PDA

View Full Version : Unleashed Leia



EricRG
11-30-2002, 11:26 PM
Bonjour Hasbro!

Just wanted to give you all my 2 cents with regards to the scheduled Unleashed Slave Leia. I personally think that it is a bad decision to put this thing out to general release.

Here's why: I think it is not in the proper context with regards to the maturity level of the rest of the Hasbro SW line. Having said that, I think it is a good-looking figure that should be released. I suggest you reconsider general release in order to make it a Fan Club exclusive.

I could certainly see parents restricting purchase of SW items if they felt that it was inappropriate for their children.

Jayspawn
12-01-2002, 12:17 AM
I'll bet there are some parents that will think that. However, Leia WAS dressed like that in "Return of the Jedi" and there have been 2 previous Slave Leia figures. So parents should not complain.

Beast
12-01-2002, 01:28 AM
Only comment I will make about this. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Make your money talk. The unleashed line is a line mostly for more adult collectors. Just like the playskool line is aimed at the younger crowd. I myself see nothing wrong with it, even though I don't really have any intrest in purchasing the Unleashed line yet. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

187-Maul
12-01-2002, 11:36 AM
why make it a fan club exclusive? there are some collectors in europe who want it too you know and that way we could never get it (except from some scalper-shop)
just release it and like JJ said, if you don't like it (although you do), don't buy it

BTW, the fig looks really cool IMO and I'll probably get it if I see it

OzOtter
12-01-2002, 11:37 AM
I had no intention of buying any Unleashed stuff... until this one.

EricRG
12-01-2002, 12:31 PM
The previous Leias were not as suggestive...this one has bared cheeks and suggests a certain profession which involves dollar bill tips.

My apologies to overseas collectors, but I'm afraid they make up a much smaller percentage of Hasbro SW buyers in comparison to US parents/children.

Jargo
12-01-2002, 02:11 PM
based on what statistics? As far as recent fiscal reports go, sales of star wars items in the states are in decline whereas sales in Europe are on the increase, more specifically sales in the UK are rocketing thanks to the efforts of the company management in getting the stock into stores after the disastrous previous management failed at every turn it seems. Simply dismissing Europe and the UK as being a smaller percentage is erroneous in the extreme.
However, that said I do take part of your comment and partly agree that the Slave Leia seems to be tailored for a certain mindset and sensibility. It's not wholey suitable for a child but then the unleashed line was intended for the "emerging teen market" as Hasbro pitched it. As such it was intended to capture the imagination of those between twelve and twenty. The T&A approach to depicting Leia is bound to appeal to socially maladroit and maladjusted persons and those without the ability to form meaningful relationships with real live women and instead take refuge with manequins for comfort in lieau of anything more substantial. I personally wouldn't dream of buying this because it seems so tacky. The 3 figure was fine because it was so small it hardly registers that you can see fleshy parts. Plus the figure was posed in an action stance the same way Leia does in the movie. This unleashed item seems to be consisting of rather more fleshy parts than is necessary to represent leia in that costume. This is compounded by the suggestive way she holds the vibrostaff. The pose is certainly no accident and the intention is lewd. A crowd pleaser rather than an honest depiction or artists rendition piece.
I'm not a prude by any stretch of the imagination, But as far as something that is being sold as a toy in a toy store this is going too far. And yes, I think on that score parents would be right and justified in kicking up a stink over it.

InsaneJediGirl
12-02-2002, 03:00 PM
I dont see why everyone is getting their shorts in a wad over this.Its a piece of PLASTIC:rolleyes:You see more at the local beach.If parents are worried about the little kids seeing it they should better monitor their spending habits/internet useage.

Jargo
12-02-2002, 05:29 PM
It's what it represents and what it heralds for the future that's the issue. A downward spiral to the murky depths of soddom and gomorrah........

EricRG
12-03-2002, 12:54 AM
Bikinis are normal on the beach.

Leia's cheeks are not normal for my TRU shelves.

And quite frankly, if you are not monitoring your children's Internet activities, you are doing yourself, them and society at large a disservice.

stillakid
12-03-2002, 12:53 PM
This is a great lead in for a discussion regarding parental responsibility. Perhaps this is the wrong thread for it, but it's all relevant.

First thing: Money talks. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel. Personal choice goes hand in hand with personal responsibility. Legislating morality has never worked...and shouldn't.

Second: Too many parents just let their kids do whatever they want. Having items like these (things that get parental shorts in a wad) pop up are GOOD! This forces parents to stand up and take notice of what their kids are involved in. Specifically, in terms of sexuality, it can be a convenient lead-in for a discussion regarding overall issues of respect for women, etc.

Third: Having said all that, the issue of REALITY comes into play. Face it, woman derive most of their "power" from their sexuality. The sooner kids learn this, the better. If shielded from this when they're young, they'll get a rude awakening later on in life. You don't have to like it, but it's the way the world works. Women who are more attractive tend to get what they want more often than women who are not. That's just the way it is. I can only surmise that any objection to a toy that looks suggestive is a defensive reaction meant to shield the children from the (unpleasant?) realities of the world. Again, they're going to find out sometime, and wouldn't you rather it was you to be the one to have the talk with them than just ignoring the issue and having them learn "stuff" from their friends? It is just a toy, but absolutely no worse than any one of the Barbies that have populated the aisles for decades now.

Dar Basra
12-03-2002, 01:13 PM
I'm curious, being new to these particular forums, whether these same concerns were raised when the Padme Unleashed in the Arena was released? Although for the most part it is pretty much the same figure/scene as the Basic figure, it does have some rather significant silicone enhancements, which make her look less like Natalie Portman and more like Lara Croft. Did that one raise your eyebrows as well?

stillakid
12-03-2002, 02:33 PM
Oh, and P.S., I kind of liked this Calvin & Hobbes commentary on life...

Jargo
12-03-2002, 02:51 PM
Makes me wish I'd been born with jugs of my own, why i could have ruuuuuuled the world.....


MWAHAHAhahaha...ha...ha...ha....... :(

JediTricks
12-03-2002, 08:30 PM
Dar Basra, yes, the issue of sexuality being sold to kids was indeed brought up with Unleashed Padme as well, though not in the Dear Hasbro section.

EricRG
12-04-2002, 12:07 AM
Stilla,

To address your points one by one:

1)I disagree with your argument about money talks etc. If you look around at society and at what is accepted as normal these days, you'd see that the majority of people have lost touch with and/or completely ignore any sense of morality. Yes, this thing will sell! Of course it will. It doesn't make it right. And what will that do? As Emp Jargo has suggested, it may well lead to more of this type of stuff in the line. For me, that's not what the spirit of SW is about, and it's not what this toy line is about.

2)You're certainly right in that parents these days have lost control of their children in far too many families. Why does something like this have to come up to discuss portrayal of women in society? THIS IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS FACING AMERICAN FAMILIES TODAY. Parents don't TALK to their children anymore. Should a mother wait for prom night to discuss sexuality with her daughter? That's the mentality that you are advocating.

3) Dude, you are really wrong here, and I'm disappointed to see someone as intelligent as yourself purveying stuff like this. To me, women have far more than T&A. My mentor is a woman, as was my undergrad mentor. Why do I have such incredibly high respect for them? Why have they risen to the top of their profession? Because they are SMART. And they were not afraid to study science despite what society told them. You see, women are taught from day 1 that they must be thin, they must have large breasts, they must be sexy to get what they want. They are also told you cannot be the boss, you cannot make a lot of money, you must obey the man. You see, this is WRONG. And THIS is why society is the way it is. Because women are trained from birth to fulfill a certain role. I'm of the mind that if you educate your children as to WHY things are the way they are, not simply how things are now, you will instill in them the capacity to question the status quo and to look at the MAN behind the curtain. That way, if they see something wrong in society, they can move to change it. Like what I'm doing.

Beast
12-04-2002, 12:25 AM
Lead to more things like this in the line? Like what? Unleashed Yarna D'al Gargan, Unleashed Oola? The unleashed line is for artistic interpretations of main charecters. I don't see how one figure will send Hasbro down the dark road of evil sexual figures. It's not McFarlane Toys, after all. :p :)

Since when did a plastic toy, have anything to do when mothers talk to their daughters about sex. Well, maybe Barbie ended up making girls actually ask questions and seek answers. So, wouldn't that be a good thing? Silly argument, in my opinon. Hell, kids know about sex before their parents ever decide to talk to them anyway. It's prevelent in the culture, it has been since the beginning. It's just easier to spot now. :)

Of course women are more then T&A. But that doesn't mean that we can't admire their beauty. Hell, InsaneJediGirl, who I assume by the name is a girl/woman, doesn't see anything wrong with it. Shouldn't we worry more about the female perogitive on this, then our opinion on what is explicit.

Or shall we as a society, just take a huge step backwards and then force all women to dress like Tusken Raiders, so that they don't have to be judged by their bodies at all. And then maybe we can start reversing those laws that gave women the right to be who and what they wanted to be. Sure women are smart, but they can be sexy too. It's not a sin, after all. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

LTBasker
12-04-2002, 12:59 AM
Man this is getting out of hand. The point about the figure is that it's just like Kidnapper Jango unleashed, it's a pointless figure because all it depicts Leia as is a slut, which is even more screwed up that scene. I don't care about what she's wearing, it's just that it's pointless. Artist interpertation or not, it's still pointless because obviously it was just one of the artist's desires to be able to mass produce one of his fantasies. I would be saying the same even if she had her Hoth wear on, the so-called "artist" (I can think of a few other names, like desperate but eh) is showing her as if she's just a frickin *****, and that wasn't anywhere near the Leia character. She was supposed to be a strong female character, ok she can be sexy, serious and strong but that isn't sexy, serious and strong that's just flat-out slutty.

I think now we know what Jango was holding Boba back from. :sur:

Heck, I even hate the vibrostaff because it's WAY out of scale. :p

That's all I'm gonna say on it cause that's my point of it and I'm gonna leave it at that, if you want to debate about it with me then PM me and some of you know my AIM name. We don't need to constantly debate out a figure, especially since it's an Unleashed and just isn't worth it. :D

stillakid
12-04-2002, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by EricRG
Stilla,

To address your points one by one:

1)I disagree with your argument about money talks etc. If you look around at society and at what is accepted as normal these days, you'd see that the majority of people have lost touch with and/or completely ignore any sense of morality. Yes, this thing will sell! Of course it will. It doesn't make it right. And what will that do? As Emp Jargo has suggested, it may well lead to more of this type of stuff in the line. For me, that's not what the spirit of SW is about, and it's not what this toy line is about.

What is the line about? I wasn't aware that A) it was about any one thing in particular, and B) that the Unleashed Leia portrays something different (in the "point" of the line). Leia was in a bikini in the movie. The toy is a reproduction of her from the movie. We also have a 3" version of the same thing. I don't see the difference or the problem.

