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

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Kahani said:
Presumably the next special edition of Star Wars will replace all bikinis with walkie-talkies.
Should I feel ashamed for wanting to see that?

Because I'd pay real money to see that. And the inevitable fan reaction.

Oh gods....the reaction. That would make any ticket price worth it.
 

mxfox408

Pee Eye Em Pee Daddy
Apr 4, 2010
478
0
0
And this is why people are starting to hate these politically correct nanny biotches. they fuck everything up with their Crap ass ideology or idiology rather.
 

mxfox408

Pee Eye Em Pee Daddy
Apr 4, 2010
478
0
0
MonsterCrit said:
Something Amyss said:
MonsterCrit said:
Think about the reason why and you get an easy bridge actually.
So enlighten me. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict it's going to go the opposite direction, though.
Easily done. Ask yourself 3 things:

1. How is is Slave Leia different from Carbonite Han Solo?
2. Why Remove merchandise that is accurate to the story it is drawn from?
3. What is the logic behind trying to ignore what was in fact a very character defining moment for Leia?
Why you ask? because they don't want to offend these stupid cunts we call Feminazis.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
mxfox408 said:
MonsterCrit said:
Something Amyss said:
MonsterCrit said:
Think about the reason why and you get an easy bridge actually.
So enlighten me. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict it's going to go the opposite direction, though.
Easily done. Ask yourself 3 things:

1. How is is Slave Leia different from Carbonite Han Solo?
2. Why Remove merchandise that is accurate to the story it is drawn from?
3. What is the logic behind trying to ignore what was in fact a very character defining moment for Leia?
Why you ask? because they don't want to offend these stupid cunts we call Feminazis.
Dude, when it's actually confirmed to be about sexualization and not about whatever THEN you can go flying off and talking about feminazis. Also, Feminazis. Because when in doubt, compare people you disagree with to the nazis.

In fact, before you go pointing fingers, maybe wait to see if this ACTUALLY happens. There's a "May" in the title for a reason.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
erttheking said:
Has anyone ever stopped to consider that this might be less pandering to SJWs and more Disney trying desperately to be family friendly? I'm not defending it, I don't really like the idea of it being taken out of everything (though I won't complain if it's out of kids isles) but remember how violently family friendly Disney is? Remember how they didn't want gays in The Old Republic?
There are too many flaws with that idea though. While I certainly don't disagree that the directions they head will likely always have the Mouse keeping a closer eye on things to make it more kid tolerant from the start so these sorts of revisions or decisions dont need to occur, I think the idea of trying to go back and deny the past simply has issues. From the offset, the controversy it causes (if this thread is any indication, an openly admitted removal would cause a controversy) would explode interest into it, preventing any hope of keeping eyes off of the costume, and likely causing an out and out political conflict with the franchise and parent company caught in the middle. No stable company wants that sort of conflict in their back yard, especially not close to a major election where candidates will chime in for the popularity and eventually one side or the other will be left bitter and angry at the company. Even ignoring current internet human nature, there are flaws with the idea logically. The violence in the series is pretty heavy, and while things like blaster fire and killing robots might be easier to tone down to kid acceptable levels, you have major plot points tied into dismemberment as a running theme, death and violence is very active parts of the galazy. At that point, any attempts to soften a little bit of skin to protect the kids looks almost absurdly selective (which in turns leads to and fosters the first problem mentioned above) when so much violence and death is allowed to run free. Considering the responses toward sex-negativity, I can't see it playing out in any way that wont result in disney being presenting as slut-shaming prudes or rampant social justice panderers (or both). In a practical sense, if the outfit is iconic and popular enough to still have sales after 30 years, it is just bad business to remove it because of an outcry against it that doesn't even exist. That sort of staying power is hard to come by in merchandise, and any business worth its salt knows that if they stop selling a popular product, others will pick it up with gusto.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
mxfox408 said:
Why you ask? because they don't want to offend these stupid cunts we call Feminazis.
yeah... I am not a fan of various attempts to pander to a select group of people's particular sensitivities while ignoring everyone else either, but this, this doesn't help. Actually sort of gets used to justify that sort of behavior. May want to tone down this sort of thing and stick to arguments instead of just insults.
 

Redd the Sock

New member
Apr 14, 2010
1,088
0
0
erttheking said:
Redd the Sock said:
Uh, where did I imply that this was a zero sum game? Meh. I don't really play the rep game. People who are pissed at the social justice side will always be pissed at the social justice side. I tried playing moderator a long time ago, tried to build bridges. All it did was make me frustrated and people actually mocked me for it. When someone likes being pissed and angry, trying to calm them down and reach out to them is an exercise in futility. Besides, you're still basing all of this off of the fact that Disney is doing this because of sex, which is still jumping to conclusions, that is, if they're even doing this at all. Is there really an active attempt to get people to stop buying things? I can't remember the last time I saw someone shammed for buying a product with the exception of when everyone was getting a hate boner towards casuals and saying they weren't allowed to buy COD because they were destroying the industry or something.

