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

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Phasmal said:
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.
Eh, I'm not personally a fan of slave Leia. I find the whole thing unnecessary but it was nice to see her go all warrior princess on their asses. What I am a fan of is not stomping on the sensibilities or fantasies of others just to achieve some sort of political point. I don't think this cultural move to sanitize sexuality is right. It smacks of religious adherents trying to enforce their beliefs on governments and organizations.

It's the same reason I get pissed at the fact that 18 year olds, legal adults, can't buy liquor or that governments still enact laws to prevent the sale of liquor at certain times or on certain days because they feel the need to control what we consume even though there's still demand for it and the people involved are grown-ass adults.

I don't like policies that decide that certain people are wrong for liking or wanting something. If this toy exists, it does nothing to harm the people who don't like it, it only robs the people who do want it from having it. That's why people in favor of stopping "sexy" art they find distasteful are generally in the wrong. They are the book burners of the art world and are only taking away from the people who like it whereas if said art exists, it's not like they're being forced to consume it. So it just ends up being one group of people enacting their personal beliefs on others.

If there is not a demand for it, that would be an absolutely perfect reason for it to go away. That's why most products should be phased out. Because they are no longer popular. Also if they contain lead, but that's another story...
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
MrFalconfly said:
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.
Y...yeah pretty much. We're still comfortable with on screen disembowelment so long as you don't show a nipple.

We're getting better though.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
erttheking said:
Y...yeah pretty much. We're still comfortable with on screen disembowelment so long as you don't show a nipple.

We're getting better though.
At which? Less disembowelment or more nipples?
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Something Amyss said:
erttheking said:
Y...yeah pretty much. We're still comfortable with on screen disembowelment so long as you don't show a nipple.

We're getting better though.
At which? Less disembowelment or more nipples?
*Looks at Game of Thrones* More nipples. And a bit more dick too.
 

Vykrel

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,317
0
0
im not sure exactly where they stand on the outfit existing in the first place, but the way i see it, there is obviously nothing wrong with that, but they took things a bit far with the modeling and whatnot. it wasnt supposed to be a sexy outfit, it was supposed to be dehumanizing. its a bit bizarre that "slave Leia" almost instantly became synonymous with "sexy Leia".
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Redd the Sock said:
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.
Yes I would. I already don't really like the concept that much. I'm a 22 year old heterosexual male. My hormones are still going full force. I LIKE the slave bikini. If I don't fess up if they admit to doing this to pander to SJWs or something similar, feel free to quote me here and point out how full of shit I am. Personally I still think there really haven't been that many big changes as a result of this ideological disagreement, despite how much virtual ink has been spilled over it. A couple of chains that only had video games as a minor side project and wasn't really visited by gamers stop carrying one game (And that wasn't even SJWs, it was former prostitutes), a cover gets changed and it turns out the author agreed that it should be changes, etc etc. I'm not being dismissive here, though I apologize if I came off that way. Though in my defense, I feel like this happens the other way around a lot. I gave up trying to make threats criticizing certain trends in video games because I knew half of the website would ignore me at best and downright insult me at worse. I'm not trying to dismiss your concerns (Again I apologize if I came off that way) I'm just disagreeing with you. And I'll admit that if they are canceling the entire line just because it's sexy, that's both hypocritical and wrong.

Again...kind of works the other way around too. On the internet pretty much everything is "It's ALL ABOUT ME! It's ALL ABOUT ME!". Admitting you did something wrong is showing weakness to "the enemy."

*Sigh* It's basically an exercise in futility. Everyone thinks that if they're just loud enough, use enough snide comments and cusswords, refer to other people as Nazis enough, everyone will magically understand just how right you are. It's like modern US politics. It's about spiting the other side however you can. Everyone does it.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
MonsterCrit said:
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?
That sounds very much like either an argument from ignorance or an argument from incredulity.

erttheking said:
*Looks at Game of Thrones* More nipples. And a bit more dick too.
Sounds good to me.

...wait, that may have come out wrong.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
8,577
2,906
118
Oh no, because there is such a drought of scantily clad women available for public consumption in the world! However will we survive without Slave Leia!? The ONE hot chick wearing next to nothing out there!!
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
May 3, 2020
1,620
81
33
Country
Free-Dom
I was about to post a lengthy ***** rant about sanitizing and denial of context, but then I noticed the same people I'd expect to see posting on either "side" of the discussion posting exactly the kind of stuff I'd expect them to.

Kinda like the Escapist's version of clockwork.

It's weirdly comforting in a way.

Let's just say I disagree with those of you I always disagree with and leave it at that, eh?
 

MonsterCrit

New member
Feb 17, 2015
594
0
0
Something Amyss said:
MonsterCrit said:
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?
That sounds very much like either an argument from ignorance or an argument from incredulity.
Neither. Straight up logic.

The answer to the first question is. There is no difference. Both are depictions of characters in states they were forced into. That was imposed on them.

The answer to the second is simply as another reply said, to not offend certain demographics. The thing is, is your attempt to cover up something sending a worse message. Imagin if they digitally alter Jessica Rabbit down to a smaller cup size...Sure one could make the arguement that it was to make her less provocative and sexual but agai... what does that say to every woman who sports a DD and upward. Sorry you don't deserve to be represented because your measurements are too sexually pleasing to the opposite sex?

