Are you always an idiot, or do you just play one online?

I don't care about this but I do think it's weird since Disney's no stranger to scantily clad or big breasted women, like Aeriel or Jessica Rabbit.. it's true that contextually she was wearing that because she was getting pounded by Jabba and his friends, but still, that's not why people wear it. She hit right back!

Disney bought everything related to Star Wars, they own it all.

Disney (and now Marvel) does this shit all the time though. They take the extreme method of curbing things they don't like, for example killing off the Fantastic Four in the books before the latest movie came out.

This though, is a push to get a larger female audience for sure. Marvel and DC has been doing this sort of thing for a few years now, revamping (or covering up) the costumes, see Batgirl, Power Girl, Ms. Marvel, etc.

Now that they're making Star Wars comics again, it's no surprise they're doing this now with Leia.

I should have put killing off their books* instead of saying the FF died in-general. Same difference at this point, they're in limbo.

Yeah, DC did that Mortal Kombat, too. Which was funny, because they went to great pains to give Mileena pants, but didn't mind showing a story mode scene where she gets her face eaten off by a swarm of maggots.

I guess we're back to the CCA days again, but that's OK. If I know anything about human sexuality, censorship and repression only makes fetishes weirder and more deliciously creepy.

It's hard to tell if Marvel/DC are pandering, or making a legit attempt to change how women in comics are represented.

TBH, I think the whole Young Justice debacle woke them up, and made them realize that half of their readers/viewers are women.

Won't change shit though, people will still make porn of their characters. And half those people will be women on tumblr to boot.

Since Disney is about a hundred years old, I have to assume that you mean something else when you say "Junior Anti-Sex league", probably something to do with feminism and SJWs, but I doubt it. There was already a big thing where Disney got pissed at Amy Schumer for sexual humor involving C3PO or something. Amy Schumer seems like an unlikely target for feminists.

I always loved Carrie Fisher's bikini in Return of the Jedi, even if Carrie herself apparently did not. To me,Princess Leia was always hotter kicking ass in the battle scenes, but I loved the allusion to classic fantasy artists like Frank Frazetta and Boris Vallejo, I think it's unfortunate ("ie, fucked up") that for some people, "Slave Leia" became the iconic image they took away of a truly groundbreaking character, maybe the first female action hero, but if anybody tried to change the movie, I'd be pretty pissed about it.

Now, the merchandizing is another matter. I'm sort of with Disney on this. Some people still thiink Toys are for children, and the idea that someone may have been marketing "Slave Leia" action figures to little boys feels ... unfortunate. (Fucked up) If they were selling them to little girls, that would be SUPER unfortunate..

When you think of "Disney" and "Princess" does anythinjg special come to mind?

http://princess.disney.com/

To Disney, "Princess" is a brand, and I'm sure thats got EVERYTHING to do with this. There could be plans to market Leia to girls as a new kind of Disney princess. I think that would be an improvement.

Of course, the grown up men who collect star wars toys will be screaming about feminism and sjws, because that's what nerds do these days. Those who had the foresight to act decisively, and take advantage of the fleeting, ephemeral 30 year window to purchase Slave Leia merchandise will find their collections growing in value. As always, there are winners and losers. In this case, mostly losers.

>>This though, is a push to get a larger female audience for sure. Marvel and DC has been doing this sort of thing for a few years now, revamping (or covering up) the costumes, see Batgirl, Power Girl, Ms. Marvel, etc.

I don't know the details of individual cases, but there's a difference between covering up because they hate sexiness or something, and just making outfits practical. Like all those suits of lady armor that don't cover the boobs or stomach or butt or anything.

Actually, John, I'm pretty sure the thing "nerds do these days" is complain about what other nerds are doing these days.

How does this video relate to Rachel Bloom, by the way?

There's masturbation, but of course, that's perennial.

I dunno, why don't you ask her,? She's on Twitter.

Well, for one thing she's never re-Tweeted me; she doesn't even know I exist.

Must be nice.

I guess it never said that Jabba, Fett or the rest of his friends were giving the hard one to Leia, but it still spoke to me, at a very early age that people are sexy regardless of their outfit, and if people make you dress a certain way, kick into a hole what's made of sand.

"censorship and repression only makes fetishes weirder and more deliciously creepy."

Yeah, this kind of stuff is the best chance we've got to catch up with Japan.

One thing I've long found funny are those global porn search-term rankings. I like to check them out periodically, and I've noticed that heavily Muslim areas (arguably the most repressed regions on earth) tend to have a remarkably high amount of "real incest" and "JB" fetish traffic. Europeans tend to be porno-xenophobic and prefer porn from their own country (except for the UK, which is porno-cosmopolitan), South and East Asian people are into Japanese girls (except for Japanese people, who prefer hentai), everybody loves teens - and Muslims, they're searching for daughters and sisters and older moms screwing their own kids.