I'm not trying to make it acceptable (Hell I said I'm not for it) I'm just tired of it always being the SJWs fault when something happens that people don't like.
Honest Question: yes, it is all in the hypothetical now, but would you be saying anything different if this was a confirmed story / will you say anything different if it gets confirmed? Sorry, I've heard the same plaitiudes after some form of change has been made to the point where I don't think people think I'm over reacting, but rather they're just upset I voice my displeasure that their getting what they want costs me something I want or value. That's ironiclaly the only thing about these topics that actually does upset me: people that wonder why geek culture isn't more inclusive and is always angry, but keeps doings things they know upset us and try to brush the response off by making us the bad guy for being angry at things they don't want us to be angry about. Even your dismissive attitude: since when does anything from looking down on, ridiculing, and otherwise being dismissive of someone's fears and concerns (even irrational ones) actually get people to not have them? It just gets them angrier because you come off seeing them as unimportant.

I try not to see SJWs as bad people, but I do see a surprising lack of concern for other people and what they value and what bothers them when they're trying to get something they want, even if they didn't start that ball rolling themselves (directly), and tactics that make me question the honesty of stated goals like "just wanting more variety". And honesty, I think SJW causes would be stronger if they actually tried to address, or at least acknowledge that how people outside their clique see them so as not to take paths that open them up to resistance from others.
 

lastcigarette

New member
Mar 18, 2010
60
0
0
The obvious solution is to sell a Burka Leia and rec-cut the films to show her serving Jabba faithfully while defending him from the Patriarchy.. That would eliminate her problematic objectification and give her agency.
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
By all means Disney go and make the Star Wars franchise safe, inoffensive and boring as you possibly can. I can't really believe that they're self censoring something as bland as Star Wars. The only people nowadays who would honestly think that Princess Leia's slave outfit is too "skimpy" or "revealing" are sex negative feminists and moral conservative puritans. The very fact that the SJW crowd is out in force supporting this change of direction just goes to prove that they cannot be appeased. Here we have an example of an unpleasant slimy villain doing something demeaning to a female character, who only a few scenes later turns the tables and graphically murder him in one of the most horrible ways possible with minimal outside help. Apparently we are just not allowed to find portrayals of self-reliant female characters who can not only get shit done but also look after themselves attractive or sexually appealing.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Scow2 said:
But on the subject of the stormtrooper's armor - Why do only the guys get sculpted chest plates?
Because boob plates are unpractical and limiting your freedom of movement when those two lumps of flesh are suddenly hardened armor. Ever tried to fire a rifle with what amounts to two small barrels on your chest? Thats why history had never boob plates to begin with even if an armor was made for a female.

As to disney pre emptively censoring itselfe... yeah.. thats just another sign of the outrage culture we live in, its stupid, its petty... it makes no sense in the context of the scene wich was really empowering. Its just another company bending over backwards to the sex negative extreme feminist/social justice dogma and screaming "WE TOO! WE TOO!" while at the same time their animated characters run around in even less clothing.
 

Dragonlayer

Aka Corporal Yakob
Dec 5, 2013
971
0
0
I like how a Facebook rumour from a low-level Marvel artist that Disney *might* no longer produce slavekini Leia toys, caused four pages of people working themselves up into an indignant frenzy about Disney retroactively destroying Star Wars at the behest of the Social Justice League that has declared war on all that is good and proper.
 

Phasmal

Sailor Jupiter Woman
Jun 10, 2011
3,676
0
0
Lightknight said:
I repeat, why is sexy bad? Are we on a mission to make sure no one is sexy in media? That's bleak and puritanical.

Likewise, did she not present fear before strangling his ass?
Can I answer that, as a person who was once a child who wanted a Leia toy but NOT a Slave Leia toy?

Sexy is boring. When you are a small girl child and you want a girl toy and all that is available is one that's half naked you think `What is the point in this? What does it do? This is boring and stupid`. And then move on to other things.
Not to mention, she was in it for a very small part of the movies and it was massively overrepresented in merchandise for the amount of time that she actually wore it.

We've had 30 years of Slave Leia. I'm sure that it's time to move on to something else.
I'll be very happy if little girls get better Star Wars toys with the new movies.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
erttheking said:
Has anyone ever stopped to consider that this might be less pandering to SJWs and more Disney trying desperately to be family friendly? I'm not defending it, I don't really like the idea of it being taken out of everything (though I won't complain if it's out of kids isles) but remember how violently family friendly Disney is? Remember how they didn't want gays in The Old Republic?
Family friendly?!?