I don't mean to get into a discussion about morality, because I certainly don't see what this Leia sculpt has to do with it, but from your standpoint, her sculpt is "suggestive." Assuming that it is so, then what's "immoral" about that? Sexuality is a normal part of human behavior. I haven't seen any threads protesting the inclusion of guns or other weapons with these toys. Want to talk about morality, let's start with violence. Given the choice, I'd rather see people spend their time "immorally" thinking about sex (an act of loving emotion) than running around shooting others. Why is it that we can have all the violence in the world shown in the media but as soon as Brittany or Madonna (or Leia) show their sexuality, the Morality Police stand up and throw a fit? Guns and weapons kill. I'm not sure about the last time sex did (directly, of course).

Oh, and as far as society "losing touch with morality," I don't believe that it's a fair statement at all. It assumes that "we" had a sense of morality to begin with. This particular American society began with the Puritans. You hear the phrase tossed around all the time: the "Puritan Ethic" being held up as if it were the standard to live by. Got news for you, you don't preach to people who don't need it. The Puritans were f'ing around as much as we do. Those preachers had their hands full trying to get everyone in line. So this farcical idea that somehow our society has slipped down the morality ladder into oblivion is pure fiction. The REALITY of our morality hasn't changed, but the public face of it has as people are now more honest about what they think and feel. Instead of sneaking around and "doing it," today's more's allow us to talk openly and not be so hypocritical. For my money, I take Door #2 and Honesty over the Hypocrital Door #1 of the past couple hundred years.



Originally posted by EricRG

2)You're certainly right in that parents these days have lost control of their children in far too many families. Why does something like this have to come up to discuss portrayal of women in society? THIS IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS FACING AMERICAN FAMILIES TODAY. Parents don't TALK to their children anymore. Should a mother wait for prom night to discuss sexuality with her daughter? That's the mentality that you are advocating.

No, it's not. What I'm advocating is that parents do their jobs. Some do. But the fact is, most don't and wait until issues come up to do damage control after the fact. The prevailing attitude is to just assume that their kids will learn "things" on their own. If and when they get into trouble, the parents only then "have the talk" or whatever. What I am saying is that issues like "suggestive toys" or whatever can work as a catalyst to encourage parents to talk about important issues before their kids go down the "wrong" path. If they feel strongly about an issue like this, maybe it will be enough of an influence to get them to actually, you know, parent.



Originally posted by EricRG

3) Dude, you are really wrong here, and I'm disappointed to see someone as intelligent as yourself purveying stuff like this. To me, women have far more than T&A. My mentor is a woman, as was my undergrad mentor. Why do I have such incredibly high respect for them? Why have they risen to the top of their profession? Because they are SMART. And they were not afraid to study science despite what society told them. You see, women are taught from day 1 that they must be thin, they must have large breasts, they must be sexy to get what they want. They are also told you cannot be the boss, you cannot make a lot of money, you must obey the man. You see, this is WRONG. And THIS is why society is the way it is. Because women are trained from birth to fulfill a certain role. I'm of the mind that if you educate your children as to WHY things are the way they are, not simply how things are now, you will instill in them the capacity to question the status quo and to look at the MAN behind the curtain. That way, if they see something wrong in society, they can move to change it. Like what I'm doing.

No, I'm not wrong, but thank you for the compliment. :) The fact is that women are "taught" to be the way you describe because that is what men want. Now, trends change, but the foundation of the argument remains the same. Indeed they are more than T and A, but the fact remains that this is a strong a significant power that they hold over males if indeed they possess the qualities.

Traditional Male power stems from being a provider. Women are attracted to men who have that ability or show the potential for that ability. Given the choice, any woman will choose a successful man over a couch potato for a couple of reasons. One, because the successful man has drive and enthusiasm. Two, because (usually), he has money (which came about because of "one") which translates into security (for future children). That's just nature. Why fight it?

Traditional Female power stems from their ability to attract a male. Take a look around. The more successful a male is or has the potential to be (see above), the "better" female he will attract. (Everyone else essentially "settles for the best that they can get.) Perhaps it's the "better" part of the statement that is in question. Yes, some women are great business-people and the like. But typically, women that achieve those levels of success in a career do it because they have to. Not all, but most are not what most males would describe as "hot babes." If they were, they would've attracted a "successful" male who would have the ability to take care of them early on. I'm not sure where you live, but when I get on the freeway in the morning, I don't see a whole lot of gorgeous Playmate caliber women heading off to a 9-5 job on the 405 freeway. It's mostly men. The few women I do see are not typically "hot." Why? There can be only 2 possible reasons: One) There aren't that many hot chicks in the world so statistically I wouldn't see that many, or Two) the hot chicks are at home while their successful husbands/boyfriends are heading to work. The less attractive one's have to work because they don't have the sexual power to put themselves into that other position.

Yes, there are exceptions, but this is the typical pattern of human behavior. Do you have to like it? No. Can one man change it? Probably not. What I was saying was that you're better off teaching your children, and specifically your daughters, about this right away instead of shielding them from it. Why? You'd be doing them a disservice by not. How so?

If your daughter is "hot," if they haven't already, they'll learn soon enough that they can get just about anything they want just by virtue of their looks. No amount of shielding by you will "protect" them from that reality. However, what we can do as parents is to sit down and talk to our gorgeous daughters about it and try to instill in them the importance of not A) relying on their looks to get them by, and B) not using their looks intentionally to get them by. That's where "values" come in and only strong parenting from birth can make that happen. We have to teach our "hot" daughters that it isn't okay to just leech off some rich guy. They have to be made aware that their looks will be influential whether they want it or not. They can either fight it or learn to use their looks in tandem with their desires for the life they choose (whether it be in business or domestic). Look at Cindy Crawford. Gorgeous woman who made a healthy living based on her looks. BUT she has staying power because she is also very very smart. That's the kind of role-model every woman should look up to. But based on your above post, I'd assume that you'd frown on her success because she used her body to find success. Why condemn women for using the natural ability they've been given?

On the other hand, if your daughter is destined to be average or just plain ugly (face it, these less desirable girls come from somewhere), you'd be doing her a disservice by not teaching her some of the above and letting her know (compassionately) that she will be at a dissadvantage because of her looks. She will have to work that much harder to be successful on her own by using her other talents. Opportunities tend to go to better looking people. We all have to contend with that. It's human nature.

It's your duty as a parent to teach your children the way the world IS, then do your best to teach them how to live a "moral" life (whatever that means to you). Hiding Leia's butt cheeks won't erase the sexuality that women possess nor the sexual desire that men have for women that look like Leia. Hiding it is just hiding it. It's still there and it isn't going to go away any time soon.

EricRG
12-05-2002, 04:42 PM
Ok-

So I'll dispense with the point/counterpoint thing. My message is to HASBRO.

As you can see, some people support general release for this figure, others do not. I think the simple fact that ANYBODY on a Hasbro SW collectors site is against the general release of this figure speaks volumes.

I think you will lose some customers perhaps permanently in order to sell a bunch of these things. GENERAL RELEASE IS NOT THE WAY TO GO!

Please reconsider.

Beast
12-05-2002, 05:03 PM
The only person that seems to not want this to see a general release is you. Other people may have problems with it, but they arn't demanding a fan club release. Why would people being against the release of the figure, speak volumes? People are against the release of Padme figures, or EU figures. That doesn't speak volumes. It's a personal tastes issue.

I doubt they will loose any customers, because Star Wars collectors are a fickle group anyway. Just because a figure comes out that they don't like, doesn't mean they will stop collecting the line. Besides, the Unleashed line is a niche market anway. Not all collectors collect them, so it's not going to hurt Hasbro's bread and butter, the 4" line. Just like the 12" line has no effect on the 4" line as a whole. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

QLD
12-05-2002, 05:12 PM
I think they have a bigger chance of fanboys getting off on this rather than kids. When I was a kid the Victorias Secret catalog worked just fine.

Plus, I am sure it will be on the shelves near all of those nice and scantily clad anime figures.

Violence is ok but sex isn't? Whatever.

I don't think anyone else cares.

stillakid
12-05-2002, 06:26 PM
Hmm? I still don't get it and it looks like I'll never get an answer.

I really don't see what the problem is in having a toy that might suggest a sexual connotation. When you boil it down, most toys exist to teach our children something in the guise of fun. Sometimes math, sometimes reading, sometimes just basic coordination skills. But other times, possibly including this one, kid's might get a lesson in sexuality. Again, a hot button, but certainly nothing to hide in the closet. They gotta learn sometime from somebody. It's either this or they can wait to peek at a Playboy over at a friend's house. What on earth are you suggesting Hasbro hide exactly?

If there is a really compelling reason I'd be ready to listen to it. But this just appears to be a bit of modesty and prudishness more than any effort to "save" society from it's morally decrepit self.

Oh, and she comes with a sharp weapon too (simulated). I haven't heard anyone complain about that portion of this "objectionable" toy. She won't be getting on any airlines holding that thing. :) On the other hand, I do recall (quite vividly :cool: ) a flight I had once from Connecticut to Los Angeles. There was this nubile female who chose to wear the shearest of skirts which (and I thank her for this) showed off her black lace thong (not simulated :Pirate: ) . But I digress...:happy:

The point of my trip down memory lane there is to pose the question: would you rather she be carrying a large ax or show off her cute butt? Based on your refusal to respond directly to the above posts, I'll assume that you prefer she carry the ax. Okay, fair enough, but I honestly hate answering for people. I'd really prefer they respond themselves.

The other choice is that you prefer she carry nothing of the sort and cover up her "naughty bits." That's fair too, except that your statements to Hasbro aren't consistent with that line of argument. I'm not trying to start a fight. I am just a little confused. Again, given a compelling and viable argument against releasing Slave Leia Unleashed, perhaps I and Hasbro would see it your way.

InsaneJediGirl
12-06-2002, 08:59 AM
Eric,I still dont get it either.Once the statue is in the package..you wont even see her behind because of the cardboard backing.I guess you could look from the side,but how many kids actually pick up toys in the store in study it at all angles?

I'd have to agree with QLD.Violence seems to be more accepted than sexuality.

stillakid
12-06-2002, 10:28 AM
More butt-cheeks! Is Star Wars going XXX-rated?! Check it out below...



;) But anyway...where's the outcry for this? Or is it because it's a guy? Or because it's an alien? That's smacks of a double-standard. One might even say discrimination! :eek: Now I suppose in the Lord's eyes, that might right up there with Lustful thoughts. I demand some immediate protest posts regarding Dex! :crazed:

LTBasker
12-06-2002, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by InsaneJediGirl
Eric,I still dont get it either.Once the statue is in the package..you wont even see her behind because of the cardboard backing.I guess you could look from the side,but how many kids actually pick up toys in the store in study it at all angles?

