Princess No More - Leia Has A New Title In Star Wars: The Force Awakens

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
35,525
2,383
118
Fox12 said:
crimson5pheonix said:
In the real world 14 year old girls don't get elected as heads of state. Or planets, for that matter. In Star Wars they evidently do, which is why I think it's silly. I can disbend my disbelief in fantasy, but that's pushing it, even for me. The world can be fantastic, but people still have to act like people. The only thing that really bothers me about it is that it could have been quickly fixed in editing. He just needed another screen writer to give it the once over. It's a little lazy of him, and I honestly believed that he may have written a single draft for his films.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_IV_of_Sweden

There have been kings elected at 3 years old. Monarchies are silly like that.
 

Ukomba

New member
Oct 14, 2010
1,528
0
0
erttheking said:
Ukomba said:
So what? Someone can't ever make an announcement about a character being refereed to by a different title without it being to show how progressive the movie is? It seems more like look at Leia's new character considering that now she's under a lot of pressure and has a lot of people depending on her. The change is about how she's being pushed into new responsibilites, I don't know where you're getting the implication that people are saying that now she's more feminist because she's not a princess.

If "First female villain" is purely marketing how progressive the movie is...well it's a pretty pathetic attempt considering how weak sauce it is to say "After decades we FINALLY got a female villain!" I looked up this "first female villain" thing and it's more about Gwendoline Christie talking about how proud she is to be the first female Star Wars villain. If people talking about how new possibilities makes them excited is just marketing how progressive the movie is, then MORE PLEASE!
I didn't care that she was made a general decades ago, they just did it and it was awesome. She was an awesome Chief of State. She was a bad ass Jedi. But they didn't do press releases every time they gave her an important roll. But that's not the issue. The issue is 'don't call her a princess any more, she's a general and will get pissed if you call her a princess' attitude. There's nothing wrong with being a princess. You can be royalty AND in military service. Is it offensive to call Henry Charles Albert David Prince Henry?

In fact, this whole thing stinks of the Barbara Boxer 'Don't call me ma'am' entitled hissy fit. Artificially adding in a 'slip' of calling her princess and her reacting to it is actually really childish. EU Leia had a thicker skin than that.

In fact, since she was the representative of the Alderanian survivors, it really disrespectful for her to abandon her responsibilities to her people. But I guess JJ wants to denigrate female royalty to nothing more than figureheads to make a point about princesses. EU Leia was an actual leader who was working on finding the survivors a new home and representing their interests.


My problem with the 'first female villain' s*** is it isn't true. Even after tossing out the multitude of excellent female villains in the EU, there are still Disney Canon Female Villains, like the fan favorite Asajj Ventress. Even purely going by movies she isn't the first since Zam Wesell was the first In movie female villain. I fully expect them to claim Fin is the first black jedi next. This identity politic crap is irritating and unworthy for a series that, with it's first film, presented an egalitarian view of the genders that was ahead of it's time.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Ukomba said:
Offensive? Who said anything about offensive? See you just kind of made up your mind that this was about her not being called a princess to appeal to feminists. Something that, really, has no evidence to back it up. ""But ... there's a moment in the movie where a character sort of slips and calls her 'Princess.'" is what the article says, and there's a big freaking gap between that and "she will get pissed if you call her a princess." Doesn't help that most people already have a firm idea of who's going to be pulling this.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/861de908c17d1df1f3b0eebbb47e9e5f/tumblr_mkga1p04ia1qcfjrio1_250.gif

That and did you consider the possibility of her not being called a princess anymore because the planet she was royalty on is destroyed? Not everything is about freaking feminism you know.

It stinks of that because you say it does, that's about it. Really you're jumping to conclusions. Where does the article say anything about her reacting to it? Nowhere, that's where.

You know, I looked around and apparently New Alderan was settled only a few years after the Battle of Yavin. This movie takes place decades after that battle. Sounds like she would've had plenty of time to find them a home. Oh and apparently New Alderan had a Council and not a monarchy, so there's a good reason for her to not be a princess anymore.