America is a really boring place, all things considered, and as a society, I say we must put a lid on too-titillating filth like Princess Leia or Miley Cyrus; making, instead, a conscious effort to stick to our Violet Beauregardes, Road Rovers, and Lara-Crofts-getting-sucked-into-quicksands.

Five stars for this making me realize that Princess Leia is the only Disney princess children have watched commit blatant homicide on screen.

Didn't Mulan kill a few people?

@GQ She killed all but 5 members of the Hun Army in an avalanche.

So yes. Yes she did kill a few people.

Hear hear!

To be honest, I was never too into Slave Leia OR green Orion girls. Me, I was always a "Twi'leks Getting Eaten By Rancors" kinda guy.

Star Wars has been plundered so completely I'd actually love to see them go back and CGI it out just to see the reactions.

The only chance to salvage any of the charm of the original films is to burn the franchise to the ground.

There's going to be a new Star Trek series in 2017. Supposedly, it's unrelated to the reboot.

pretty soon, Hollywood will reboot mid-movie

You should of added "Manbaby Tears" to the tags.

I don't use Google; I choose to abstain from using their services whenever possible, due to concerns about their business practices and their emerging role as an information monopoly.

Explain this "Disney Princesses" thing to me. What is good about it? Why is it an improvement?

Ask Jeeves > Google

So, instead of supporting the google monopoly, you're going to me to type out the information for you? That's not a good plan

Here's the Disney Princess website. There's a wikipedia article.

What I want is for you to explain, in your words, what the Disney Princesses are, which sources (if any) you are using, and most importantly, *why* you think they relate to this story. And it's a great plan, because unless you can clarify your position, then I am going to have to start putting words in your mouth, and I know that's something you hate.

Scrotum - yay Ask Jeeves! I haven't used Ask Jeeves in a decade or more, but I have fond memories of him! It's funny, too, because these days I find myself entering search-terms in the classic Ask Jeeves "question style", even though I always hated that gimmick, and never actually used it when searching with Jeeves.

My current go-to list for search engines is: 1. DDG 2. Startpage 3. Disconnect 4. Bing (Images, for porn) 5. Yahoo 6. Google. The bottom three, I generally Duck them with DDG's !bang command, so I never have to really "use" Google, even when it turns out that their results are the best for whatever search I'm doing.

I hate you putting words in my mouth, because I don't like writing a long essay to correct you. If i'M SUPPOSED TO WRITE A LONG ESSAY TO PREVENT THAT, there's not much point.

Here's a link to wiiipedia artile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Princess

It's a way oif marketing disney movies and merchandize to girls that began in the 2000s, and it appears to have been hugely succesfull.

My impression is that its a big deal for Disney, as a cash cow, and as a part of Disney's identity and corporate culture, since some of the princess characters go back all the way to the 30s. One thing I've noticed from Catie Wayne's videos, and some of her friends, is Disney movies are huge with girls and young women these days. Nostalgia chick is always reviewing Disney movies.

So I feel it's a valid hypothesis that Leia's title of princess is figuring into whatever Disney intends here. They may be concerned that selling Princess leia fetush gear could wind up relecting badly on the princess franchise. Or they may intend to market Leia to girls, maybe even as the first a Disney Princess. All that i feel certain of is that Didney's thinking vis-a-vis Leia will be influence by the Title.

Back in the seventies, Laia (can't remember how its spelled , don't care), was mostly portrayed in the media holding a gun. They called them "blasters"? And it was a huge deal. It was bold, it was new. Leia was a feminist heroine.So, Return of the Jedi comes along, and she does one scene in a bikini. I thought it was great. It referenced classic fantasy art.

But it seems like the SLAVE BIKINI has become the fanboy's iconic image of laia over the years. If Disney started marketing her as a role model, i think that would be wonderful, and I think it would bruere to the original idea of the character.

I'm getting sleepy, will post without proofreading, let me apologize in advance.

Right, but you still haven't explained why you think bikini + fanboy icon is incompatible with role model + Princess concept. You've got these two pillars, but your argument needs to link them together somehow, otherwise your position doesn't make any sense.

The way I see it, the old Leia - the tough, sexy Leia, who open-carried, snogged her brother, and beat Jabba the Hutt to death with a fucking chain - is a FAR better role model than some dainty, materialistic debutante - a coyly demure "pretty girl", driven by a desire to find a husband, who owes her immense wealth and social privilege to an oppressive, illiberal system of government.

>>Right, but you still haven't explained why you think bikini + fanboy icon is incompatible with role model + Princess concept.

MY opinion is not a part of this. I'm neither an officer nor a stockholder in Disney. I'm speculating that Disney thinks the Slave bikini is inappropriate, and my evidence is that they're getting rid of it.

I did explain why I thought too much emphasis on the bikini obscures the character, because you asked why I thought it was a change for the better.