General Star Wars Thread

Because of the outright denial that there was a problem with it at all.

I don't mind the scenes with Leia in Jabba's palace, because it all leads up to her killing him, which is a great scene for Leia. It's not Han or Luke who takes out the main antagonist of that section of the movie, it's Leia.

Between that, the speeder chase on the Endor moon, and shooting the stormtroopers off Han's back while she's wounded, I think Return Of The Jedi is Leia's best movie.

But the slave costume was deliberately for fanservice purposes and not for any larger purpose, as Carrie Fisher's accounts of filming make clear.

edited 15th May '15 8:42:01 PM by Galadriel

From what? Two or three people. It wasn't worth a discussion, since those people aren't in charge of the franchise to start with. It could have been a problem, but it DID fit into story. Which was always an homage to past works that reveled in that shit. By context, it WASN'T a problem. It's not something to maintain going into the future of the series in hands other than Lucas's, but as a single work it wasn't problematic.

It's trends one should fight, not singular pieces of work. And it's always better to argue FOR a POSITIVE than to argue against a negative. Why fuss and fight about moral imperatives that only serve to needle people when you can just show how it benefits them to follow those imperatives in the first place? To take an example from Star Trek Deep Space Nine, Ferengi women didn't gain their equality by fussing that they wanted to wear clothes and that it was unfair that men held them down from making profit. They won it by showing how women wearing clothes would increase profit, and how adding women to the work force would increase the number of minds aimed toward achieving greater profit.

Because people shouldn't treat women as equal human beings only because they see a personal benefit in doing so. They should do it because we're human beings and we have a right to it, and anyone who doesn't recognize that very basic fact is not worth talking to.

Humans are animals. Animals don't work on morals, no matter what our hard wired illusions of anything greater might lead us to believe. And that's what they are, illusions. Treating women as equals gives them a vested interest in the world around them. A better reason to keep living and to be productive members of society. It's the same way with men. No more or no less.

ETA: Also, if you really want to go the morals route, the way you just worded your response suggests that men are people and women aren't.

edited 15th May '15 8:52:00 PM by Journeyman

Precisely, which is why Jabba is the villain. He's a crime lord from a species that enjoys being surrounded in decadence. They have four whole species that have been enslaved to them for thousands of years. The fact that Jabba and the Empire are the only two factions we see that say "No, you're a woman so sit down and shut up" are points in the movie's favor, I'd say.

edited 15th May '15 8:54:36 PM by theLibrarian

Just to add some fuel to the fire, but what do you make of the added scene (in the Special Edition) of Oola, the dancing Twi'lek?

A careful viewing of that scene shows that there are actually many individuals in Jabba's palace — male, female, humanoid and less-humanoid, including a second Twi'lek and a six-breasted woman, as well as all of Sy Snootle's bland — that are pretty scantily clad. We put a lot of attention on Leia because she's human, and a major character.

Indeed. Some of them are even nonhumanoid, for sure.

edited 15th May '15 9:30:15 PM by Journeyman

Librarian - Yeah, I was talking to Journeyman, not expecting Jabba to abide by human rights norms.

The thing is I've seen a trend on this site and other forums is a concept I've termed "Depiction Equals Endorsement," the idea that unless a trope is outrightly stated in the work to be disapproved of that the creators must somehow either support the trope or otherwise have made a creative mistake in using the trope.

There is absolutely no problem inherent with using a trope, regardless of any Unfortunate Implications that might be associated with the trope. Arguing that a trope should never be used is simply ignoring the more legitimate critique of how the trope was used. Complaining about it being evident of a broad Hollywood sin is taking the discussion into being about vague trends, not the quality of the individual movie.

As far as ROTJ is concerned, the use of Go-Go Enslavement is precisely the kind of vile things Jabba was supposed to represent. Making it gender neutral/inverted doesn't fix anything, it doesn't make the trope better or worse. There is always a million different ways a story can be changed and still technically work just fine, but again that takes the discussion away from the quality of the movie and into a hypothetical "If I were to rewrite the story..." thing that doesn't really go anywhere.

@Journeyman: Stop telling me what I can and what I can't talk about. If you don't like the topic, don't participate.

Funny isn't it? You can criticize everything. But bring up sexism and a lot of people fill suddenly personally offended and don't want to talk about it. Does it hit to close to home?

If the "illusions" are hardwired, they do work as well. Saying we don't act on empathy is also simply wrong.

Edit: Look guys, this isn't that big of a deal. The movie is still my second favorite Star Wars movie, despite this. It's just something I wish wasn't there.

Are you saying you don't give a shit on how women are treated as long as you don't also profit from it? Because that sure as hell sounds like it.

@The Librarian: Tropes like Women In Refrigerators and Go-Go Enslavement are always used by villains. Their omnipresence and Unfortunate Implications are still a problem.