Very true, but then there will the people that found out that Theed Amidala wasn't the same as the rest of the Leia and Amidala figures. *cringes* I hope I don't have to see anyone like that try to get a view of Unleashed Leia. :eek:

stillakid
12-06-2002, 02:12 PM
Let's start with Padme and the bare midriff. This might just inspire a generation of girls to start wearing baby-Tee's.

stillakid
12-06-2002, 02:14 PM
For one thing, he's not wearing any clothes at all. For another, I'm not sure I like that "come get me" pose.

stillakid
12-06-2002, 02:16 PM
He's wearing shorts and all, but that chest is just a little too West Hollywood for my tastes. Good thing that scene didn't last very long.

stillakid
12-06-2002, 02:18 PM
Check out this guy. It's almost a thong. I personally don't have a problem with guys wearing exciting underwear, but this is pretty daring as day-wear.

stillakid
12-06-2002, 02:20 PM
One of these guys has his fat belly hanging out. That's just bad taste. But those Mick Jagger kissing lips can only bespeak of one thing.

The other guy is just plain naked.

stillakid
12-06-2002, 02:21 PM
Check out the behind on this chick. It's all covered up but I'm a sucker for spandex.

stillakid
12-06-2002, 02:23 PM
You know, you can look right up those skirts...:rolleyes:

Beast
12-06-2002, 02:24 PM
Hehehe. I was just going to mention the Luke: Bacta figure. I didn't see any complaining when they released a almost nude diaper wearing Luke Skywalker. So shouldn't there be a thread discussing the evils of nearly naked male action figures? Maybe there should be a thread started now, so Hasbro doesn't make a shirtless Anakin Skywalker: Nightmares figure. ;) :D

Oh wait, I forgot that it's ok to have a male figure nearly nude. But the minute a female figure comes out, who is actually wearing more, it suddenly becomes a federal case. Welcome to the two faced side of human sexuality. I still love how figures that depict violence and death are cool, but somthing natural like sex is a no no. As bad as the movie industry. :p :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

stillakid
12-06-2002, 02:25 PM
It's a modest bikini, but still, these are children's toys.:frus:

stillakid
12-06-2002, 02:26 PM
I already mentioned this guy and the plumber's syndrome.

stillakid
12-06-2002, 02:29 PM
How could we miss the obvious overt sexuality of these three? And, at the risk of going too far, the middle one not only has a really low cut top going on, but there's some additional, ehem, "sculpting" that was done to enhance her, well, attractiveness. I shant speak it openly or this would be deleted.

Beast
12-06-2002, 02:30 PM
Oh, and Stillakid. Make sure you don't forget Jabba the Hutt. He's got man boobs and is naked. This explains why they haven't made a decent ROTJ figure yet. They are afraid of the backlash against a naked Jabba the Hutt. They must be waiting for the Archival Editions of the films, so Lucas can slip Jabba into a pair of shorts and a wifebeater. Maybe while he's at it he can put Oola, Yarna, and Leia in long overcoats. So as to not offend the prudes. ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

stillakid
12-06-2002, 02:31 PM
And back to the girl...er, um, woman that started it all. Funny, the same, uh, attribute(s) that cause such a fuss with UnLeashed Leia are available in a previously released smaller version. Maybe size does matter afterall.

El Chuxter
12-06-2002, 04:35 PM
"Thees ees gehtting out of hand!"

"Stay on target, stay on target."

This is a pretty interesting debate going on here, but let's cut out the multiple pictures from here on. I'm not going to delete any posts, since I see the validity of what you're saying, but this thread could become a laundry list of action figure photos.

Carry on, carry on. :)

BTW, my two cents worth: though I think they're both nicely sculpted figures, I find the fact that Unleashed Padme was sculpted when she was (ahem) apparently very chilly a lot closer to inappropriate than Leia in a bikini. At least they didn't do a real offscreen moment for the figure: Carrie Fisher apparently had some trouble keeping that get-up on.

LTBasker
12-06-2002, 10:15 PM
Ugh just the close the thread. It's just beating a dead horse as nobody listens, and I'm sure the server is LOVING the addition of so many pictures being attached to one thread which really don't add to the debate, just make it look even more like some people aren't listening to all the sides.

stillakid
12-07-2002, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by LTBasker
Ugh just the close the thread. It's just beating a dead horse as nobody listens, and I'm sure the server is LOVING the addition of so many pictures being attached to one thread which really don't add to the debate, just make it look even more like some people aren't listening to all the sides.

That's interesting. As I was posting all of those, that horse phrase did cross my mind. ;)

But, um, I'm not hearing from any other sides. That's kind of the point. I've taken it upon myself to represent the upset masses who aren't so keen on seeing flesh (or fur, or scales as the case may be). ;)

But, uh, I am curious about a couple things. One is the server and it's feelings. Has it developed self-awareness over the holidays? Whatever the case, I would be more than happy to create just one post with all the pictures represented, but there isn't any way to accomplish that with this forum. Besides, it was funnier this way. :)

And, how come everyone is so intent on closing threads around here? Almost everywhere you turn anymore, there's somebody who doesn't like a thread suggesting that it be closed. I don't get it?

EricRG
12-07-2002, 12:58 AM
Sorry guys, as I mentioned above, I'm not gonna battle you with point/counterpoint-going-around-in-circles arguing. The thread would probably get out of hand as this subject did previously. We'll just have to agree to disagree. K?

I've made my feelings known to Hasbro...this is Dear Hasbro, right?

JediTricks
12-07-2002, 03:56 AM
Just felt like running some thoughts up this flagpole since I haven't publically sounded off on this issue yet...

sultry: (adj.) Expressing or arousing desire; sexually exciting or gratifying; characterized by or arousing passion.

I feel this Unleashed Leia is inappropriate for several reasons:
- The figures are in an all-ages toy line yet a level of sexuality is being promoted beyond the original source material. This is the 2nd time this line has done so, the first was the exaggeration of Padme's chest.

- Expanding upon that last part, in ROTJ Leia was in that bikini because she was forced to, not because she wanted to entice other characters. At no point did Leia ever actively promote a "sultry" attitude like this unleashed figure is portraying; that pike was used in the movie for defense, not seduction.

- Unlike the "beach party" cover of Rolling Stone, Carrie Fisher, the actor this figure is portraying, doesn't get to choose whether or not to promote herself in this way. This is an artist's fantasy of both a real person AND a fictional character expressed in plastic as a mass-produced statue. Even the POTF2 and POTJ action figures of slave Leia are done so in straightforward manners with no need for seductive poses.


Do you honestly believe Unleashed Padme's chest is trying to present an accurate depiction of Natalie Portman's human form? Do you honestly believe this Unleashed Leia is trying to present an accurate depiction of the sultriness of Leia as Jabba's slave? I don't. This unleashed line is apparently trying to promote these figures as various descriptive or emotive states of Star Wars (Rage, Fury, Intensity, Courage, etc.) yet I don't remember Leia's pole-dance in ROTJ, I don't remember the character trying to be "sultry". This figure is embellishing the sensuality of the character in the infamous Jabba's slave outfit for an all-ages product, just like the other female in the Unleashed line this figures seems crass, exploitive, and more than a tad insulting. I'm a heterosexual male and a Star Wars fan, but I won't be buying this figure.

Beast
12-07-2002, 05:19 AM
JT said pole-dance!! Dar, where are you to declare. "Thread Closed." ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

stillakid
12-07-2002, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
Just felt like running some thoughts up this flagpole since I haven't publically sounded off on this issue yet...

sultry: (adj.) Expressing or arousing desire; sexually exciting or gratifying; characterized by or arousing passion.

I feel this Unleashed Leia is inappropriate for several reasons:
- The figures are in an all-ages toy line yet a level of sexuality is being promoted beyond the original source material. This is the 2nd time this line has done so, the first was the exaggeration of Padme's chest.

- Expanding upon that last part, in ROTJ Leia was in that bikini because she was forced to, not because she wanted to entice other characters. At no point did Leia ever actively promote a "sultry" attitude like this unleashed figure is portraying; that pike was used in the movie for defense, not seduction.

- Unlike the "beach party" cover of Rolling Stone, Carrie Fisher, the actor this figure is portraying, doesn't get to choose whether or not to promote herself in this way. This is an artist's fantasy of both a real person AND a fictional character expressed in plastic as a mass-produced statue. Even the POTF2 and POTJ action figures of slave Leia are done so in straightforward manners with no need for seductive poses.


Do you honestly believe Unleashed Padme's chest is trying to present an accurate depiction of Natalie Portman's human form? Do you honestly believe this Unleashed Leia is trying to present an accurate depiction of the sultriness of Leia as Jabba's slave? I don't. This unleashed line is apparently trying to promote these figures as various descriptive or emotive states of Star Wars (Rage, Fury, Intensity, Courage, etc.) yet I don't remember Leia's pole-dance in ROTJ, I don't remember the character trying to be "sultry". This figure is embellishing the sensuality of the character in the infamous Jabba's slave outfit for an all-ages product, just like the other female in the Unleashed line this figures seems crass, exploitive, and more than a tad insulting. I'm a heterosexual male and a Star Wars fan, but I won't be buying this figure.

Despite everything else I posted, I do agree that you might be right about the potential intentions of this and the Padme figure. But taking another look at the both of them, I truly don't see a close enough comparison to real life pole dancers to make this claim. I mean seriously, if she were posed so she was swinging around the ax post with her back arched and head thrown back, then there'd be a case to be made. But she's not. She's just standing there. That's what women (who are in shape anyway) look like when then stand. I mean, really, what would you guys rather have her doing? Practically ANY action she does in that outfit will be declared "immoral" by somebody.

Furthermore, there is a specific scene in AOTC which accurately mirrors Padme's anatomy in question. As far as Leia goes, again, the 3" line has figures that are exactly the same, just smaller. The only difference is that Unleashed Leia has her arms up. There is no more skin showing in this version than previously released versions. As Yoda would say, the only difference is in your mind. It's all a matter of interpretation. If you want to be offended by something, regardless of it's inherent innocence as a plastic toy, you're going to be and no one will be able to talk you out of it. I'll be the first one to throw the stone labeled "hypocrisy" because I didn't see any "protests" like this leveled against the 3" line. It's a case of discrimination just because it happens to be a female form, which historically, has been associated with "sin." If that's the way you feel, I have no problem with that, just try to be consistent across the board and refuse to support the creation of other half-naked action figures as well.

And one more thing. Aside from me having a little fun with the topic, this has been, I believe, a well-intentioned discussion regarding the merits and concerns of the item in question. Shutting the thread down at this point would only further prove the point that female sexuality in this society is something to be ashamed of and not to be discussed. It would be a sad confirmation of the mentality of our culture.

stillakid
12-07-2002, 03:26 PM
This should make everyone happy:

JediTricks
12-07-2002, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
JT said pole-dance!! Dar, where are you to declare. "Thread Closed." This is Chux's house folks.


Stilla, dial it back with the attachments, don't make me ban you from uploading pics, it's becoming abusive of the system.