I'm pretty sure they're talking about the movies because to most of the Star Wars fans the EU doesn't exist. I love Star Wars and the EU is just a twisted bloated mess that I want nothing to do with. When most people say "Star Wars" the movies are what come to mind. Not Knights of the Old Republic, not Rogue Squadron, not the Order of One, just the six movies. Also you can fully claim that peopel are going to say Fin is the first black Jedi, but considering Mace Windu was actually in the movies and played by Samuel Jackson, I consider it unlikely. Yeah ahead of its time THEN. We've progressed beyond having a single female character that's a prisoner for the half of the movie, helps in a couple of fights and then is regulated to standing around looking worried.

...Zam Wessei...oh right right that one random bounty hunter. Yeah when people talk about villains they don't mean everyone the hero fights, they mean people who oppose them for a significant portion of the movie. The Tuskan Raiders are not villains. Greedo is not a villain. The guy who lost an arm to Obi-Wan is not a villain. Zam Wessei is like them. Less villain, more road bump.
 

stormtrooper9091

New member
Jun 2, 2010
506
0
0
hahahahaha, another one of "these" topics, lol this place has become unbearable

option a. She's no longer a princess of Alderaan since that place doesn't exist anymore. However, since the king was (obviously) killed, she's now a heir-apparent, a pretender to the defunct throne, I have no idea how monarchies work so the terminology is off. Not a general

option b. she renounced her royal heritage because reasons. Yeah

option c. Disney panders to tumblr subgroup of people

option d. Han Solo is now a prince and she transferred all authority legally to him
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Eclipse Dragon said:
Only the young ones can be princesses, Leia is too old, the title of "Disney Princess" has an exasperation date. [footnote]I know this is probably NOT the reasoning for it, I just couldn't resist the implication.[/footnote]
I don't know whether that was deliberate, or a typo, but I think I like it. XD
 

Jute88

New member
Sep 17, 2015
286
0
0
MonsterCrit said:
Sadly because she is no longer a princess she no longer qualifies as a disney princess. AS for General.. that worries me. Generals are usually always evil o turn evil...
Don't you mean Admirals? I don't remember any Generals becoming evil.

Also, what's her name going to be now? Leia Organa? Leia Skywalker? Leia Solo? Leia Organa Solo? Leia Vader?
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
So far as dumb shit goes, this decision is right up there with the prequel's insistence that a Queen is some sort of an elected position. Just round up all the fun, fantastical elements of Star Wars and imprison them in politically-correct camps why don't you, Disney? Part of the lasting appeal of the original Star Wars trilogy was that it was essentially a fantasy film set within a science fiction background setting. I see no reason why Leia could not still be a Princess or even a Queen commanding soldiers in battle.
 

Kajin

This Title Will Be Gone Soon
Apr 13, 2008
1,016
0
0
Paradoxrifts said:
So far as dumb shit goes, this decision is right up there with the prequel's insistence that a Queen is some sort of an elected position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy
Courtesy from earlier in the thread. Elective Monarchies are indeed a thing, and even if they weren't I don't see any reason why an elected official couldn't call themselves a King or Queen.
I see no reason why Leia could not still be a Princess or even a Queen commanding soldiers in battle.
Aside from the fact that the planet she was royalty of was destroyed? It's quite possible that she'd have some bitter resentment towards that. Or maybe she just doesn't consider herself a princess anymore? She's spent so much of her life fighting against the remnants of the empire that she considers herself a soldier first and anything else never?
 

Bat Vader

New member
Mar 11, 2009
4,996
0
0
Paradoxrifts said:
So far as dumb shit goes, this decision is right up there with the prequel's insistence that a Queen is some sort of an elected position. Just round up all the fun, fantastical elements of Star Wars and imprison them in politically-correct camps why don't you, Disney? Part of the lasting appeal of the original Star Wars trilogy was that it was essentially a fantasy film set within a science fiction background setting. I see no reason why Leia could not still be a Princess or even a Queen commanding soldiers in battle.
http://classroom.synonym.com/definition-elective-monarchy-5221.html

http://www.ckiiwiki.com/Feudal_elective

Elective Monarchies are a legitimate thing. Granted I never knew they existed until I started playing Crusader Kings II but that's besides the point.

