-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rumor: Disney may retire 'Slave Leia' merchandise
- Thread starter LiK
- Start date
- Status
A Link to the Past
Banned
Slave Leia was a mistake etc.
It was his fetish.
Hutts are hermaphrodites and can fertilize themselves.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
Hidden One
Member
Slave Leia was a mistake etc.
You were a mistake!
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
Star Wars is for kids now?
I don't think they should retire it. Not a lot of kids want to see Luke get
either.
What a way to censor a franchise, especially one of the better western franchises.
Shame on Disney. They milk more perverts with their casting call of female actresses, but they don't want to endorse an older woman in a bikini.
I don't think they should retire it. Not a lot of kids want to see Luke get
his hand cut off or kiss his own sister
What a way to censor a franchise, especially one of the better western franchises.
Shame on Disney. They milk more perverts with their casting call of female actresses, but they don't want to endorse an older woman in a bikini.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Are they really hermaphrodites or is that a slug joke?
humies
There isn't a Luke/Leia makeout toyset, so it sounds to me like perfect justification to retire this version of Leia from merchandising.
Also, slave Leia was clearly proving to be a bigger problem with respect to merchandising of the character, assuming the article's statements are true that after months of no women in a specific set, slave Leia was the first to show up with no other variation of the character.
The Lamonster
Member
Oh brother. This is stupid. Are they going to CGI more clothes on her in future film releases too?
What ever happened to Disney's promise to respect the franchise for what it is?
but no, boobs are scary and bad. Gosh darn those cosplayers you have to look at.
What ever happened to Disney's promise to respect the franchise for what it is?
but no, boobs are scary and bad. Gosh darn those cosplayers you have to look at.
I always that was more of a show of power than anything else.
"Look, here's a powerful political figure and leader of the rebellion in chains and a bikini like any of the other dancers here! Ha ha, I'm so cool!"
Aliquidmeri
Member
Jabba was a safist who got off on demeaning people and feeding them to monsters. Makes sense to me.
They're not editing the scene out of the movie.
No fun allowed, huh
I think Star wars wiki says that Hutts have those slaves not for personal pleasure but as a sign of power.
He's the Hutt equivalent of a furry.
Edit: Goddamn Goerge
That's definitely what was going on.
A Link to the Past
Banned
You're right, they should remove everything besides her slave Leia costume. Because otherwise, they're ignoring the spirit of only using slave Leia for merchandising
No they really are.
Christopher
BDE (Big Dad Energy)
If Disney can make money it will and to be honest I honest doubt the market for trivial matters as someone shooting first or the original trilogy is that big.
There's currently an issue of home video release rights between Disney and 20th Century Fox for Star Wars (A New Hope), so this might not happen anytime soon.
What does not marketing or making toys with the outfit have anything to do with what you're talking about?
A Link to the Past
Banned
Huh
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
Kids can still undress Barbie. Why don't they just make her clothes attached to her body? She's still naked underneath right?
I think they could make it less appealing, but keep it the same color and a two piece.
Just market her with new clothes on. Do both.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
The Lamonster
Member
Not seeing it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=pri...ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMIouGogfr0yAIVS-djCh0frAXu
slippery slope.
The Broken Ska Record
Member
Jumping the gun there, aren't ya? They are just phasing out merchandise. I seriously doubt they would add in clothes to the Slave Leia scene. Nothing changes the past, or cosplayers doing their thing.
Mushroomer25
Member
I doubt they're going to try and recon the outfit, they're just going to stop profit off of it because they feel it now runs counter to the brand.
outunderthestars
Banned
That makes a certain amount of sense.
Not really sure why anyone would care if there still making Slave Leia merchandise or not. The movies are old as hell, and shit has changed on so many fronts. It's also not surprising when you have Carrie Fisher, the likeness of the merchandise they would be selling, giving advice like "Don't be a slave like I was"
A Link to the Past
Banned
I like that your argument is "non-slave Leia exists", as if that is a better argument than "literally no female figurines for months, and the first one in the set was slave Leia", as presented in the OP article.
Also, slippery slopes are very often not that slippery. No longer making a slave Leia toy is a proper response to a series that has very serious issues with representation.
NinjaCoachZ
Member
In any case this won't stop fanartists or cosplayers from customizing their own thing.
I always thought the sexualization of this outfit was pretty uncomfortable considering its context in the story, anyway.
I always thought the sexualization of this outfit was pretty uncomfortable considering its context in the story, anyway.
Don't think that's now canon, since we have Hutt mothers and fathers referenced.
- Status