"She's just standing there. That's what women (who are in shape anyway) look like when then stand."
Either you don't know any women, or you're deluding yourself. This figure is clearly standing in a "seductive" pose, hand on hip, arm wrapped around pole, hips swayed, knee out, on tiptoe. What woman stands around in a regular or action stance with one foot on tiptoe with her hips swayed out?

As for a comparison between the POTF2, POTJ, and UL versions of this figure, I don't see how you can honestly claim the two 4" figures who are just standing there in neutral poses are anywhere near the explotive level of this UL figure with this "sultry" pose. The reason we are interpretting this Unleashed figure this way isn't just made-up fantasy based on personal viewpoint, Hasbro designed it this way to convey that point. The female form isn't defined by seduction or sultriness, those are qualities added later by someone's actions or projected state, and others' perceptions of those actions or state.

If this thread gets shut down, it's not because of a puritanistic value on the moderator's part, it would be because those that post in the thread are abusing forum guidelines. If you guys act responsibly and keep it at a responsible, civil level of discussion, you won't give the mods any reason to close it.

stillakid
12-07-2002, 08:51 PM
Sorry, just bringin' a little levity to the issue.

As far as the attachments go, when it's a clearly "visual" issue, what better way to make a point than to illustrate with a picture. I know we were all lulled into thinking that mere "description" should carry the scene, as was done in The Phantom Menace, but this is the real world. :)

I'm trying to be extremely civil (if not silly). It's hard to not get that way when no real explanations for the protest are forthcoming.

And you contradicted yourself here:

those are qualities added later by someone's actions or projected state, and others' perceptions of those actions or state.

Exactly. You're projecting your own views of what constitutes "improper" female behavior. Maybe it is sultry, but what's wrong with that exactly? Women can be sultry the last time I checked. And since we're ultimately dealing with fiction, who's to say that Leia wasn't sultry off-screen? I guess, by definition, these are more or less Expanded Universe offerings, as none of the Unleashed line really truly recreate actual screen events.

Which takes it back to the original question? What's wrong with showing women as sexy? And why hide it from children? What's to gain? Or even better, what's to lose by having a child SEE this or, I suppose worse, actually PLAY with it? What are you guys so afraid of? I'm not trying to be facetious. These are very real questions. Thanks!

JediTricks
12-08-2002, 07:09 PM
Of the 14 attachments here, I can only find 1 that was germane to the discussion at hand. And of the other 13, since clearly you have photo editing skills, 11 of them could have been edited into 1 picture, and the other 2 were just for comedic effect. (Of course, NONE of these attachments were the actual item we're discussing.)

"It's hard to not get that way when no real explanations for the protest are forthcoming."
Well, perhaps if you didn't discount any comments that didn't fit your point of view, you might notice that there have been several "real explanations" in this thread.

I don't see how this is a contridiction:
"seduction or sultriness... qualities added later by someone's actions or projected state, and others' perceptions of those actions or state."
It's stating that these adjectives are brought about by a person's actions or projections, and are brought into focus through others via their perceptions. It's the "tree falls in the woods" thing, someone puts out a sense of themselves being sultry and a person viewing this receives these signals. The whole point I was making with that was "seduction and sultriness" are not defining points of the female form.

Now, it's true that the occasional individual might perceive subtle signals the wrong way, but that's not the point with this item, this item is sending those signals with its pose.

Selling sex to kids is unhealthy - that's the bottom line.

stillakid
12-08-2002, 07:57 PM
I had counter-points for that, but on second thought, there isn't much point. I'm not hearing why this Slave Leia is "unhealthy" and it's too exasperating to keep asking over and over. The responses are generalities and the other questions that don't serve the cause are ignored (so, what about the weapons, eh?) Violence is okay but sex isn't? "Unhealthy for kids" was it? If the issue was really about what's best for kids, then we should have seen protests against the weapons long ago. I suspect that this has to do more with prudishness than true concern for the children.

If you must, ignore everything else I've said, but please answer me this: What EXACTLY would you prefer UnLeashed Leia to look like? What would a "healthy" depiction of her be? Would you prefer that she carry some textbooks in her free hand to present a more "rounded" example of what females can achieve? Or should she just cover up completely to show young women that they should be ashamed of their sexuality?

Thanks!

JediTricks
12-09-2002, 08:34 PM
What I said was SELLING sex to kids was unhealthy.

Before I answer your question, I have to ponder this... why must there be a Leia in this line? There's no Luke, no Han, no Chewie, no R2, no Obi-Wan, there's a ton of core characters Unleashed hasn't tackled. And there seems to be no demand for Hasbro to make an Unleashed toy that dealt with a "sultry" aspect of Star Wars (though if there was, wouldn't AOTC Padme from the Naboo retreat be a better choice).

Now, to the core of your question, what would be a more acceptable version of an Unleashed Leia -- I'd say there are a ton of options, I'd prefer Leia taking aim at Stormtroopers from ANH, but if we are limited to just this costume, then how about using that axe to take out guards, or maybe pulling on a chain to choke Jabba, or swinging to freedom with Luke. Any of that could be designed to capture the actual character in a dynamic manner.

Beast
12-09-2002, 08:55 PM
JT, while there is no Luke, Han, Chewie, R2-D2, or Obi-Wan yet, there are more coming next year. So what if Leia comes out before the others? It's not like the line is coming to an end. We have Slave Leia, Vader Redux, Luke Skywalker, Darth Sidious, E2 Obi Wan Kenobi, Yoda, Han Solo, and Boba Fett that we know are coming. There will be more beyond the 8 rumored as well, I'm sure. :)

As for the claims the figures are selling sex, it's sort of rediculous. Female figures, even half naked ones don't sell half as well as male figures. That's an established fact, also the reason why there are so few Padme and Leia figures that get made. By the way, in my opinion the 12" FAO figure was alot more "sultry". The only people that are even gonna give a lick about Slave Leia are sad sex starved fanboys. And they can find sexier things online quite easily.

You keep asking for actual movie scenes, but the line isn't based 100% on the movies. They are artistic interpretations of the charecters. About the only one that could even be considered close to somthing we see in the movie is Vader and Dooku. It's a toy, there are far more "sexy" things released every month in Barbie Dolls and other toy lines. It's the female form, most kids already know what it looks like. Hell, girls and boys undress and redress their Barbie's and G.I. Joe's all the time. Maybe we should hot glue the clothes on to protect their fragile minds. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

stillakid
12-10-2002, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
What I said was SELLING sex to kids was unhealthy.

....I'd prefer Leia taking aim at Stormtroopers from ANH, ...

Soooo, selling sex to kids is unhealthy but selling violence to them isn't? :confused:

Sex is primarily for reproduction, but it is also about fun and togetherness, etc etc etc.

Violence is always about destruction and trying to hurt others, sometimes even to the point of death.



Is it me? In what universe does this make sense?:confused: No, SERIOUSLY, I don't get it.

JediTricks
12-10-2002, 04:31 PM
JJB, I'm not asking for JUST movie scenes, I am suggesting this stuff actually fit the character it's portraying. Vamping it up was never in Leia's character, not in anything I saw.

RooJay
12-10-2002, 04:50 PM
I'd like to chime in and say how the sexuality of this item never once crossed my mind until I stumbled upon this thread. I come from a fairly traditional christian family (my grandfather, one of my uncles, and probably about four or five of my cousins are ministers) and I had never once thought that this figure was offensive in any way. I, for one, would have no problem giving this item to a child, and I wouldn't even have a problem showing this to my grandmother. I know that not everyone will see the issue as I do, but personally I fail to see any obscenity in this. Quite frankly, I truly don't understand why anyone would. It's just a woman. Imagine a character like Yarna in the same pose. Does anyone honestly believe something like that would ever generate the same kind of response as this? I sincerely doubt it. There have been Barbie dolls on the shelves since the sixties that have been less clothed than this. There are soap commercials on television depicting women, and even men and children with a lot less clothing on. Would it be more acceptible for this figure to come encased behind a fogged over shower door? Or maybe if she were sitting in a bubble bath?
There is still the issue of the double standard here that I don't think is getting enough attention from all sides. Take He-Man for example: why is there no outcry to have this figure pulled from shelves? He wears far less clothing, and reveals a good deal more flesh than Unleashed Leia. He even has exposed, molded nipples. I just fail to see how He-Man could be considered any less suggestive or offensive than Leia. Am I to believe that there is no male equivalent of sultry? Are there really no females out there that would fail to find a physique like He-Man's "arousing" or "desirable" on some level? Especially given his state of undress? Are we to believe that there's not a single female out there that wouldn't find a speciman like He-Man "sexually exciting or gratifying"? That kind of thing really only works if the figure in question is a depiction of the female form? :confused: REALLY?!
I won't even get into how men in the real world aren't built like He-Man, and what kind of unattainable standard he represents for men.;)

stillakid
12-11-2002, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
Soooo, selling sex to kids is unhealthy but selling violence to them isn't? :confused:

Sex is primarily for reproduction, but it is also about fun and togetherness, etc etc etc.

Violence is always about destruction and trying to hurt others, sometimes even to the point of death.



Is it me? In what universe does this make sense?:confused: No, SERIOUSLY, I don't get it.


drip....drip....drip


Boy it got quiet in here...


Maybe this question doesn't show up on all browsers. :confused:


drip....drip....drip


Is there an invisibility HTML code for difficult questions?...


What a beautiful sky today...


drip....drip....drip


The loons, can you hear the loons?*...


Anyone, anyone, Bueller? Beuller?


drip....drip....drip


Hmm...






KILL KILL KILL....



(listening for the echo...words of protest...)



drip....drip....drip



(nothing)



drip....drip....drip



Would somebody turn that faucet off?....



Nobody here....



Never mind... I'll get it...



drip....drip....dri(squeak)



You want the truth? You can't handle the TRUTH! It sucks to be backed into a corner, doesn't it?



(listening)



still nothing....



sigh....



(saunters off)


I'll, uh, leave the door unlocked in case anybody wants to answer that question, but I'm gonna shut off the lights to save electricity. Okay? Thanks....






*special thanks to Berkeley Breathed

EricRG
12-12-2002, 12:17 AM
OK fine. Stillakid, #1, the thread is not even about the issue of violence. BUT, since you seem so demanding for a point of view, here's mine:

The Hasbro Star Wars line...yes it does have such things as miniature weapons which allow children to *IMAGINE* them shooting, etc. each other. I don't really think too many children actually pick up the weapons and "shoot" them at actual people. The "violence" in the Hasbro line consists almost entirely in the imagination...and even in cases where we get to do things like rip off Vader's head, pull off Luke's hand or even bisect Maul, the action is so far from reality as to be obviously not based in reality. Maul cuts in half to reveal...a stunning red color. Luke's hand comes off to reveal...a skin colored peg. Vader's head pops off to reveal...a black peg. Lucas has made an effort to minimize blood and gore (even considering Ponda Baba's severed arm and the Wampa's sticky snack) and to therefore bring the cinematic violence to a fantasy level. Hasbro has done a good job following suit. For the "real-size" weapons Hasbro has been careful to make look blatantly unreal. But I don't really think they fit into this discussion.

