Disney May Be Officially Retiring Slave Leia From All Star Wars Merchandise

[FunkyMike]

Recently, in a feature in Interview magazine, original Star Wars star Carrie Fisher implored new Star Wars star Daisy Ridley, “Don’t be a slave like I was,” in reference to the gold, metal bikini Princess Leia wore in Return of the Jedi. Fisher, who previously referred to that bikini as “what supermodels will eventually wear in the seventh ring of hell,” must’ve struck a chord. A new rumor suggests that Disney and Lucasfilm have banned the use of Slave Leia in any and all Star Wars merchandising including action figures and comics.

In a posting on Facebook, Marvel Comics cover artist J. Scott Campbell said that the outfit is well on its way to retirement:

Daisy Ridley won’t have to fight against anything. Disney is already well on it’s way to wiping out the “slave” outfit from any future products period. You will NOT see and future merchandising featuring the slave outfit ever again. Trust me […] I’ve heard it from two sources. We can’t even draw Leia in a sexy pose at Marvel, let alone in that outfit! We also had a 3-D [Slave Leia] statue killed at a major manufacturer because there will no longer be any [Slave Leia] merchandise.

Some fans will no doubt be disappointed to see such an iconic part of Star Wars lore all but forgotten, but the Slave Leia costume has come under increasing fire in recent years as the Star Wars franchise has struggled to keep up with the times. Earlier this summer, parents were upset over Slave Leia figures, complete with large, metal chain connected to her collar, up for sale in Target alongside other toys for kids. Then there was some controversy over the lack of female figures in the Star Wars toy lines, specifically for many years that Slave Leia was the only female figure in the popular Black Series line, and the tone deaf response of “Hasbro feels they have released plenty of female characters.”

It’s shouldn’t be entirely surprising that Disney, looking to a more all-inclusive Star Wars universe, wants to put Slave Leia behind them. Star Wars: The Force Awakens is currently struggling in one key demographic — young women — and they want this universe to be something that’s not just for the boys. Not entirely surprising considering the hero over this new trilogy of films is a young woman, Rey. In addition to treating its future characters with a little more respect, you can expect to see future iterations of Leia in the marketing focus more on some of her more heroic actions.

Although, you can still buy this figure of Minnie Mouse dressed in the Slave Leia costume.

We reached out to Lucasfilm for comment and, surprise, have not yet heard back.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens opens in theaters on December 18.

 

Source:  http://screencrush.com/slave-leia-retired-star-wars-merchandise/

[Torolol]

now that I think about it, Star Wars hasn't fulfill their "Gender Equality" quotas yet.

[DocM]

Oh, please. 

[Xilo]

PC Principal would approve.

[DConnell Member]

And the fantasy of an entire generation of nerds dies, killed by political correctness. I can kind of see their point, but Leia was defiant, formidable and a total bada$$ regardless of what she wore. To suppress the "Slave Leia" costume kind of undermines that IMO - it makes Disney look like they think the outfit made her less of a warrior and princess. 

Wonder how long it'll be before they digitally alter the film to change her attire?

[Doli]

Slave Leia died for me a long time ago thanks to cosplay.

That kid does not want to look up.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

Once PC you never go back to reasonable.

[Noir Angel]

Another piece of popular culture sanitised and ruined by feminists.

[margrave]

I hate PC Principal with a passion.

 

I hope he's not permanent on the show. He's so hella-lame.

[kjordan2001]

Slave Leia died for me a long time ago thanks to cosplay.

That kid does not want to look up.

 

 

[macrosslover]

Without knowing the full reasons why they put her in the outfit in 82 to 83, such as trying to make her a sex symbol or what, I would think that within the context of the movie, where she was perceived as a sex slave of Jabba, such as Oola the slave girl, this move was done in the scope of artistic value.  No offense to Carrier Fisther, just because she feels like crap for having worn the outfit now, that ship has sailed.  For Disney to act like that moment of artistic value doesn't exist does not bode well for future storylines in the Star Wars universe.

[Xilo]

I hate PC Principal with a passion.

 

I hope he's not permanent on the show. He's so hella-lame.

He's at least staying for this season.

[FunkyMike]

This should restore the balance to the force.

[remixedcat]

Disney does this ###### yet they release thier "circle" wifi device that spies on little kids! disney is so disgusting.

[123456789A]

Well if Clippy is too masculine, I can completely understand that Slave Leia sends the wrong message to children.

I think Jabba the Hut should be altered as well since that's offensive to obese people.

[Dadwen]

Well if Clippy is too masculine, I can completely understand that Slave Leia sends the wrong message to children.

I think Jabba the Hut should be altered as well since that's offensive to obese people.

Hell along those lines think of them showing that poor burned amputee guy as a villain

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

I can see both sides of the coin on this.  It's 2015 not 1977 - as such we shouldn't feel the need to sexually objectify female characters.  But...

