Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smeeprocket]

I'm sure Leia was also being used as a prop to prove Jabba's badguy status, but let's be realistic, that image, a submissive, dominated damsel, scantily clad and awaiting rescue, was a wet dream for the teenage boys watching that movie. And that was in no way accidental, not any more than any other instance of it is accidental. A lot of thought is put into these kinds of things that might otherwise seem like a coincidence. Someone specifically wrote that in as it was.

[smjjames]

@smee and uristurister: don't ask me, I just know that the emote system in that game allowed for it and that a small minority apparently did do cyber.

As for Jabba, in a refilming or something of it, there were scantily clad twi'lek dancers, so....

[smeeprocket]

I'm not really a star wars fan but that seems to support my argument, unless a twi'lek is a life sized penis, maybe.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm sure Leia was also being used as a prop to prove Jabba's badguy status, but let's be realistic, that image, a submissive, dominated damsel, scantily clad and awaiting rescue, was a wet dream for the teenage boys watching that movie. And that was in no way accidental, not any more than any other instance of it is accidental. A lot of thought is put into these kinds of things that might otherwise seem like a coincidence. Someone specifically wrote that in as it was.

How convenient that you get to decide both people's intentions and their reactions. There's no possible discussion to be had under that.

[smjjames]

I'm not really a star wars fan but that seems to support my argument, unless a twi'lek is a life sized penis, maybe.

No, http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Twi%27lek

[smeeprocket]

I'm sure Leia was also being used as a prop to prove Jabba's badguy status, but let's be realistic, that image, a submissive, dominated damsel, scantily clad and awaiting rescue, was a wet dream for the teenage boys watching that movie. And that was in no way accidental, not any more than any other instance of it is accidental. A lot of thought is put into these kinds of things that might otherwise seem like a coincidence. Someone specifically wrote that in as it was.

How convenient that you get to decide both people's intentions and their reactions. There's no possible discussion to be had under that.

who are the both people in this.

And if that isn't a teen boy's wet dream, then games and movies have been doing it all wrong this entire time, because that is exactly how they appeal to male audiences.

Okay briefly skimmi the wiki article (I like to know as little as possible about Star Wars tbh,) it seems to support the exotic objectification thing. But putting strippers/dancers in a movie by itself, while usually entirely gratuitous, is not a huge crime. Taking a main character and objectifying them is stupid, though.

[alexandertnt]

I don't think it's fair to judge the intent of the writers by the effects it had on teenage boys, because then every vaguely women shaped entity/object ever would have obviously been put there for sex reasons

Now, if it really was the writers/directors/whoevers intent (and it may very well have been), then I would consider them to be objectifying women, which is something I would happily critisize them for.

It's difficult to critisize the movie for it though, as a women in such a "dominated" position is not an invalid or inherently sexist role. I think the problem is with people (like potentially the writers, and possibly the audience as it may have played into an expectation of theirs) associating women with such a role, which would be sexist, and would be a harmful association.

[smeeprocket]

Except that there was no other useful purpose for it in the plot. Which is why I say it was written solely for that.

It's done an awful lot, and after awhile, you can't just say that it's a coincidence in every movie.

[alexandertnt]

The useful purpose I gave is in communicating the plot to the viewer. It's important that the show visually communicate to the viewer that Jabba and his establishment is scum. It is a movie, a visual medium, much of the plot should be, and is going to be communicated through imagry. I say that it was written for that purpose, or both to communicate this idea and to be sexy, but not solely to be sexy.

Let me put it another way. If you remove her, then Jabba seems a lot less scummy to the viewers, which is a bad thing as the viewers are not supposed to like Jabba. It's actually quite important for following the plot that the viewers dislike Jabba, it helps justify the hero's actions later on in the film. Now, it's entirely possible to use another method of communicating this to the viewers, maybe they should have, but regardless, I believe the sole intent of the writers was not just to throw in something stripperific for the men.

[smeeprocket]

The useful purpose I gave is in communicating the plot to the viewer. It's important that the show visually communicate to the viewer that Jabba and his establishment is scum. It is a movie, a visual medium, much of the plot should be, and is going to be communicated through imagry. I say that it was written for that purpose, or both to communicate this idea and to be sexy, but not solely to be sexy.

Let me put it another way. If you remove her, then Jabba seems a lot less scummy to the viewers, which is a bad thing as the viewers are not supposed to like Jabba. It's actually quite important for following the plot that the viewers dislike Jabba, it helps justify the hero's actions later on in the film. Now, it's entirely possible to use another method of communicating this to the viewers, maybe they should have, but regardless, I believe the sole intent of the writers was not just to throw in something stripperific for the men.

you are telling me that there was no other way to express that jabba was scummy other than to dress leia up in a metal bikini and put a chain around her neck? Really?

Right, okay. I mean, I would have gone for him callously ordering the death of some innocent or having a henchman murdered for saying something that he found arbitrarily wrong. but yea I can see why that specifically would be used. Especially as if further develops leia's character as a total victim. (though I would swear she's not in that movie.)

Of course, this was all very coincidentally appealing to the teenage male audience. It's sort of amazing how they accidentally did that.

[alexandertnt]

you are telling me that there was no other way to express that jabba was scummy other than to dress leia up in a metal bikini and put a chain around her neck? Really?

I edited my post before you posted:

Now, it's entirely possible to use another method of communicating this to the viewers, maybe they should have, but regardless, I believe the sole intent of the writers was not just to throw in something stripperific for the men.

[smjjames]

You can't change that initial leia in a bikini scene without changing the scene later where she kills Jabba with her chain. At least not without somehow explaining how she got there in the first place.

[smeeprocket]

you are telling me that there was no other way to express that jabba was scummy other than to dress leia up in a metal bikini and put a chain around her neck? Really?

I edited my post before you posted:

Now, it's entirely possible to use another method of communicating this to the viewers, maybe they should have, but regardless, I believe the sole intent of the writers was not just to throw in something stripperific for the men.

I feel like a lot of males I talk to, and this isn't meant as a derogatory comment, are very naive about the realities of why things are presented the way they are with regards to gender, sexualization, and objectification.

After you see enough of it, it is very hard to believe that it's all one big coincidence or that any particular artist really didn't intend it the way it came across. Since it has such a dramatic affect and appeal in the form it is in.

It can't all be one massive coincidence that women get portrayed this way, and why should star wars be an exception that actually is a coincidence? Do you really think George Lucas wouldn't use that as a way of interesting male viewers? Do you think he himself is naive as to what that arrangement implies and the affect it has? He's a Hollywood director, he is quite aware of what does and does not appeal to his targeted demographic and why. Even then he definitely wasn't stumbling through this in a blind haze of confusion.

edit: why does leia need a metal bikini to kill jabba with her chain. She could have been in tattered prison garb and killed him with a chain just as well.

[smjjames]

We can't exactly bring George Lucas in here and ask him why he did it the way he did.

[smeeprocket]

We can't exactly bring George Lucas in here and ask him why he did it the way he did.

Let me put it this way, how often does it have to happen before we start actually thinking it's not all a big misunderstanding?

Should we bring in thousands of directors, writers, and artists and question them all individually to see if maybe each and every single case was just sadly misinterpreted.

Do you think that none of these people knew what they were doing and how the best way to appeal to their audience was?

Do you think they they are all so incapable and inept that they could not possibly foresee the response to these kinds of things?

This is not an isolated incidence. They are not all a string of isolated incidences. They do not exist in a vacuum. Hollywood has been doing this since Hollywood existed.