But in the end, you do have a point, and perhaps the line does give children some sort of idea for violent action. However, as a kid, I can't say I EVER even had an inkling about what it might be like to actually shoot somebody from playing with the Kenner toys. I think I got more agreesive ideas simply from pointing my fingers in a gun shape at my brother than from the toys.

To me, from my moral standpoint, yes, a Leia posed shooting Stormtroopers would have a FAR less negative effect on a child compared to the stereotype-promoting, azz-baring, force pike-dancing Leia. And in general, the "violence" portrayed by Star Wars figures is of such an innocuous sort as to be barely relevant. But, as you've pointed out, it certainly does exist.

Also, I truly don't get why everybody feels the need to compare the Hasbro SW line to other toy lines. I'm not interested in what Barbie, McFarlane, He-Man or any other line does! They could issue a completely nude, anatomically correct He-Man and Tela two pack and I wouldn't post anything on this site about it. In terms of SW, I could care less!!! With regards to what this thread is about, it makes no sense to compare the Leia to other toy lines. I collect Hasbro SW. The same holds true for arguments that TV and other forms of entertainment are worse than the Hasbro SW line. ONE OF THE MAIN POINTS OF THIS THREAD IS THAT THE LEIA FIGURE DOESN'T FIT IN WITH THE MATURITY LEVEL OF THE REST OF THE LINE. This is something the people arguing from your standpoint, Stilla, have yet to address.

187-Maul
12-12-2002, 07:53 AM
ok, putting aside everything that would be or is worse than the Leia, why do you think is Leia bad for children? I know, because of the "sultry" pose an she's half naked, but why shouldn't a kid be able to see it? will he turn into some pervert when he's grown up? every kid has (I presume) at least once in his life seen a naked woman and what is bad about that? why is nudity so overrated that nobody under a certain age may "see it"? I can understand porn (can I say that here?) but what about nudity in general, or in this case even only "half-nudity"?

just my opinion of course

EricRG
12-12-2002, 10:53 AM
Nudity is not the issue. Nudity in good taste and BASED IN REALITY is fine for humans of all ages, IMHO. The issue is that this figure is a) not consistent with the maturity level of the rest of the Hasbro line and b) that this figure (and all others like it) suggest an unreal vision of women in that it promotes the same unacheivable female form as Barbie, beauty contests, etc. To me, this figure IS soft-core porn. And also c) that despite being in the Unleashed line, that this figure is just completely off base with regards to the Leia character, especially since she was in fact Jabba's SLAVE, not willing pike-dancer in ROTJ. Yes the Unleashed line is about artist interpretation, but as JT has tried to explain, other than the outfit, this figure has ZERO grounding in the movies.

stillakid
12-12-2002, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
Nudity is not the issue. Nudity in good taste and BASED IN REALITY is fine for humans of all ages, IMHO. The issue is that this figure is a) not consistent with the maturity level of the rest of the Hasbro line and b) that this figure (and all others like it) suggest an unreal vision of women in that it promotes the same unacheivable female form as Barbie, beauty contests, etc. To me, this figure IS soft-core porn. And also c) that despite being in the Unleashed line, that this figure is just completely off base with regards to the Leia character, especially since she was in fact Jabba's SLAVE, not willing pike-dancer in ROTJ. Yes the Unleashed line is about artist interpretation, but as JT has tried to explain, other than the outfit, this figure has ZERO grounding in the movies.

Okay, that's a fair question. How does it fit in with the rest of the Star Wars line? Not very, aside from the semi-likeness to the character in the film. But I maintain that is true with all the Unleashed Line as well. I didn't see Anakin jumping up and screaming as his figure portrays. We didn't see Jango with lil' Boba like that. So as far as that part of the issue goes, none of the Unleashed fit in with the line. Oh, and Leia's "azz," as you put it, is poking out just as much in the 3" line figures as this one, as I've illustrated earlier. So I take it that showing off body parts gets more acceptable the smaller you get?

Which brings us to the sexuality part of it, which I interpret as being the very real issue here. No, Leia didn't "pose" like that (but as I stated above, none of the UnLeashed are posed in "movie accurate" sculpts). I see that as a red-herring for the issue as you see it: her being a "bad" example for women. I don't know what else to say about that that hasn't been said. It appears as though you're going to see immorality no matter what. As 187-Maul suggests, you're going to demonize anything that smacks of overt sexuality regardless of any true harm it might do. That's your choice. I just hope that people (in general) that choose to have that mindset are doing it for substantial reasons.

For instance, my (VERY RELEVANT) question regarding violence came to head with JT's pronouncement that sex shouldn't be sold to children because it was "unhealthy" for them. However, in the 25 years since Star Wars toys have been made, I haven't seen one peep telling us that the guns and violence that they promote are "unhealthy." Not one thread on this site in protest of the guns and violence and other weapons. No suggestion that just maybe killing others isn't the way "Jesus" would have done it. Christ almighty, there was even a Jesus Saves group lingering around here for awhile. Real live Born Again Christians that not only love Star Wars, but buy the toys! These are guys that believe literally in the Bible, a book that does not in any way condone the use of violence to achieve a goal, unless God Himself in smiting somebody. Not one word of protest against the guns. None. Notta. Zilch. From anyone.

You've downplayed the effects of Star Wars violence though, which needs to be addressed. Yes, it is fictional and at times, could be construed as "unrealistic." But in the end, it is still promoting the use of violent force to solve a problem. Downplay it in your mind all you want, it still exists. And with this culture of acceptable violence, that includes Star Wars (films, games, toys), children grow up believing exactly as you do, that it's all just innocent fun. How "healthy" is that?

But bring up sex and look out! God forbid women be viewed sexually. :eek: What'll we do? Call the cops? Cover them up, ala the Taliban? As stated before, woman are multi-dimensional creatures. They do have more going for them than just the sexual aspects. But they do have the sexual aspects. Get over it. Does it belong in the Star Wars line of toys? I don't know? Why not? Who is it hurting? But in trying to come up with an answer to that, I see more hypocrisy from your last posts. You don't care about the sex being sold in other lines? Why not? If this issue is truly about concern over the welfare of innocent children, why aren't you crusading against the overt sexuality being sold everywhere else too?

Which brings it back to the beginning: Is this about protecting children, or is it just about you?

But to your main issue: Does this figure depart from the maturity of the rest of the line? I submit that trying to create shame around this figure is a greater sign of immaturity than anything else.

OzOtter
12-12-2002, 04:47 PM
Wow, what a great topic. I only wish I had come back to it earlier, but I think everything has already been said.

Is sex bad? No.

Is violence bad? Yes.

Is American culture more tolerant of violence than sex in entertainment? Yes.

Is that wrong? Some think so, others don't. That's the REAL issue worth discussing.

Is Unleashed Leia provocative? Of course.

Is she intended as a kids' toy? Hardly, she's not exactly an action figure. She's a plastic statue.

Is the Unleashed line about making plastic statues? Obviously.

So she is perfectly fitting with the rest of the line (artistic impression), even if somewhat controversial.

Quite honestly, I don't think any kid is going to be hurt by this piece. I also don't think the line is pitched at kids. I like her, and intend to buy one. And I'll have words with anyone who tells me that I'm perverse, or depraved, or in any other way sexually maladjusted. Don't try to suppress my appreciation of what is a cheekily creative, collector oriented, plastic statue.

Everyone makes good points. Stillakid is patronising in his, but I think that comes from the confidence of his argument. Eric also makes well argued points, but comes from a more extreme opening statement (Hasbro's complete moral failing) that is harder to defend.

Again, if you don't like the piece, don't buy it.

stillakid
12-12-2002, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by OzOtter
Stillakid is patronising in his, but I think that comes from the confidence of his argument.

I recognize that as a fault of mine, and I am working on improving that part of myself. But as you suggest, when I know I'm right...I KNOW it. And unfortunately, the "patronizing" tone seeps out unintentionally. I apologize for that profusely and I mean no harm from it ever. I'll be the first one to step back from my POV if I hear a very profound and solid argument in opposition to my own. But oftentimes, it isn't forthcoming, so I stand firm.

Don't get me wrong. In this discussion as well as others with the variety of topics available at SSG, I am DYING for somebody to convince me that I'm wrong. Why else would I bother posting my opinion? To change their mind? I'm old enough to know that doesn't happen easily. Usually what I'm looking for is an explanation to a point of view that someone holds that appears to be contradictory or just outright uninformed. Calling something or somebody "immoral" ALWAYS requires solid proof in my book. Sadly, in discussions of this nature, the "proof" doesn't come easily. But I always leave that door open in case someone comes along to make a better case.

Thank you.

JediTricks
12-12-2002, 07:46 PM
As moderator, I am asking you guys to aim the discussion back to the topic at hand. Despite what some of you may feel, this thread is only about telling Hasbro why Unleashed Leia is or is not an appropriate addition to the Star Wars line. I believe the "appropriateness of violence" issue is not directly related to this thread's point, to bring it up here seems like saying "if apples taste bad, then so must oranges". If you want to compare appropriateness of sex with appropriateness of violence or some other sociological/philosophical issue, do it in a more appropriate thread, don't hijack this one.

----

I don't see anybody here suggesting sex itself is bad, but I think selling sex to children is bad. At what age is it appropriate for a child to be in a strip club or watch the Spice channel? There's a huge difference between bathing nude with your child and letting him read a copy of Playboy. Those are extremes of course, but they aren't outside the scope of some of the points here. To use sex appeal, especially false and embellished sex appeal, to sell a Star Wars item is low, one might even call it sleazy.

----

Another point is this "Unleashed isn't accurate" thing. Obviously the Unleashed line isn't trying to capture an exact scene or character, but up until this figure, every Unleashed figure was an attempt to capture the essence of a character, usually in a specific scene. This Unleashed Leia in my opinion is not trying to capture Princess Leia's essence in any way except visually, the "sultry" pose is merely an artist's fantasy and extreme manipulation of the truth of this character. To suggest that this "could have happened off-screen" is ludicrous, it's possible Leia also had a 3rd arm off-screen as well, but neither are very likely.

EricRG
12-12-2002, 10:01 PM
You see Stillakid, the problem is you "KNOW" you are right. There's no debating with that kind of attitude. That's why I initially gave up. People with that sort of attitude refuse to listen to other's POV. And THAT is why the people who are disappointed in Hasbro's decision to make this thing have to keep repeating the same arguments over and over and over...

