Then they extrapolate their own narrative of what they think that the person meant by that word. Even when the person tells them what was meant by it. They will still insists that their interpretation is the only correct way to read it.

If a company is putting out a line of toys based on a movie series, then makes a big deal of not putting out one toy based on an iconic moment in the series. It sounds like censorship(Orwellian or not).

If you want to argue that the Slave Leia action figure isn't appropriate for little children. That is a different argument. Adults are the ones who would fondly remember that movie series. They will even remember playing with those action figures as a kid. Some of them might be nostalgic enough to buy them again. Thusly, none of these action figures, Slave Leia or not, should be marketed to little children.

So, can we agree that Slave Leia merchandise are acceptable if they are marketed to adults?

Yeah I have. Most of the answers were along the lines of "People on the internet can't take criticism." You used a word that wasn't appropriate. And people get tired of people pulling words like "sheep" because it comes off as a person blowing things out of proportion. And I mean really. There is a RUMOR that a company will stop selling one toy and you draw comparisons between a book where the government was watching you out of your TV and the wrong muscle spasm would get you sentenced to death? If you don't want people to call you out on it, don't act like a fairly trivial scenario is comparable to a massive moral crisis and or a threat to our freedom. Oh, and Orwell didn't like people oversimplifying arguments by simply repeating terms without exploring them in depth. He thought it dumbed down the discussion.

You see, this is why no one takes the word censorship seriously anymore. People drop it for bloody everything. People act like every single time a company decides to not sell something, it's censorship. Toys R Us stops selling Breaking Bad toys, it's censorship. A single chain stops selling GTA V, it's censorship. A cover of a comic book got changes because the creator thought it didn't fit the character, it's censorship. It's getting to the point where censorship just means "Change I don't like." except it's worded to try and make it part of a bigger moral argument. A company decides to not sell a toy. Is pulling any toy from the shelves censorship? No it isn't. Because a company making a decision regarding a property it owns isn't censorship. That's the opposite of censorship, that's free expression. You don't need to like it.

Yeah, we can...was anyone questioning that?

 

[Phasmal]

Ok, good.

There has been enough Slave Leia merch in the past- and honestly it's been like 30 years. We've moved on.

It's a kinda dumb outfit which is kinda dumb in the scene and it was kinda dumb to be marketed to children.
I do remember briefly as a kid wanting a Leia (I wanted one with a gun, from just after she'd been rescued when she was being a badass) and the only one they had was a stiff slave Leia. Was probably just the place that I went to, but as a kid that was enough to put me off and be like `oh well never mind then` about the whole thing.

I'm not really into Star Wars any more (as years after this I would have a baby brother who refused to go to sleep unless we had watched a Star Wars movie and seeing those so many times kinda made me want to puke)- but I really don't think this is a big deal.

I can see a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about this in the comments, but fuck it, they're still selling them at the moment. If you want one, buy one. If not, you're just looking to get offended, which is funnily enough the thing `SJW's` get accused of.

 

[UrinalDook]

However. Disney are making the right move, if they are indeed making a move, in my opinion because that slave outfit existed for a small part of a single film that screened decades ago. Why are there still action figures being released with that outfit? There is no real reason for it to happen in future, so let's not make it happen.

Why are they still making action figures of Hoth Luke [http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Series-Skywalker-6-Inch/dp/B00XK8X13C]? I mean, that was only a small part of a single film that screened decades ago. Why are they still making Bossk figures [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MYL74AC/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2?pf_rd_p=1944687622&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00XK8X13C&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=17PH46MK4K07DD8MMQ7B]? The guy is literally on screen for about 5 seconds.

Because people like the look of these characters and outfits. Because kids want to play with the things they see in the movies. Your argument's kinda shitty.

OT: This is one nobody artist posting on Facebook. This isn't even a rumour.

Funny thing is that if they did try and discontinue any slave Leia merch, you'd get full force Streisand Effect and demand would skyrocket (cynic hat: maybe that's the point, give people a reason to buy all those awful, arm-cankled badly painted slave Leia action figures that fucking nobody wanted), paving the way for shitty 'green and silver bikini servant Layla' knock off merch to spring up.

Disney aren't just going to willingly turn over a load of money to the Chinese knock-off industry.

 

[Erttheking]

However. Disney are making the right move, if they are indeed making a move, in my opinion because that slave outfit existed for a small part of a single film that screened decades ago. Why are there still action figures being released with that outfit? There is no real reason for it to happen in future, so let's not make it happen.

Why are they still making action figures of Hoth Luke [http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Series-Skywalker-6-Inch/dp/B00XK8X13C]? I mean, that was only a small part of a single film that screened decades ago. Why are they still making Bossk figures [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MYL74AC/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2?pf_rd_p=1944687622&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00XK8X13C&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=17PH46MK4K07DD8MMQ7B]? The guy is literally on screen for about 5 seconds.

Because people like the look of these characters and outfits. Because kids want to play with the things they see in the movies. Your argument's kinda shitty.

Well the problem with Leia is that that was a small part of the movie and that's pretty much all there was of her. Not many figure of her in her Endor outfit or her New Hope outfit.

And can we please remember that this is all unconfirmed as of right now? I feel like everyone is letting their emotions on old discussions take over here. EDIT: *Looks at your new post part* Forget I said anything.

 

[UrinalDook]

Well the problem with Leia is that that was a small part of the movie and that's pretty much all there was of her. Not many figure of her in her Endor outfit or her New Hope outfit.

Yeah, this is a more worthwhile discussion. I actually have a few of the OT 6" Black Series figures and the biggest thing I'm missing is a Leia. I'd snap up an ANH, Hoth or Endor version in a heartbeat, but the only versions they've released are the Boussh disguise, which I have no interest at all in, or the slave costume which not only is kinda shitty to have as the default image of Leia, but is also a horrible looking representation. My point was that basing what merchandising is available primarily on screentime kinda misses the point of why people want this sort of merch.

And can we please remember that this is all unconfirmed as of right now? I feel like everyone is letting their emotions on old discussions take over here. EDIT: *Looks at your new post part* Forget I said anything.

Sorry thought I'd snuck that in quick enough, realised I should probably register my bafflement at the traction this story is getting around the net.

 

[Thyunda]

However. Disney are making the right move, if they are indeed making a move, in my opinion because that slave outfit existed for a small part of a single film that screened decades ago. Why are there still action figures being released with that outfit? There is no real reason for it to happen in future, so let's not make it happen.

Why are they still making action figures of Hoth Luke [http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Series-Skywalker-6-Inch/dp/B00XK8X13C]? I mean, that was only a small part of a single film that screened decades ago. Why are they still making Bossk figures [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MYL74AC/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2?pf_rd_p=1944687622&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00XK8X13C&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=17PH46MK4K07DD8MMQ7B]? The guy is literally on screen for about 5 seconds.

Because people like the look of these characters and outfits. Because kids want to play with the things they see in the movies. Your argument's kinda shitty.

Perhaps your counter-argument would be better served by examples of Leia in other outfits.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

I think the problem is that we don't really know WHY they're doing this. People are jumping to conclusions. People who have an axe to grind with SJWs assume it's SJWs, people who noticed the outfits in kids isles think that that is the main reason.

Truth is? We don't know.