Oh I get it.

US family friendly.
 

KissingSunlight

Molotov Cocktails, Anyone?
Jul 3, 2013
1,237
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
KissingSunlight said:
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.
Well maybe you stop binge so hyperbolic, butchering 1984, using common phrases incorrecting and then defending in another post how its actually a correct use of an extremely loaded phrase. Its something that is expected of you before you're out of middle school. If you don't want people to point out that you're wrong you shouldn't be saying things that are blatantly wrong.

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).
Yes, how dare they stop making sexualized toys featuring bondage from a movie that is over thirty years old. Fuck you 20th Century Fox, I need my toys with Ripley in her underwear next to the Inside Out toys and if you don't you're stepping on my freedoms!
In case you wondered why I sighed in my first response my post. This is why. I knew you were going to do this.

So, let's unpack your hypocrisy. You insulted my use of the word "Orwellian" by saying it is something that a little kid would use. I don't know how old you are. Maybe you don't know that Orwellian means Orwell-like, not Orwell-EXACTLY. As in: This issue seems LIKE something that George Orwell wrote about in his books.

For someone who is obsessively concerned about words, you misspelled "being". Also, you used "incorrecting" incorrectly. Come to think about it, is "incorrecting" even a word?

For someone who was upset about my use of hyperbole, you had no trouble doing it for the rest of your post.

One thing I've noticed a long time ago. People who complained most about sexual images and content. They are the ones who were more obsessed about sex than the people who advocates the freedom to enjoy sex. The anti-sex crowd seems like they are projecting their sexual hang-ups on their opponents.

People are insisting that this is just an internet rumor. Then where is the link that Disney denied that this rumor is true? I haven't seen it. I got a feeling that Disney floated this rumor out to see what the reaction would be if they did stop making this merchandise.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
Lightknight said:
I repeat, why is sexy bad? Are we on a mission to make sure no one is sexy in media? That's bleak and puritanical.
Yes the bleak, puritanical ending of the production of children's toys depicting a supposedly competent woman being enslaved and dressed in a way that appeals to people's weird slave fetish.
You're kidding yourself if you think it's children that are huge fans of the originals.

Likewise, did she not present fear before strangling his ass?
I wasn't aware the fear and forced sexualization was the empowering and badass part of that time she strangled a crime boss.
Overcoming fear and forced sexualization to un-damsel yourself is. But hey, the internet needs to be angry at stuff I guess. So let's get angry at a 30 year old movie and it's depiction of a rare damsel with actual agency. The princess literally slaying her own dragon. Yeah. Sooo bad.

No, it's bad because she's wearing a bikini and America has a problem with sexy except when they themselves are on a beach wearing their own bikini unironically.

Phasmal said:
Lightknight said:
I repeat, why is sexy bad? Are we on a mission to make sure no one is sexy in media? That's bleak and puritanical.

Likewise, did she not present fear before strangling his ass?
Can I answer that, as a person who was once a child who wanted a Leia toy but NOT a Slave Leia toy?

Sexy is boring. When you are a small girl child and you want a girl toy and all that is available is one that's half naked you think `What is the point in this? What does it do? This is boring and stupid`. And then move on to other things.
Not to mention, she was in it for a very small part of the movies and it was massively overrepresented in merchandise for the amount of time that she actually wore it.

We've had 30 years of Slave Leia. I'm sure that it's time to move on to something else.
I'll be very happy if little girls get better Star Wars toys with the new movies.
That would be relevant to something if the vast majority of fans of the original Star Wars trilogy weren't in our 30's, 40's and older.

Also, there have always been more options than just Slave Leia. You're acting like only slave Leia or princess Leia can exist. That's a false dichotomy.

Hey look, Melissa Joan Hart:
http://www.newsgab.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=86656&d=1197546214

I'm sure she'd feel so empowered by people taking away her option to purchase a costume. Because God only knows that parents and adults can't handle having the choice of deciding whether or not to purchase something. So it's best if companies decide for them or if internet mobs prevent the choice from happening. Soooo much better than having to choose ourselves...
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
Lightknight said:
You're kidding yourself if you think it's children that are huge fans of the originals.
Yes, because those fans have waited until now to buy these toys and, in fact, need those toys from that one brief scene 30 years ago to continue to be made and sold alongside other children's toys to ever acquire them. If you're (general you're) an adult, it's about time you learn that the universe will not wait decades for you to feel ready to visit a toy store and purchase that one boringly fetishized toy you've wanted.