Emperors_Hand_2211
12-13-2002, 03:50 AM
This is BS.
The unleashed line is not for kids for two reasons
1) They cost almost 17 EACH.
2) They have absolutely 0, that is ZERO playability.
Give any of the unleashed figures to a child and they will play with it for about 10 seconds. Jesus they don't even move. They're statuettes not toys.
They are aimed at adults and teenagers.
If we as adults find that a scantily clad woman is giving us unsavoury ideas then there is only one place we need to look, long and hard in the mirror.
As for teenagers, they don't need any help thinking about sex so I don't see this figure steering them to far of the beaten track.

Secondly I agree that the unleashed leia is not "in keeping" with the rest of the 3" sw line. However it sits perfectly well amongst the rest of the "unleashed" line.

Yes it's suggestive. Yes it's supposed to be. Yes it's not for kids. No it's not supposed to be.
Good, we've been waiting for some vaguely detailed figures aimed at an adult market for a long time. Now they're here everyone complains.
humph

.......IMHO

Emperors_Hand_2211
12-13-2002, 03:54 AM
Although that butt cheek is a bit much. They could have moved the skirt slightly to the right.

EricRG
12-13-2002, 08:55 AM
You people STILL aren't getting my point. I'm questioning the Leia figure with respect to the MATURITY LEVEL of the rest of the Hasbro line. I'm also questioning how this figure will be distributed. It'll be found at TRU, Target, etc. along with the rest of the SW stuff, am I right? With the rest of the ages 3 and up SW stuff, right? If this IS for teenagers/adults, I believe it is Hasbro's responsibility to release it through a venue that children will not have access to. And I have suggested the Fan Club.

OzOtter
12-13-2002, 10:08 AM
I know what you are saying Eric. And on one count you are probably right. It could be argued that distribution could be more sensitively handled. But I would not like it if that meant I couldn't get the figure. I don't know what distribution is like through the fan club as I have always been able to get my figs at Toys R Us.

Secondly, I think Leia is in keeping with the "maturity level" of the Unleashed line, which is obviously aimed at older collectors.

RooJay
12-13-2002, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
You people STILL aren't getting my point. I'm questioning the Leia figure with respect to the MATURITY LEVEL of the rest of the Hasbro line. I'm also questioning how this figure will be distributed. It'll be found at TRU, Target, etc. along with the rest of the SW stuff, am I right? With the rest of the ages 3 and up SW stuff, right? If this IS for teenagers/adults, I believe it is Hasbro's responsibility to release it through a venue that children will not have access to. And I have suggested the Fan Club.

Still no one addresses the fact that this is not the only scantily clad, and arguably provocative figure on the market. I brought up the case with Mattel's He-Man figures, I'll bring it up again: What makes this figure so much more provocative, sexual suggestive, sultry, and (supposedly) obscene than figures like He-Man. By the way, He-Man is most certainly a TOY intended to be played with by CHILDREN, having articulation, accessories, and even action features. Why does no one in oposition to Unleashed Leia also seem to think He-Man is inappropriate for children? Why has no one who thinks Unleashed Leia should not be sold at retail also called for He-Man to removed from store shelves?
One of the major reasons that I see no problem at all with seeing Unleashed Leia on store shelves is that I personally do not find the toy sexually stimulating. I did not "get off" on this figure, I don't think I ever would have, and I sincerely doubt that many children will either. If ever I, or anyone else for that matter (including children), did want to ogle Princess Leia in her metal bikini I would simply pop in my Return of the Jedi tape and watch the real thing alive and in motion. There are very few children left in the civilized world who don't know how to work a VCR, and a lot of them have access to ROTJ on video! Should we also call for ROTJ to be recalled and hidden away from the virgin eyes of children? I just don't understand what all the fuss is about over this figure.

EricRG
12-13-2002, 09:53 PM
RJ-

Read the posts over again and understand the fuss.

Beast
12-13-2002, 10:01 PM
The fuss that is primarily coming from you. Other then that, the majority of the community doesn't see a problem with the figure. Which is cool, nice to see less puritan attitudes. :p :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

RooJay
12-14-2002, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by EricRG
RJ-

Read the posts over again and understand the fuss.

I have been involved in this discussion since more or less the beginning; no need for me to reread the posts.
I still have heard no one address my posts regarding the lack of fuss over other scantily clad figures on the market. Seems no one has anything to say in response to that.

Beast
12-14-2002, 12:45 AM
Of course not RooJay, welcome to the double standard. Male action figures can be almost naked. Take a look at Luke in Diaper from the bacta chamber. You can see his nipples even. Sometimes I love what people find offensive. I've shown the picture to 20 women I know, none have a problem with it.

Let's also remeber that we never heard these sort of complaints about the the 12" Leia: Slave, any of the 4" versions, or Oola and the Orange Twi'lek chick. I guess a figure that's scantily dressed and artuculated so that it can be posed doing very very naughty things is cool, but a pre-posed non-articulated statue is an abomination. ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

EricRG
12-14-2002, 02:58 AM
All right, I've had it again. I PROMISE...this is my last post on this subject. JarJar, it's obvious you are reading the posts, but only SEEING what you want to see. Several people besides myself have questioned the intention of this figure. Remember, this is a SW collectors site...there's not likely to be many people who disagree with general release for anything. Several people who agree with the figure have even expressed some reservations with certain ASSpects.

I refuse to debate the merits (of lack thereof) of He-Man, Barbie, McFarlane or anything else not in the SW Hasbro line. That's ridiculous and is not the aim of this thread (or this forum). Why do you keep asking for this???

JJB, your argument comparing Luke in Bacta to this figure is ridiculous, bordering on humorous.

You're right, though, in that there weren't complaints about the other previous figures you site. I personally had no problem with them. It's that this figure has several things against it including making a mockery of SLAVE Leia into force-pike dancing Leia. It's a combination of factors, not just that her azz is hanging out.

I'm done, flame away.

But Hasbro, if you are still listening (yeah, right) I again urge you to reconsider general release of this figure.

JediTricks
12-14-2002, 03:54 AM
The complaint here isn't the level of clothing it's wearing, it's the "sultry" pose the figure has been designed with: artificially vamping-up Leia simply because her movie costume was skimpy even though it's totally out of character. This figure doesn't honestly capture the essence of Slave Leia, it instead adds embellished sex appeal to sell this figure and that is bordering on sleazy no matter what audience this is aimed at.

187-Maul
12-14-2002, 12:47 PM
well I do have to agree that the fig doesn't capture the essence of the character in the movie since all other Unleashed figs represent the character (although in another pose)
but I still don't agree that the fig shouldn't be released because of the maturity level, although you could consider it impropriate for the line since it absolutely doesn't represent the character
so I agree with about 50% what you said, EricRG

Emperors_Hand_2211
12-16-2002, 02:32 AM
Oh no I agree, the figure has absolutely nothing to do with leia in any way shape or form. Unless it's a scene from an unreleased novella charting the bedroom antics of the Solo's.
But Eric's point about it being in a toy store with children just isn't washing.
Kids might see it but they're pretty unlikely to be looking at it for very long or playing with it.
Unless your kids walk around blindfolded, in this day and age seeing a woman being sexy probably won't be a new experience for them.
In fact I can think of several video games/adverts for video games that will also be floating around toys'r'us with equally gratuitous stuff on them, and as people have said, several other toy lines equally as "shameful".
No offence but there is only issue with this because it's a Star Wars toy, and I don't see why hasbro should have to play by different rules to everyone else just cos they work with that galaxy far far away.

....IMHO

RooJay
12-16-2002, 11:36 AM
Hasbro, if you are still listening (yeah, right) I urge you NOT to reconsider general release of this figure. ]
There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

stillakid
12-20-2002, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
You people STILL aren't getting my point. I'm questioning the Leia figure with respect to the MATURITY LEVEL of the rest of the Hasbro line.

I'll address it (again) directly and to the point: You're suggesting that a woman in a sexual pose is immature. I wholeheartedly DISagree with you. In fact, I believe the opposite and in so many words have tried to express the idea that the inclination to hide a woman's sexuality is in fact the immature point-of-view. Sexuality is part of who we are and the continued effort to hide it in a closet as if we were trying to live a Puritan dream only holds society back from truly progressing.

In addition, you've suggested that the weapons and violent nature that are inherently included with the majority of the action figures is not significant enough to negatively effect children. I disagree again. Studies* have indicated that long-term exposure to violent messages and environments predisposes a person to act out in a violent manner and/or solve problems aggressively.

You've also claimed that your primary focus is the welfare of children. When the above issues of "mature" sexuality and violence are taken in tandem, you've created a crusade that contradicts itself.

In the beginning of the thread, I was genuinely open to hearing a strong case to support your request of Hasbro. But now, after hearing your side, I most definitely HAVE made up my mind concerning this issue at this point and I have a very strong foundation to build my arguments upon. Your position as yet contains a significant contradiction which I have yet to fully comprehend.


*
Children's Exposure to Violence (http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=70492) Exposure to violence in the media- through television, the cinema, and the Internet-touches virtually every child. Though often quoted, the statistics from the American Psychiatric Association bear repeating: The typical American child watches 28 hours of television a week, and by the age of 18 will have seen 16,000 simulated murders and 200,000 acts of violence.14 Commercial television for children is 50 to 60 times more violent than prime-time programs for adults, and some cartoons average more than 80 violent acts per hour. With the advent of videocassette sales and rentals of movies, pay-per-view TV, cable TV, video games, and online interactive computer games, many more children and adolescents are exposed to media with violent content than ever before.

Exposure to violence can have significant effects on children during their development and as they form their own intimate relationships in childhood and adulthood. The following section discusses the growing number of studies on the effects of community violence, along with key findings from the literature on the effects of family and media violence on children.




Originally posted by EricRG

I'm also questioning how this figure will be distributed. It'll be found at TRU, Target, etc. along with the rest of the SW stuff, am I right? With the rest of the ages 3 and up SW stuff, right? If this IS for teenagers/adults, I believe it is Hasbro's responsibility to release it through a venue that children will not have access to. And I have suggested the Fan Club.

I believe the other participants have answered this better than I could and I have nothing further to add.

EricRG
12-21-2002, 12:30 AM
I guess I gotta jump back in this, since you, Stillakid, are SO far off base in interpreting my words.

First of all, can you PLEASE show me where I, or anyone else, have called this figure "immature"? That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I am claiming!!! Let me re-re-re-re-re-reiterate: I am saying that this figure is TOO mature for the Hasbro line AS A WHOLE. Where you got that interpretation, I'll never know. :confused:

Second of all, the issue in question here is NOT violence (how many times must THIS be re-re-re-re-re-reiterated? Perhaps another font...perhaps bold letters...perhaps translated into Aurebesh...what do you need?), and the use of that example does NOTHING to support your claim that this figure is not too overtly sexual for the Hasbro line. I wish I was a philosophy major so I could name for you what rule of debate such an argument violates, but I'm not. (Any help out there?)