It's kinda difficult to be a princess when the world she was princess of got blown up. Between being princess of chunks of space debris and a general I would pick general. A princess or general leading men into battle is just bad strategy though. Neither would be good to send into battle. Losing a princess would mean one less person to marry off for land, money, political favor, etc. Losing a general would mean losing someone who has the knowledge and strategy to fight a war.
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
Kajin said:
Paradoxrifts said:
So far as dumb shit goes, this decision is right up there with the prequel's insistence that a Queen is some sort of an elected position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy
Courtesy from earlier in the thread. Elective Monarchies are indeed a thing, and even if they weren't I don't see any reason why an elected official couldn't call themselves a King or Queen.
And isn't what 99.9% of people imagine or are making reference to whenever they refer to the concept of royalty in English speaking countries. Elective monarchies are a thing, but they're the exception that otherwise proves the rule that the overwhelming majority of monarchical systems are hereditary.

Kajin said:
I see no reason why Leia could not still be a Princess or even a Queen commanding soldiers in battle.
Aside from the fact that the planet she was royalty of was destroyed? It's quite possible that she'd have some bitter resentment towards that. Or maybe she just doesn't consider herself a princess anymore? She's spent so much of her life fighting against the remnants of the empire that she considers herself a soldier first and anything else never?
There is no indelicate way of saying this. You're making shit up. Which is to be perfectly fair to you, is exactly what fiction is all about. Fiction is all about making shit up. But moving Star Wars even further away from its roots in fantasy literature is a still a dreadful mistake continuing in the legacy of the Star Wars prequels. Turning dashing Jedi Knights into awkward virgin warrior mystics forbidden to bump uglies was a mistake. Trying to explain the force by making up midichlorians (Actually had to look up the spelling of that) was a mistake. Having elected monarchies in Star Wars was a mistake. With a little research I could honestly go on but I've run out of things that I can think of off the top of my head.

Turning Princess Leia into General Leia is a small change, but it makes me think that the new owners of the franchise just really haven't learned anything from the mistakes and missteps of the past.
 

Kajin

This Title Will Be Gone Soon
Apr 13, 2008
1,016
0
0
Paradoxrifts said:
And isn't what 99.9% of people imagine or are making reference to whenever they refer to the concept of royalty in English speaking countries. Elective monarchies are a thing, but they're the exception that otherwise proves the rule that the overwhelming majority of monarchical systems are hereditary.
So apparently the fact that it is an actual thing has no merit whatsoever in this argument? I'm willing to cede this part of the discussion because it's not that important and I'm just too tired to deal with people who think "because I say so" is a relevant counter point.

There is no indelicate way of saying this. You're making shit up. Which is to be perfectly fair to you, is exactly what fiction is all about. Fiction is all about making shit up.
Oh I'm sorry. I didn't think I was making up one of the most shocking moments in all of cinema history, when a main character's entire planet was destroyed on the order of a villain simply because she dared resist him. So I was mistaken about that, hmm? The home planet that Leia was royalty of still exists? It's not just random collections of debris, dust, and frozen corpses floating where a planet-shaped hole in space happens to be?

Forgive me for ascribing some manner of human emotion to the characters on screen. Forgive me for assuming that these characters are capable of basic traits such as depression and feelings of loss and bitterness. No no, Leia insisting on calling herself a General of the active rebel army trying to fight against the oppressive tyranny of the empire instead of a princess of the very much nonexistent Alderaan government must surely be political correctness gone mad. Because people can't have actual emotions, you see, and any reason they might have to distance themselves from emotionally charged relics of their past must surely be a result of the machinations of our new, feminazi overlords.