And the answer to the 3rd question is. There is None. What people tend to look over is that Slave Leia was one of the moments that defined the character as a competent badass. There she is, in chains, stripped down to her skivvies by her captor and what does she do the moment she gets a chance, takes the the very chains binding her and uses it to strangle the life out of her captor.

Even when 'helpless' she is looking, planning and waiting for just the right moment to make you regret thinking or dreaming that she was helpless. To hide the merchandise and devalue the impact of it is to devalue the character and what that particular moment represents.
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
Karadalis said:
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.
Well, there's also the fact that if you make boob-plates in real life, there was a pretty good chance of falling and absolutely crushing your sternum because of the way it would need to be constructed. Don't really have a problem with it in fantasy though, considering most settings don't follow the laws of physics anyways.

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.
Well yeah...but what other outfit of hers is anywhere near iconic and purely "LEIA"? I mean, I said in another post the same thing, but Han got the wild west outlaw aesthetic, Luke the pilot outfit and medieval tunic collection, the droids alone are mascots of the franchise, Palpatine robes and lightning, Vader doesn't need explanation. Leia's just got hair buns, slave outfit, and an assortment of clothing every other background character is wearing in the same scenes as well. There's not a huge amount of things to choose from with her. Hell, even Lando has a more iconic look with his capes, and that's purely because nobody else wears them that you see in the series.

And this is ignoring that girls other than you REALLY liked the outfit and thought it was perfectly fine. I admit that I'm not really that big of a Star Wars fan, but I have a housemate that loves it. To the point that her girlfriend grumbles every once in a while about her collection. Not that it exists, just of how much of it she's got in her Star Wars memorabilia. And she still gets excited when she sees a model that she doesn't have yet of it for whatever reason. Hell, there's been better toys for girls in Star Wars for years if you don't want Leia, too bad Disney already canned most of them because they're EU-inspired...but, hey, they ran their course right?
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,634
2,002
118
Country
United States of America
Quantum Glass said:
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.
Just to be clear about this, you are:

discussing physical attraction and rejecting any cause for it that is not about reproduction,
theorizing about how a fictional character of a fictional species reproduces itself, and
deciding that a slug man's actions should be dominated by these considerations?

What if Jabba just wanted to humiliate his prisoner? Then all of that (I guess I'll call it) reasoning evaporates.
 

KissingSunlight

Molotov Cocktails, Anyone?
Jul 3, 2013
1,237
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
The reason I snipped the quote is because you are not really serious about the topic. You are just one of those people on the internet who like to take one word out of context and try to derail the discussion. In this case, the word was "Orwellian". So, you used your Wikipedia knowledge to essential tell me. "Nah-unh! This is nothing like George Orwell! So, shut up! You don't know what you are talking about."

I simply expressed an opinion. Actually, I had 2 opinions about this issue. It was either clever marketing, or they were shooting themselves in the foot to please prudish people. Since, you don't want to address either issue. Please go bother someone else.

One other fact that people keep misrepresenting. Star Wars toys haven't been in constant production for over 30 years. They produce special editions of toys on special occasions to promote something Star Wars related. Like the re-release of the original trilogy in the late 90's, or the Star Wars prequels. Again, with the release of the new movie.

I think another discussion to be had, maybe on another thread, is toys from popular culture that appeals to adults. There are tons of toys from TV and movies that for adults like Breaking Bad and Walking Dead. I even saw a doll of Lloyd Dobler from Say Anything. A romantic comedy from the 80's. Part of me like the novelty of it. The other part is annoyed that my generation is thought of as infantile. That we would need toys to compliment our appreciation of media that we like.
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
Funnily enough, I haven't heard a peep about the slave Leia toys and lingerie outfits being sold in adult-oriented stores like Spencer's [http://www.spencersonline.com/], a local one in a shopping mall which has a section at the back of the store dedicated to sex toys and lingerie. Its almost like it has less to do with prudes demanding sexual things be wiped from existence and more about marketing sexual bondage to children.
Right...sure...because first it was the costume itself being too sexy, and now that that's been kicked to the wayside as Ariel, Jasmine, the Cinderella dress ripping scene, and "Makuna yo tatas" all exist, you've now decided it's because of sexual bondage?

How ignorant of bondage do you have to be to think that just because chains and less than fully clothed people are involved the two are the same? How disrespectful of people being into it do you have to be to think THAT'S the reason?
 

VVThoughtBox

New member
Mar 3, 2014
73
0
0
I believe that Leia's golden bikini should stay. If people don't like what they see, then they should just walk away or don't look. Disney banning all Slave Leia merchandise isn't going to magically get rid of the image and symbolism of the outfit. People are still going to draw Leia in her slave girl outfit and dress up as Leia in a slave girl outfit because they like it. The internet as made it practically easy and convenient for people to get what they want if it's not on local stores.
 

Quantum Glass

New member
Mar 19, 2013
109
0
0
Seanchaidh said:
Quantum Glass said:
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.
Just to be clear about this, you are:

discussing physical attraction and rejecting any cause for it that is not about reproduction,
theorizing about how a fictional character of a fictional species reproduces itself, and
deciding that a slug man's actions should be dominated by these considerations?

What if Jabba just wanted to humiliate his prisoner? Then all of that (I guess I'll call it) reasoning evaporates.
Disregarding the bits of that post that aren't actually relevant to my argument (The reproduction thing wasn't exactly the crux of it, yanno), fine. There might be an in-universe explanation for the bikini Qui-excuse me, Leia is wearing.

That doesn't make my argument (or disappointment in the fanbase) wrong.