Beast
12-21-2002, 01:00 AM
*Hands EricRG a nice shiny new stick w/ a bright red bow.*

Merry Christmas. Now you can continue to beat your dead horse. Have fun. :p :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

EricRG
12-21-2002, 01:18 AM
Who's beating a dead horse??? I'm simply replying to Stillakid's most recent comments. I feel, as stated above, that this recent post of his (let's see, last post before this was, what, 4 days ago? Who's beating a dead horse?) has GROSSLY misinterpreted my words. I "anxiously" await his citation of where I called this figure "immature".

But on the brighter side, Merry Christmas to you too, JJB, and Stillakid. May you reap all that you sow.

JediTricks
12-21-2002, 04:35 PM
Am I going to have to start purging some of these way-off-topic posts out of this thread? That post of JJB's, #82 (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=206583#post206583), is a perfect example of posts that will get removed if more continues. If you have nothing DIRECT to add to this discussion, move along - if it becomes abusive, you could risk suspension.


Eric and others, I suggest you simply ignore the arguments that aren't relevant to this thread, this way you don't help add to the confusion these non-relevant statements are creating.

JediTricks
12-21-2002, 04:43 PM
Stilla, IMO there's a difference between honest human sexuality and artifically-embellished sexuality. Our society sells this artifically-embellished sex as a wholesale commodity every day. While mature minds should be able to figure out the difference, young impressionable minds do not have the emotional stability or resources to figure out what is gratuitous sexuality and what is not -- which can lead them to form an unhealthy view of sexuality. I'm not suggesting this Unleashed Leia is the same as pornography mind you, but embellished gratuitous sex is a big problem in our society and it seems to me that this Leia figure only adds to that by sexing up a character to sell this toy to buyers of ANY age.


BTW, anybody else going to comment on my earlier point?

The complaint here isn't the level of clothing it's wearing, it's the "sultry" pose the figure has been designed with: artificially vamping-up Leia simply because her movie costume was skimpy even though it's totally out of character. This figure doesn't honestly capture the essence of Slave Leia, it instead adds embellished sex appeal to sell this figure and that is bordering on sleazy no matter what audience this is aimed at.

stillakid
12-21-2002, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
I guess I gotta jump back in this, since you, Stillakid, are SO far off base in interpreting my words.

First of all, can you PLEASE show me where I, or anyone else, have called this figure "immature"? That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I am claiming!!! Let me re-re-re-re-re-reiterate: I am saying that this figure is TOO mature for the Hasbro line AS A WHOLE. Where you got that interpretation, I'll never know. :confused:


After carefully rereading all of your posts in the context of what you just said above, I'll graciously bow down from the "immature" argument I've been making. However, I think that you're hiding your true intentions behind the euphamism of "mature." What you're really saying, without saying it, is that you don't want any Star Wars toys to suggest anything of a sexual nature and you don't want your kids to gaze upon women who aren't afraid to show that side of themselves. If that's the case, then fair enough. I don't begrudge anyone their opinions, so long as they are well grounded opinions. In this light, I do hope to "reap what I sow," in that I wish to enlighten my own children to the realities of being human in this society and not try to shield them from the truth in some kind of Puritan-like last stand. But that's just me.

A lesson to you, however, is to be crystal clear in your posts. Never, until now, have you said anything beyond a vague description of this figure being of a different maturity level. I took it to mean that you were talking down to anyone who wanted this figure as being "immature" as to desire a toy with "sexual overtones." Instead of posting what you meant (time and time again), you assumed that everyone would understand.


Originally posted by EricRG

Second of all, the issue in question here is NOT violence (how many times must THIS be re-re-re-re-re-reiterated? Perhaps another font...perhaps bold letters...perhaps translated into Aurebesh...what do you need?), and the use of that example does NOTHING to support your claim that this figure is not too overtly sexual for the Hasbro line. I wish I was a philosophy major so I could name for you what rule of debate such an argument violates, but I'm not. (Any help out there?)
No matter how much you try to divert the topic, the issue of violence is extraordinarily relevant because of your claim that this request of Hasbro is to somehow protect children from innappropriate toys. If you are indeed concerned about children seeing a toy with sexual overtones, then I assume that logically, you would also be concerned with children playing with toys that promote violence and aggression to solve problems. As you do not claim to have a problem with the violent aspects of the toys, your claim that this is about "protecting children" appears to be suspect.



Originally posted by JediTricks
Stilla, IMO there's a difference between honest human sexuality and artifically-embellished sexuality. Our society sells this artifically-embellished sex as a wholesale commodity every day. While mature minds should be able to figure out the difference, young impressionable minds do not have the emotional stability or resources to figure out what is gratuitous sexuality and what is not -- which can lead them to form an unhealthy view of sexuality. I'm not suggesting this Unleashed Leia is the same as pornography mind you, but embellished gratuitous sex is a big problem in our society and it seems to me that this Leia figure only adds to that by sexing up a character to sell this toy to buyers of ANY age.

Yes, you are correct. I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with any word of that. However, there is a difference in opinion over whether or not this figure is what you describe above.

And again, the issue of weapons included with our toys begs the question of what this request of Hasbro is really all about. If there is true concern for the welfare of children, then a similar request should have been made to Hasbro long ago in regards to the weapons. Replace the topic of sex with violence in your statement above, and the same principles hold true. Children are indeed quite impressionable. I know from direct experience. But the fact is that our society contains both violence and overt sexuality. We can either choose to shield our children from those realities or deal with the issues head on and attempt to actually parent them to prepare them for life without us. Simply hiding sexual images doesn't make them go away.

What I'm seeing here is a double-standard that says violence is okay to sell to children while sexuality is not. Please explain that seeming contradiction to me.

[
Originally posted by JediTricks
The complaint here isn't the level of clothing it's wearing, it's the "sultry" pose the figure has been designed with: artificially vamping-up Leia simply because her movie costume was skimpy even though it's totally out of character. This figure doesn't honestly capture the essence of Slave Leia, it instead adds embellished sex appeal to sell this figure and that is bordering on sleazy no matter what audience this is aimed at.
I won't agree with the "sleazy" descriptor, but in a sense, you are correct. She is in a pose that is out of character per what we saw the actor do on screen. But in the same respect, UnLeashed Jango is in the same boat. He isn't mirroring a pose that is necessarily in character per what was on screen. The "protector"sculpt may or may not have been "in character" for him, but I for one, don't see that as part of his nature. Again, the double-standard is being applied because Slave Leia's pose is of a sexual-nature. I venture to say that the same "protest" would not be made if, say, she was sculpted so that she was cooking at a stove in that outfit. Out of character for sure, but I sincerely doubt anyone would suggest that kids shouldn't see it. I submit again, that this isn't about the figure being posed "out of character," rather it is because it is in a pose that could be contrued as one of sexual nature.

JediTricks
12-22-2002, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
No matter how much you try to divert the topic, the issue of violence is extraordinarily relevant because of your claim that this request of Hasbro is to somehow protect children from innappropriate toys. If you are indeed concerned about children seeing a toy with sexual overtones, then I assume that logically, you would also be concerned with children playing with toys that promote violence and aggression to solve problems. As you do not claim to have a problem with the violent aspects of the toys, your claim that this is about "protecting children" appears to be suspect. Stilla, I'm not trying to come down on you personally, but it seems like you are rewriting the motivations and contexts of others' words to fit your arguments. Eric's opening post is actually quite specific about why he feels Hasbro putting this figure into general release and it doesn't say he's trying to "protect children from inappropriate toys", it says
"I think it is not in the proper context with regards to the maturity level of the rest of the Hasbro SW line."

Therefore, I find your statement about "violence in the toy line" being germane to this thread to be completely wrong. If you want to discuss the topic of toy violence, find a more appropriate thread, but the next post you make that brings up the topic will be removed for hijacking this thread. Anybody who hijacks a thread risks having their posts edited, all of their posts purged from the thread, or even suspension.


-----

As to my personal reply to this thread, since I don't want to double-post again...

I think Hasbro is using out-of-character sexuality to sell this Unleashed Leia; if it was ANH Celebration Leia piloting the Falcon, I probably wouldn't comment on it at all, but I still wouldn't buy it -- if it was Oola instead of Leia here, I doubt my response would have been as strong since it would be more in character there (after all, I posted almost nothing about UL Padme even though that one personally sickens me whenever I see it at the store, see below for why). I think honest sexuality is fine, wonderful, and holds an important place in our society; however, using embellished sex to sell an item to ANY group is tawdry - using embellished sex to sell a Star Wars item demeans the Star Wars name, sends an inaccurate and inappropriate message about Princess Leia, and insults me as a Star Wars buyer and fan. Kids or adults, the loneliest loser or any happily married man, this situation seems very sleazy to me.

Exhaust Port
12-22-2002, 11:49 AM
'm a little late to the thread here and it's been an interesting read for sure.

I don't see anything wrong with the figure. What's wrong with having a little fun with a character's sexuality? 2 important points are that 1. Its a CHARACTER and 2. the average age of a SW fan isn't 10 yrs old.

JT, you have no problem with the outfit but only with her pose? Yes, Leia never stood like that in the movie but why should that matter? It's just a little fun with a character being reposed not falsely portraying a real person.

How could any woman wearing that outfit be posed and NOT have it be touted as being overtly sexual? Heck, if she was shown scrubbing a floor people would complain. No matter what, an attractive women wearing skimpy clothing is going to be seen as being a sexual icon no matter what she was doing.

Also the average age of a SW fan is definately an important point. Being that this franchise is decades old and getting older the average age of a fan/collector isn't 10 yrs old. Nearly everyone I see shopping at the SW section is in their 20's anyway. What's wrong with a company selling a product that is more inline with the genre's demographic? Nothing. Sure these figures are sold along with the other stuff but so what? Go to the Barbie aisle and you'll see plenty of other half naked figures. Younger kids might see these figures but it's a safe bet that they would rather buy 3 smaller figures than this lump of plastic.



Originally posted by JediTricks
- using embellished sex to sell a Star Wars item demeans the Star Wars name,

Supressing the fact that there are some attractive characters/actresses in the SW movies is childish. If women wanted an embellished Solo figure for their nightstand then I hope they get it. You make it sound like they gave Leia comic book sized boobs. If you feel her natural shape is embellished perhaps you should take it up with her genes.


sends an inaccurate and inappropriate message about Princess Leia,

How is that an inaccurate interpretation of a CHARACTER? One more time, a CHARACTER. Humans are sexual beings and Leia, being a human, would (if she was real) be sexual. By stating that it's inaccurate are we to assume that Leia was unable to be sexual or have sex? I find it hard to believe that everyone in the SW Universe was a virgin birth.


and insults me as a Star Wars buyer and fan. Kids or adults, the loneliest loser or any happily married man, this situation seems very sleazy to me.