Jabba was meant to be a slimy, creepy, misogynist character (expanded continuity), and within that context the wardrobe choice fits for how he would treat his prize.  It hardly painted him in a good light.

Jump forward to the 90s, and we see Amidala, was she sexualised?  I recall most of her wardrobes to be covering, and moreover she was a political leader.

[PGHammer]

On 11/4/2015, 2:56:00, DConnell said:

And the fantasy of an entire generation of nerds dies, killed by political correctness. I can kind of see their point, but Leia was defiant, formidable and a total bada$$ regardless of what she wore. To suppress the "Slave Leia" costume kind of undermines that IMO - it makes Disney look like they think the outfit made her less of a warrior and princess. 

Wonder how long it'll be before they digitally alter the film to change her attire?

Never mind that Leia's role was undercover (literally) to get her fiance from out of his carbonite cell.  She didn't HAVE to go that far - if I remember right, her own brother (Luke) advised against it.  Leia didn't go to the war - the war came to her (adopted) family.  In Episode 4, she literally became a politician without a constituency - Alderaan got blown up.  If ANY role augured for gender equality in combat roles in film, it was Leia's.  In the push for PC, Disney up and lost the plot - literally.

[PGHammer]

On 11/5/2015, 8:24:38, Nik L said:

I can see both sides of the coin on this.  It's 2015 not 1977 - as such we shouldn't feel the need to sexually objectify female characters.  But...

Jabba was meant to be a slimy, creepy, misogynist character (expanded continuity), and within that context the wardrobe choice fits for how he would treat his prize.  It hardly painted him in a good light.

Jump forward to the 90s, and we see Amidala, was she sexualised?  I recall most of her wardrobes to be covering, and moreover she was a political leader.

Jabba was indeed ALL of that - and his being a Hutt had nothing to do with any of it.  (Remember why he wanted Han Solo on his wall.)  Have we forgotten the band member that Jabba had killed - in a fit of frigging PIQUE - after getting Luke's hologram? (She was dressed in less than Leia.)  Leia's life was about the war coming to her (adopted) family; remember, she ran for her (adopted) father (Bail Organa)'s seat in the Imperial Senate - and won.  (NOt exactly a shoo-in, despite the Organa family rep.)  She later (as I pointed out one post up) wound up a politician without a constituency.  Did she back down?  Did she come close to throwing in the towel?  Did she come close to folding her tent - even AFTER finding her natural brother AND learning that her biological daddy was the second-worst villain in the galaxy? (No, no, and HECK no.)  If anything, Leia had it HARDER than Amidala did - she had to basically carry the whole load on her own.  (Amidala DID at least have Anakin in the beginning -- who did Leia have?) 

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

1 hour ago, PGHammer said:

Jabba was indeed ALL of that - and his being a Hutt had nothing to do with any of it.  (Remember why he wanted Han Solo on his wall.)  Have we forgotten the band member that Jabba had killed - in a fit of frigging PIQUE - after getting Luke's hologram? (She was dressed in less than Leia.)  Leia's life was about the war coming to her (adopted) family; remember, she ran for her (adopted) father (Bail Organa)'s seat in the Imperial Senate - and won.  (NOt exactly a shoo-in, despite the Organa family rep.)  She later (as I pointed out one post up) wound up a politician without a constituency.  Did she back down?  Did she come close to throwing in the towel?  Did she come close to folding her tent - even AFTER finding her natural brother AND learning that her biological daddy was the second-worst villain in the galaxy? (No, no, and HECK no.)  If anything, Leia had it HARDER than Amidala did - she had to basically carry the whole load on her own.  (Amidala DID at least have Anakin in the beginning -- who did Leia have?) 

Very interesting read. I agree and all Disney have done is remove the awkward sexual objectification part and the title (in what was was she ever a princess? Sure a ruler but not a princess)

[FloatingFatMan]

9 hours ago, Nik L said:

Very interesting read. I agree and all Disney have done is remove the awkward sexual objectification part and the title (in what was was she ever a princess? Sure a ruler but not a princess)

 

Yes. She was a member of the royal family of Alderaan, albeit adopted.  That their royalty was elected doesn't matter.   Padmé Amidala was, after all, the Queen of Naboo, elected.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

2 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

 

Yes. She was a member of the royal family of Alderaan, albeit adopted.  That their royalty was elected doesn't matter.   Padmé Amidala was, after all, the Queen of Naboo, elected.

Ah, didn't ever get that.  Cheers

 

So, if she's a princess, and now a Disney property...

[monkeylove]

That makes sense as the movies are meant for children.

 

[FloatingFatMan]

1 hour ago, monkeylove said:

That makes sense as the movies are meant for children.

 

No they're not. They're family movies.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

9 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

No they're not. They're family movies.

Red vs. Orange