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

[MonsterCrit]

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]

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.

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]

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]

snip

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.

 

[Something Amyss]

Neither. Straight up logic.

You can think of no other reason, therefore it must be what you say. That's not logic, that's a logical fallacy.

 

[Redryhno]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Saltyk]

Had sex with my wife last night while she was wearing this outfit (well, the cheap costume equivalent of it)

She bought it on her own.

Living the dream, man. Living the dream. T.T

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.

Because there is no precedent set in the movie for Jabba wanting a half-naked humanoid serving him grapes.

Spoiler: Oh, wait

 

[deadish]

What next? They will cover her up via photoshop in future re-releases of the original trilogy?

Disney is making Lucas's "Greedo shot first" BS look like a minor alteration.

 

[Seanchaidh]

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.

There was an argument in there? Without the flimsy premise that physical attraction must be based on reproductive compatibility, your reasoning again evaporates. All that is left is disappointment based on your disapproval of humans enjoying slight nudity. That's pretty weak.

 

[runic knight]

Neither. Straight up logic.

You can think of no other reason, therefore it must be what you say. That's not logic, that's a logical fallacy.

No, it looks like he is rejecting both given options and declaring the answer he intended. You present it as though the first two option available were wrong, so the third must be right simply because, which would be a logical fallacy. The problem being, that is not the case of his post, so your claim falls flat.

Also it is customary to actually explain and dissect logical fallacies when calling them out to properly show understanding of what they are and to show others how they are such. Simply claiming it is one, especially when the claim is wrong, can make people look very foolish.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Neither. Straight up logic.

You can think of no other reason, therefore it must be what you say. That's not logic, that's a logical fallacy.

Well since you are unable to point out hich specific part of my logic is fallacious... you'll understand if I don't give your statement wny more weight than an anorexic ant.

 

[Phasmal]

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.

Spoiler: This one?

To be honest, that's what I think of when I think Leia. Not Slave Leia.

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?

Sure, girls other than me liked it. And girls other than me didn't. I'm not that fussy on it, but I'm not gonna pretend I'm the only girl who thought it was kinda dumb.

But yeah at the end of the day I don't really care one way or the other. I think it would be perfectly fine if it was gone, and I also don't give much of a shit if it isn't.

 

[PsychicTaco115]

Even to this day, Star Wars related happenings manage to get people riled up. It might not be right kind (hype) but you whatever works

As for the whole shabang allegedly going on:

 

[sumanoskae]

I don't know how many times I have to say this: Depicting something is not the same thing as supporting it. In fact, you can't effectively protest something if you're unwilling to examine it.

In the context of the story, the outfit makes perfect sense. Jaba the Hutt is characterized as a greedy, unscrupulous, tyrannical thug; arguing that a character is lessened by him humiliating them is like arguing that Luke Skywalker's character was ruined when Vader chopped off his hand.

When you refuse to confront something in fiction, you don't express your disapproval of it, you deny it's existence.

This prevalence in journalism of neglecting the nuance of art is as old as dirt, and it's only gotten more annoying.

 

[Redryhno]

Because there is no precedent set in the movie for Jabba wanting a half-naked humanoid serving him grapes.

It was there because Carrie Fisher wanted to show her body off. They weren't basing Jabba off of a sex slave trafficker or anything like that, they wrote in an excuse to have Leia in a sexy outfit. Its blatant fanservice and it was even acknowledged as such. And you know what? Thats fine. I usually despise blatant fanservice but they didn't drag it on for too long and sidetrack the whole scenario of a wizard saving his friends from a mobster to have the audience oogle her. No sexy dances or close-ups of her arse or anything like that, just showing her in the outfit in a few cuts while the movie proceeds without delay. Its still fanservice, however. Its there for the explicit purpose of appealing to the sexuality of heterosexual men.

Roleplaying has its roots in wargames, orcs started out as tech-minded war machines, in the same vein, Dwarves started out as what we now call trolls in folklore, DOTA as a stupidly buggy and unintuitive mod in Warcraft. Alot of things happened because of something else. Jabba may have not have started out as that, but his entire character is ALL ABOUT IT. The Twi'Lek, the decadence and personal guards and slaves he's surrounded himself by, the fucking RANCOR IS HIS ENTERTAINMENT for crissakes.

Jabba may have well started out differently before Fisher wanted to show off her body, but he evolved into something more. And so did Leia, because despite her being in that outfit, it didn't diminish her actions that were placed much more in center focus. And no matter how much you wish it, it doesn't change what that outfit represents to alot of people out there.

Spoiler: This one?

To be honest, that's what I think of when I think Leia. Not Slave Leia.



But yeah at the end of the day I don't really care one way or the other. I think it would be perfectly fine if it was gone, and I also don't give much of a shit if it isn't.

So powerless and begging for help and mercy is better than defiant and resourceful? Ok, agree to disagree?

 

[Phasmal]

Ok, agree to disagree?

I kinda snipped out the first bit because I totally don't care for more back and forth, it's clear we have very different opinions on this.
But yeah. Agree to disagree. Isn't that grand, how people can do that?
Isn't life wonderful.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

I see no other reason for that than Disney enforcing it's family friendly image.

If it was a case of "moving on" then they'd have similar plans for Luke and Han, rather than cramping the variety of a merch of the most recognizable female character in the franchise, so far.

 

[Buckets]

Considering Disney had fuck all to do with the original movies, only bought the whole thing piecemeal from Lucasfilm, there is no need at all to mess with what has gone before (only maybe release the unfucked versions on Bluray).
It's largely irrelevant what figures get released. The new movie/s will add plenty of new characters to milk the figure market dry with.
The older figures might start a resurgence if the film is good, it would be a bad marketing decision on their part to exclude any character/outfit to satisfy some agenda, considering the majority of action figure buyers would be collectors (who spend the most money on this stuff, lets face it) not some kid who loved the robot bollock thing.