I'm sorry that your insulted by a piece of plastic that implies sexuality. It's not like she's in black-face or wearing a Nazi armband. Sure then it would be understandable. Not everyone is happy with every situation, that's going to happen. but I'm pretty sure your going to be in the minority on this one. You can't lump other "Kids or adults, the loneliest loser or any happily married man" into your insulted group. They will have to speak for themselves.

sith_killer_99
12-22-2002, 01:25 PM
Well, I'm not really gonna read anything into this.

1. Did she pose like that in the movie? No, but then again Vader didn't pose like that without his helmet on in the movie either.

2. It's just improvization, without a little improvization SW toys would get a little boring IMO.

3. I prefer this pose to say...Leia laying sprawled out in chains on Jabba's floor.

4. Would I want my kid(s) having this? No, so I won't buy it for him/her/them. And if they were to buy it I would take it away until or unless I felt they were old enough to have it. I like to call it parenting.

5. I believe that corporations have an obligation to their stock holders and parents have an obligation to their kids.

Just my 2 cents.
;)

stillakid
12-22-2002, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
Stilla, I'm not trying to come down on you personally, but it seems like you are rewriting the motivations and contexts of others' words to fit your arguments. Eric's opening post is actually quite specific about why he feels Hasbro putting this figure into general release and it doesn't say he's trying to "protect children from inappropriate toys", it says
"I think it is not in the proper context with regards to the maturity level of the rest of the Hasbro SW line."

I disagree. I'm attempting to understand Erics motivations through a series of disjointed posts. His "concern" and the subsequent request ultimately stems from some kind of reason, and that's what I'm trying to address. If I am "rewriting" his motivations, then I am entirely willing and open to hearing him correct my false assumptions. You witnessed such a thing in my previous post. He clarified his statements and I relented. Where's the confusion?


Originally posted by JediTricks

Therefore, I find your statement about "violence in the toy line" being germane to this thread to be completely wrong. If you want to discuss the topic of toy violence, find a more appropriate thread, but the next post you make that brings up the topic will be removed for hijacking this thread. Anybody who hijacks a thread risks having their posts edited, all of their posts purged from the thread, or even suspension.

That's waayyyyyy out of hand. Violence in the toy line is extremely relevant to this particular discussion as it directly relates to my assumption that Eric's request stems from "protecting children." As of yet, he has not denied that that is the reason for his initial request. If that is not his motivation (to protect children from negative influences), then again, I await a response to correct my assumption and I will once again relent. But, as it stands now, this is not a matter of hijacking the thread. This is a conundrum that I didn't bring up. I believe it deserves to be resolved. Just because it's difficult to answer shouldn't subject the topic to unwarranted threats. But this isn't "America" afterall. It's a private message board. So I'll drop it with the assumption that nobody wants to really deal with it honestly.


Originally posted by JediTricks
As to my personal reply to this thread, since I don't want to double-post again...

I think Hasbro is using out-of-character sexuality to sell this Unleashed Leia; if it was ANH Celebration Leia piloting the Falcon, I probably wouldn't comment on it at all, but I still wouldn't buy it -- if it was Oola instead of Leia here, I doubt my response would have been as strong since it would be more in character there (after all, I posted almost nothing about UL Padme even though that one personally sickens me whenever I see it at the store, see below for why). I think honest sexuality is fine, wonderful, and holds an important place in our society; however, using embellished sex to sell an item to ANY group is tawdry - using embellished sex to sell a Star Wars item demeans the Star Wars name, sends an inaccurate and inappropriate message about Princess Leia, and insults me as a Star Wars buyer and fan. Kids or adults, the loneliest loser or any happily married man, this situation seems very sleazy to me.
While reading an entirely different thread, a great alternative occurred to me. Thanks to Tycho for inadvertantly contributing to this thread:


Originally posted by Tycho
Luke Tatooine in the original movie poster pose (he's more muscular than Mark, but looks like the '95 POTF2 figure)


The Leia character as portrayed in the A One Sheet for Star Wars is posed in much the same way as the "sultry" one Slave Leia is accused of being posed. Carrie Fisher never struck a pose like that in ANH. Where was the outcry against that poster and Leia being portrayed as being overly sexual and out of character? Would an UnLeashed version of Leia that mirrors that poster imagery be acceptable? Personally, I think a whole set of movie poster versions of the characters would be much cooler than any of the UnLeashed line.

EricRG
12-22-2002, 07:00 PM
Stilla, you are at least partially right. Yes, part of my motivation for this thread is that I do not feel the figure in question is fit for children. But I ALSO feel that this figure is inappropriate for the SW line in general in that to me , yes it does knock the line down a notch. Yes, perhaps this is me trying to keep SW "innocent", but I've always thought that SW was strong in so many other ways as to not have to stoop to such a level. Perhaps the weak prequels are to blame.

With regards to my ability to present a point, I don't know, I always thought I was an above average writer. That's what I've always been told. Anyway, sory iff i confuzed any1.

JediTricks
12-24-2002, 05:32 AM
EP, the outfit was something the character was forced into wearing by Jabba in order to demean and sexualize her for his pleasure. At no point did it seem to me that Leia wanted to be in the outfit or took any gratification from wearing it. Once it was on, she was all business. In the cut scene, as soon as she got to the Falcon she was covered up (though that was also in part due to the sandstorm).

As for how I think it's insulting, perhaps it's not a big deal, but it seems like Hasbro's thinking on this is "let's sex up the females in the Unleashed line to sell more of 'em to our stereotypical lonley Star Wars fan buying base" - hence, insulting. I never said it was insulting to all those other groups, I said I felt the whole situation was sleazy no matter the group.

----

Stilla, I'm telling you that I see it as hijacking the thread and you haven't convinced me otherwise on the issue. Let it drop or start another thread about it, but in this thread it's had plenty of leeway up until now and still doesn't seem to correlate. Clearly you are able to discuss the merits of this thread's direct topic itself, so in here please concentrate on that or don't post in this one.

As for the "protecting children" issue of the SW line's violence, I still see it as a different issue, especially considering the overall tone of these forums and the site itself. I have told you several times now that you are FREE to discuss the issue of the appropriateness of violence in a more appropriate thread that you can even create yourself, but it is too big a stretch for me to see a direct correlation here and that's the bottom line - it seems to this moderator that at best it's a whisper-thinly-related topic and at worst a smokescreen for the issue at hand. You know my email address, you know Steve's email address, and you know where the "New Thread" button is, so take this to any one of those avenues or let it drop.

Oh, and as for your statement of "This is a conundrum that I didn't bring up." and other assertions you've made about the violence issue being germane to this discussion, let me refer you to post 11 (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=201962#post201962) in this thread where you state "This is a great lead in for a discussion regarding parental responsibility. Perhaps this is the wrong thread for it, but it's all relevant." and then post 19 (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=202156#post202156) where you say "I don't mean to get into a discussion about morality, because I certainly don't see what this Leia sculpt has to do with it, but from your standpoint, her sculpt is "suggestive." Assuming that it is so, then what's "immoral" about that? Sexuality is a normal part of human behavior. I haven't seen any threads protesting the inclusion of guns or other weapons with these toys. Want to talk about morality, let's start with violence." et al.


As for the poster, it's a fair and valid point but one that's nearly 28 years old, an entirely different medium, and meant to sell the movie rather than the poster. However, if a figure was made of Leia based on that art, it would have some historical basis for existance which would cloud the sexuality issue, but ultimately I probably wouldn't be vocal about it merely because the essence of that fantasy art is somewhere within the confines of the character. If it was permanently affixed to the feet of a Luke figure however, I might be bothered by it. And if Hasbro insisted on crassly making the figure's physique exaggerated in UL Padme's manner, that would certainly bother me. (PS - if you start a thread about poster art figs here in Dear Hasbro, I'd sign onto that.)

----

I'm not going to post my opinions on this thread again, we're nearly up to triple-digit post count here and I have nothing more to add. I think throughout discussion of the topic I've refined my point to its ultimate conclusion, if you don't agree with my opinions, that's fine but I think I've clarified every point about it within this thread already.

Exhaust Port
12-24-2002, 01:26 PM
Being put on a chained leash is demeaning but not wearing different clothing.

Basically it seems to boil down to some people don't like to see others showing more flesh than clothing. That's it, nothing more. Anything else is just how one reads into the meaning of one wearing less clothing. It's just hypocritical that one looks at a situation like this and creates outrage but then would go to their grave protecting the image of Michelangelo's David.

Nudity is nudity no matter how you address it, whether it's image is cast in plastic, carved in stone or just a real life nude person. How you percieve it, acceptance or rejection, is a personal issue.

stillakid
12-24-2002, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
If it was permanently affixed to the feet of a Luke figure however, I might be bothered by it.

I don't understand what you mean by "permanently affixed"? Do you mean if they were both stuck to a base of some sort together, ala the Jango/Boba UnLeashed? :confused: What about that bothers you?


But I guess it boils down to this: if it's a sexy toy, it's not welcome. If it's a sexy toy based on a poster or other Lucasfilm sanctioned artwork, it is welcome. If it's a violent toy, it's always welcome. You said it right. This is a cloudy issue, one which I wanted to see clearly, but that isn't going to happen I suppose. I still don't understand the situational ethics going on and I guess, I won't get the chance.

jpak001
12-27-2002, 03:26 PM
Huh, that's funny. When I saw the picture of the UL Leia I didn't think of any of this stuff. All could think was "wow, what a nice peice of art. Can't wait to get mine, it looks really cool!"

I know I'll buy one for my collection, and I don't need to worry about all this morailty stuff. I just like the way it looks. How easy is that?

mark2d2
01-28-2003, 12:26 PM
This thread was hilarious.

I have to admit that while it seemed at time that Stillakid was indeed hijacking the thread . . . I think his points of violence are dead on.

Why is violence so cool and okay fine.

But show a little sex and look out! Run for the hills!

Kids live in a world where they can turn on the news and hear about how other kids have decapitated their mother and sawed off her head and hands ala The Sopranos . . .

And yet we're supposed to panic over this! Grow up people! The immaturity isn't in the line ---- it's on this board apparently . . .

This isn't half as slutty as the average Britney/Christina/slut video. I really don't see what all the fuss is about . . . I just don't.

JediTricks
01-28-2003, 10:26 PM
It's a societal double-standard. This is a section about the toys and Hasbro, not about society, so it's not within the scope of this thread's topic. Go ahead and start a thread about that issue in the Gen Disc section if you are serious about the issue.

bobafrett
01-29-2003, 12:43 PM
Well, if I see one UL Leia, I'm going to buy it, if I see 2 unleashed Leia's, I'll buy one to open. I showed my 11 year old son the picture of the UL Leia, because I thought it was a stunningly beautiful figure. He said "Dad, you need to get a girlfriend". I also have all the other Unleased figures, and doubles of most of those. I can't stop now.

2-1B
02-19-2007, 03:25 PM
This is still one of my favorite Unleashed, I don't have her on display now for space issues but someday she will be back on display with my Bossk, Padme, ROTS Obe and Ani, as well as Darth Vader. :)