Who knows, maybe the movie changes her title just to be PC and offers no actual justification. Maybe you'll be proven right after all? I doubt it, but we'll know for sure once the movies come out and we get to see the line in context. If so, then hey! Free feminist conspiracy badge for Paradoxrifts! I hope the escapist makes one just for you.
 

MonsterCrit

New member
Feb 17, 2015
594
0
0
Paradoxrifts said:
So far as dumb shit goes, this decision is right up there with the prequel's insistence that a Queen is some sort of an elected position. Just round up all the fun, fantastical elements of Star Wars and imprison them in politically-correct camps why don't you, Disney? Part of the lasting appeal of the original Star Wars trilogy was that it was essentially a fantasy film set within a science fiction background setting. I see no reason why Leia could not still be a Princess or even a Queen commanding soldiers in battle.
Actually the position of queen was in some cases an elected position. Well the position of king and therefore the position of queen. A lot of this comes from the fact that Star Wars was just a reskin of ye olde sword and sorcery genre. So they just ported everything they could over, Magic swords, check, wizzards, check, princesses check, scoundrel of questionable morals but who is really at heart a good guy, check..

The problem is, it caught on and it started germinating it's own lore... and that starts causing problems when you try to reconcile the tropes with the deeper lore that you've built up.

More over this seems like a shallow a attempt at showing how progressive they are.. which while admirable, is what it is. Shallow.
 

Eclipse Dragon

Lusty Argonian Maid
Legacy
Jan 23, 2009
4,259
12
43
Country
United States
CrystalShadow said:
I don't know whether that was deliberate, or a typo, but I think I like it. XD

Something Amyss said:
Timely typo, or pun?
Yes.
[sub][sub][sub][sub]Actually I'm pretty sure it was dyslexia messing with me, but this is the only way it does anymore and the results are usually harmless and hilarious, so I take what I can get.[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub]

Edit:

Something Amyss said:
Either way, it was funny. I just didn't want to come off as a pedantic jerk if you didn't mean it.
Nah you're good.
 

Petromir

New member
Apr 10, 2010
593
0
0
Well, while there is plenty of precedent in this world for keeping a title, or at least a similar one) after losing the position (Exiled royalty are closest but I seem to recall ex-presidents of the USA still get called Mr President) and indeed having titles that imply rank that you do not possess (Navies often address officers commanding a vessel as captain as a courtesy when they hold a junior rank) there is also precedent for losing one.

We also don't have much in the way of confirmation of the nature of Alderan's monarchy, and constitutional matters, and as has been pointed out by a number of people monarchies can differ. It should also be pointed out that there are currently at least 218 Prince's who by definition did not gain their title by birth, nor can they pass it on as they cannot have legitimate children (I am of course talking of the College of Cardinals, who are Princes, just ecclesiastical not secular) which likely places appointed them above hereditary princes in number.

A brief glance at history suggests that an army and plenty of money combined with a tenuous connection to a current/previous royal family is enough to become king, in this country being more amendable to the parliaments views has gone a big way, with the line of succession being outright ignored on at least one occasion.

In short Leia could have lost it by abdication, lack of the place that granted it, just stopped using the title even if still entitled to it (through custom or right) be using a title currently senior or more appropriate (William and Harry for example tended to use their military rank without royal embellishment where appropriate) or it may have been decided publicly or privately that as child of Anakin and Padme wasn't actually entitled to the position anyway (adoption isn't always recognised by succession).
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Fox12 said:
Or, alternatively, certain worlds have monarchies, but they still have representatives in the space-senate.
This seems like the easiest option, right here, as they already kinda sort not really do that.

Paradoxrifts said:
Trying to explain the force by making up midichlorians (Actually had to look up the spelling of that)
I didn't, which I think is far sadder.

Turning Princess Leia into General Leia is a small change, but it makes me think that the new owners of the franchise just really haven't learned anything from the mistakes and missteps of the past.
Leia's royalty was downplayed quite a bit (downplayed, not removed or erased) in Empire and Jedi as well, which should sort of be an indicator as to how core it was to the franchise even in the "good" movies. It's fairly clear that whatever Lucas had planned, a lot was changed once he had the actual greenlight for an actual sequel.