@KJ Mackley: I did precisely critique "how" the trope was used wrong and how it could have been used better. Just what you yourself argue should be allowed to do. Then why do you ad this and contradict yourself: "Making it gender neutral/inverted doesn't fix anything, it doesn't make the trope better or worse."

Yes, yes it would have made it better.

edited 16th May '15 7:30:55 AM by Antiteilchen

Okay, let me get this clear: you're arguing that adding the Unfortunate Implication of Jabba being a Depraved Bisexual, on top of everythingelse wrong with him; would've removed the Unfortunate Implication of what amounts to be 10 minutes of fanservice in a 400 minutes movie trilogy?

edited 16th May '15 1:01:15 PM by Werebazs

Yes because either he does it for his guests, in which case having only female slaves would indicate he only deals or wants to impress those who like women.

Or he likes them himselfs. And as has been noted, that makes him a sexual deviant no matter what (which is problematic in its own way), so you're not adding anything new really.

No, you have actually done nothing to critique why the trope doesn't work in the context of the movie and are just applying the anger you have towards the frequent use of the trope in cinema.

And that's fine, your opinion is your opinion. But the moment you throw your opinion out it becomes subject to debate and criticism by others, especially when you apply it to a well loved film.

I think the "You will learn to appreciate me!" line makes it clear that he is actually attracted to humanoid women. And really? Did you just equate being a bisexual, to being rapist pervert? Because what you basically said is: "Jabba is already a pervert, so making him bisexual is okay."!

edited 16th May '15 11:26:55 AM by Werebazs

It isn't. I hope Anti is just kneejerking this whole thing, otherwise he's saying it's okay to add yet more people to the Offended list. Which is never okay unless you're trying to get people pissed off about something, which was never the point of Star Wars in the first place.

No, I equated being a furry/interspecies attracted person to being a bisexual.

I think you misunderstood my point. I never said the trope doesn't work in the story. Jar Jar Binks also works in the story. That's because the stories were written to include them. I said it was unfortunate that the only female main character is getting sexualized, while non of the male characters are.

EDIT: I'm done with you sexists. Having female sex slaves is okay to you but having sex slaves of both genders is offensive. If you people really think so, I'm afraid there's nothing to ad anymore.

edited 16th May '15 12:45:51 PM by Antiteilchen

If it makes you feel better to blame us for the perceived misogyny in a movie that features one of the top 5 female action heroes in the world, I can live with it.

How about not having slaves at all? Jabba's a BAD GUY. And him being sexist would be one more ACCEPTABLE thing to attack, anyway. Being bisexual? That's not a good mark of a bad guy at all. But being sexist? Sexism IS something people attack all the time.

Star Wars is about Black-and-White Morality. The bad guys should have as many horrible things stacked up against them as possible. So, no, we don't our bad guys to be progressive in the least. At least, that's how it was in the OT. Who knows how the new movies will play out, but if the bad guys are as progressive as the good ones seem to be, it might be a great trilogy.

ETA: I think a good way to say it is . . . good guys can be bisexual all they want. Bad guys? Stay the horrible misogynistic dirtbags everyone hates. No redeemable qualities for you jackasses.

edited 16th May '15 12:54:15 PM by Journeyman

Actually brief as it may be, Luke had a half-naked scene a full movie earlier than Leia's metal bikini.
And sorry, but you're still basically saying that it's okay to depict bisexuals as not only perverts, but outright evil monsters, so get off the high horse! Did that scene sexualise Leia? Yes. But it did so in a rather unsettling manner, which for me, put the "dis" between the "fan" and "service", not to mention that Leia paid back for what Jabba did to her, by killing him, using part of the suit he made her wear!

edited 16th May '15 12:55:29 PM by Werebazs

Also, "empathy" is nothing more than the self interested realization that what somebody else is going through could affect us too. When someone around us is stressed out, that stress adds to our own. When somebody's being attacked, we all know we could be next. We might lie to ourselves and claim it's something more (Self-delusion is the ONE thing almost everyone is good at), but it's still selfish.

Perhaps we calm the fuck down and take this to a more appropriate thread; because we obviously can't handle it here and insulting each other will only make sure we never discuss Star Wars again.

PSN ID: FateSeraph | Switch friendcode: SW-0145-8835-0610 Congratulations! She/They

Why would we be able to handle it there any better than here? It's not the subject that's the problem it's the individuals involved. I'll admit fully I'm less annoyed at the subject than at the one I'm fussing with. People in general piss me off a great deal more than subjects of discussion.

Though I do agree we need a subject change. What new Force powers do you think we'll see in action this time around, if any?

Hmm. What ones haven't been seen yet that are in various sources that come after the OT in other media? Healing, inducing fear, mind control from Joruss C'Baoth, force scream etc. are a few.

edited 16th May '15 4:47:28 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

I doubt anything, really.