Overcoming fear and forced sexualization to un-damsel yourself is. But hey, the internet needs to be angry at stuff I guess.
So where's the toy of her overcoming anything? Where's the toy of her un-damseling herself? Or are we just supposed to imagine that sort of thing using the toys of her being afraid as a base? Though I'll agree the internet sure does need to be angry at stuff, like rumors that a company won't be producing a 30 year old toy anymore. Give the internet some time and it'll switch to something different but equally stupid.
If they are being sold, why stop selling them since there's a demand? If they aren't selling then that's quite another thing. Why is empowerment some magical requirement to allowing something to be sold. FYI, you are just talking about your own personal form of empowerment. A lot of women find feeling attractive a major means of empowerment and it would be best not to invalidate them either.

Or is it important that all people match your own personal sensibilities and if not that their ability to act on their differing sensibilities must be taken away from them? Is that what constitutes a "victory" here?

Let's take this to the worst possible trajectory. Say someone does have a slave fetish? So fucking what? What business is that of yours or mine? Maybe they also like prancing around in a gimp suit with a dildo up their ass. Simply not your concern. Maybe you have fantasies that I find unsavory. That's not my business either.

As for toys of her as an empowered character in the slave costume:

http://figurefanzero.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/swb6slave9b.jpg?w=593

But I'm sure they really just gave her these weapons to emphasize how powerless she is and in need of male help [/sarcasm] The figurine set also includes that gun she used on the top of the ship.

How about this figurine?

https://www.sideshowtoy.com/prod_photos/jpg/200037_press08.jpg

Literally in the act of freeing herself. Let me ask you, why do you think so many women like dressing up like her. Are their thoughts and concerns irrelevant to the situation?
 

Phasmal

Sailor Jupiter Woman
Jun 10, 2011
3,676
0
0
Lightknight said:
That would be relevant to something if the vast majority of fans of the original Star Wars trilogy weren't in our 30's, 40's and older.

Also, there have always been more options than just Slave Leia. You're acting like only slave Leia or princess Leia can exist. That's a false dichotomy.

[snip]
I'm sure she'd feel so empowered by people taking away her option to purchase a costume. Because God only knows that parents and adults can't handle having the choice of deciding whether or not to purchase something. So it's best if companies decide for them or if internet mobs prevent the choice from happening. Soooo much better than having to choose ourselves...
I'm pretty sure if people want to buy Slave Leia shit that they still can.
I never said it was either/or, so pfft on that. I said it was vastly over represented in merchandise in the first place.

I also seriously doubt that it will be impossible to buy that costume either.

Companies can choose to stop selling something. I'm sorry that it upsets you, but they can.

Jeez, people take this shit waaaaaay too seriously.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Phasmal said:
Lightknight said:
That would be relevant to something if the vast majority of fans of the original Star Wars trilogy weren't in our 30's, 40's and older.

Also, there have always been more options than just Slave Leia. You're acting like only slave Leia or princess Leia can exist. That's a false dichotomy.

[snip]
I'm sure she'd feel so empowered by people taking away her option to purchase a costume. Because God only knows that parents and adults can't handle having the choice of deciding whether or not to purchase something. So it's best if companies decide for them or if internet mobs prevent the choice from happening. Soooo much better than having to choose ourselves...
I'm pretty sure if people want to buy Slave Leia shit that they still can.
I never said it was either/or, so pfft on that. I said it was vastly over represented in merchandise in the first place.
It was exactly representative of its demand.

I also seriously doubt that it will be impossible to buy that costume either.
Disney is insanely protective of its IPs. Even small vendors regularly get slapped with a cease and desist from them. From small etsy stores to parody videos like "How it should have ended". Them not providing this will likely mean mostly preowned stuff only. And if there's anything you want to wear on Halloween, I'm sure it'll be a pre-owned slightly stained Leia slave outfit.

Companies can choose to stop selling something. I'm sorry that it upsets you, but they can.
Did I, at any point, state that companies don't have the power to produce or not produce items that are legally theirs? A company could also technically produce a statue of slave leia undergoing lewd sexual acts. Would you not complain about that if they did that? We can complain about what they do and why they do it. Just as you can affirm their decision or reasoning. Don't get on me for doing the same thing you're doing but on the other side. That's an unnecessary double standard.
 

Phasmal

Sailor Jupiter Woman
Jun 10, 2011
3,676
0
0
Lightknight said:
Okay, let's just agree to disagree then. I'm not particularly interested in a back-and-forth. I don't think Slave Leia is something particularly sacred, I always thought it was stupid- so yeah.

I'm sorry their decision bums you out then, but I don't think stopping producing something after 30 years is a big deal.
I imagine one day there will be no Star Wars toys produced at all.