Lightspeaker said:
As far as the "counter" thing goes...you somehow missed the part where I pointed out that I'd rather expect a person known for being an important political leader of the rebellion to take on a major political role in a new government, not a military one. Even if she was insistent on dropping "Princess".
I didn't "miss it," I think the argument is nonsense within her existing role in the franchise.

And I literally did what Poe's Law indicates is sufficient to not be indistinguishable. Therefore, not Poe from the start. Honestly, I'm not sure how explaining things to you in such a fashion is "insultingly aggressive," Especially when it looked very much like you didn't even read my post before replying. Part of your response was answered further down, and part of it was answered right in the part you quoted.

Eclipse Dragon said:
Yes.
[sub][sub][sub][sub]Actually I'm pretty sure it was dyslexia messing with me, but this is the only way it does anymore and the results are usually harmless and hilarious, so I take what I can get.[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub]
Either way, it was funny. I just didn't want to come off as a pedantic jerk if you didn't mean it.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
MonsterCrit said:
More over this seems like a shallow a attempt at showing how progressive they are.. which while admirable, is what it is. Shallow.
You know, I wonder how the internet would react if the original Star Wars trilogy first came out now.

"What? A princess saving the men? A black guy flying the Millennium Falcon? A furry as one of the heroes?"

Chewbacca isn't a Wookie, he's just very into roleplay. >.>

This doesn't seem like a shallow attempt to show progressiveness as much as it seems like a logical continuation of the existing franchise.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
crimson5pheonix said:
Welp, shame on me for underestimating how silly monarchies are : P

To be fair, though, I never got the impression that padme was from a royal family or something. I just figured she was some random kid who ran for space queen. I would pay to see a movie where she's running for office, though.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
35,525
2,383
118
Fox12 said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Welp, shame on me for underestimating how silly monarchies are : P

To be fair, though, I never got the impression that padme was from a royal family or something. I just figured she was some random kid who ran for space queen. I would pay to see a movie where she's running for office, though.
Well we have a bunch of movies showing what happens when you elect a 14 year old to space queen :p
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
Paradoxrifts said:
There is no indelicate way of saying this. You're making shit up. Which is to be perfectly fair to you, is exactly what fiction is all about. Fiction is all about making shit up. But moving Star Wars even further away from its roots in fantasy literature is a still a dreadful mistake continuing in the legacy of the Star Wars prequels. Turning dashing Jedi Knights into awkward virgin warrior mystics forbidden to bump uglies was a mistake. Trying to explain the force by making up midichlorians (Actually had to look up the spelling of that) was a mistake. Having elected monarchies in Star Wars was a mistake. With a little research I could honestly go on but I've run out of things that I can think of off the top of my head.

Turning Princess Leia into General Leia is a small change, but it makes me think that the new owners of the franchise just really haven't learned anything from the mistakes and missteps of the past.
What are you talking about? Leia was only a princess in Episode 4. Even in the original trilogy they downplayed her royalty, and it was almost totally forgotten by episode 5. If you think they're making shit up, then you clearly haven't seen the movies. Her planet is gone. In Episode 5 we see her commanding soldiers during the battle of Hoth with General Rieeken, and in Episode 6 she's leading a ground assault on Endor. For all intents and purposes she was already a general.

What gets me is that people obviously don't get what's going on here. Leia has replaced Mon Mothma as the leader of the rebellion.
 

Eclipse Dragon

Lusty Argonian Maid
Legacy
Jan 23, 2009
4,259
12
43
Country
United States
Dark Knifer said:
Eclipse Dragon said:
past Disney queens have been evil, but Elsa isn't,.
Uhh, did we watch the same movie?

She wasn't evil, she just couldn't control her powers and she ended up good in the end...
(Though Frozen 2 still has yet to happen).