They're doing an original movie Leia apparently. The digital sculpt was shown with the sculpts for Revan and Sabine.
http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/a...pspukvepfv.jpg
I like the Boushh Leia but once the helmet is on it really doesn't count as a Leia I suppose.

Yay!

I still haven't found a Boushh Leia in store. Maybe I'll have a gander at lunchtime.

It was about five minutes of the film and had no impact on the plot whatsoever.

No more so than many other things in Star Wars.

People can deny it as they wish, as what you expressed is an opinion - not a fact.

That would be me, and once again you are stating opinions as facts - just because *you* don't think the argument holds water, doesn't make it so. Here's a little thought experiment for you: If the roles were reversed, and Han was chained at Jabba's feet with no shirt, and Leia was hanging on the wall - a literal object - what do you think the feminist reading of the scene would be? Think about it - and be honest.

By the way - Luke was in a speedo in the Bacta Chamber in Empire, and nobody cares, nobody ever references it. I wonder if Leia was in the Bacta Chamber in a bikini whether people might have something to say about it?

I personally don't care very much, but I'm not keen on the Mouse changing pre-existing properties to suit its boardroom box-checking agendas.

Frankly, I just want a decent 4 inch New Hope Leia...

I agree. I don't recall hearing the whole 'slave' thing until after the internet. I used to call her Jabba's Prisoner - as did my friends. We were the target demographic, and never read anything sexual in it at all - he was a slimy slug criminal, and she was a Princess, so he chained her up to show he had a royal for a prisoner to all the denizens of his 'palace'.

I'll give that a go: I think of a true fan as being someone who likes something whether or not the winds of social acceptance are blowing with them or against them. And will like that thing in a more permanent, lasting way, without dropping it in favour of something else. Something like that...

As long as the changes aren't the kind of pendulum pushing ones that take one kind of half-truth and replace it with another. You almost never hear about the Middle-Eastern slave trade nowawadays, even though it pre-dated and post-dated the transatlantic one - taking many more people. And nobody seems to ask where the black people in the Middle-East are now...

People also seem to forget that the first slaves in North America were white, and that the first owner of black slaves in North America was black, and had to fight for his right to own them. Also seldom mentioned; 95% of transatlantic slaves went to South America, with North America taking only 5%, even though South America gets little of the blame for it today.

Why am I rambling about slavery? Maybe it's the 'Slave Leia' thing...

Regardless: History is complex and nuanced, and too often curriculums give little bites or try to simplify things - for better or worse - that should not be simplified. Either that or they push whatever agenda is popular with 'those that know better than us' at the time.

Having said all that - it's 2015, and China and India are the biggest populations on earth with rapidly growing massive economies, and neither of them are teaching their kids balanced views of history, so maybe it really doesn't matter what the west does. We can play with our molded plastic figurines of fictional heroes (made in China) while Rome burns...

What a load of BS. And I bet they aren't even doing this because some liberal crybabies (That ironically think just like conservatives morons when it comes to woman sexyness).

My guess is that they're using this "rumors" so that they can sell arts and figures (specially the peg warmers) for a extremelly high price or to just sell pegwarmers, because it will be "rare" soon. I bet that there is a lot of people already cleaning the shelves by now.

Either way Disney will say it is false (after people clean the pegs, of course) or they will back up after this PC bandwagon passes away, six months to one and half year from now.

Can't say I see a problem with them removing it from merchandise. It's still in the original movies, and the old merchandise is still in the aftermarket. Some of that merchandise is still clogging shelves as we speak and not selling.

The new merchandise of it doesn't sell that well anymore. The outfit is intentionally degrading and does not compare to Han being in carbonite, that's silly. It was literally Jabba's attempt to debase and demean her. It's literally what Jabba puts his 'playthings' in as we saw before Leia was captured with the other alien that he had on the chain before her. He calls her 'princess' to highlight this fact of debasement. Women who wear it out of choice as a costume are wearing it because they have found something about it that's empowering to themselves that they can relate to. And really, if you were listening to the #yesallwomen stories, is that any surprise? Being shackled to the whims of oppression was a universal theme they all had expressed experiencing. Wanting to strangle that with a chain is a wish anyone with any kind of heart has. Leia in the outfit isn't empowering. What Leia did to Jabba because of the outfit is empowering. There is a difference. The outfit itself was a means to debase her and is literally Jabba's attempt to show her that she's beneath him and must bow to his whims even if she is a princess. His calling her princess is more insult to injury than it is about proper titles.

Han in carbonite though is a different matter. He's fully clothed for one, and his state is literally that of hibernation in a cryo type fashion. While he may be an 'object' he's as much an object as say the soldiers and spartans in Halo that sit in cryo tubes. That's an entire different kind of story trope in relation to mob stories and debt collectors. Does not compare as to say a woman being forced to wear a skimpy outfit and be chained to a person's whims and assaults her with his tongue. This isn't a 'what if' possible scenario either. This is a 'what is'. The trope Leia was highlighting in those scenes is the mob/mafia trope of human trafficking. The sex slave trade. That's an entirely different trope than the debt collecting trope. There is some crossover in those tropes, but not in this instance. In this instance the only thing Leia has done was try to save her friend, and is being punished for being caught by being forcefully subjugated. That is in context to the movie.

I really don't see why this is an issue at all. If you wanted that figure or statue, you probably already have it. This is about going forward, and really if your only defense in this matter is that you want to see violence and debasement forced upon women in movies more and for that to be made into toys, why? Why is it that important for you to have a figure that's entire purpose is to re-enact what were mostly scenes of her subjugation by Jabba until she's finally given her moment to strangle him with the very chain he's shackled her by? That brief strangling point is the only redeeming factor out of that outfit's story.

Does the Slave Leia outfit have merit for discourse about the metaphors it entails? Hell yes it does. It should stay in the movies because of the metaphors and commentary it carries for such discourse as art that speaks about real world issues.

Does it have a place in children's toys that children play with? No it does not.
It is literally a figure of a time when the character was put into the sex slave trade because of trying to save a friend. That's not something you make a toy of for kids.

I don't blame this one on Disney either. Even back in the day it took Hasbro a long time to do those initial figures of it. Seeing it leave the merchandising world again when it was only dubiously accepted to begin with in that market, is fine by me. The figure was only made because of fan demand because it didn't exist, it has long since fallen out of demand and does not look as if it will ever return to being in demand nor probably should it.

This decision is based on context. It's not about SJWs making a scene or about over-righteous mothers. Those scenes in the movie itself are metaphors for the mob, sex trafficking, and other tropes on those orders but toned down enough to allow a larger audience appealing rating.

If I was the head of Disney, I would have made the same call based on content and context. It's had its time in the light, it's had its merchandise made, now it's time to retire it. It is no longer needed as a staple to star wars, and as such, using a staple remover on it for merchandise is prudent.

Would it make it easier to understand if the same person that talked Hasbro into making it as a figure(based on recognized fan demand that has long since largely switched to disgust) was the same person that talked Disney and Hasbro into removing it(based on context of the movie's usage of it)? What if it was a man that made that call without ever even looking at or considering the SJWs or 'over-righteous right wing mom brigade'? That they did this because they genuinely know what that outfit represents on screen? Cause that seems to be the part of this narrative everyone is missing and lacking understanding on.

And yes, Feminism is for men too. If it were a male being subjugated to that extreme, the real feminists would speak up. The humiliation and debasement those scenes are loaded with is tantamount to the same as the sex trade and rape. That's an issue feminism speaks about for both men and women. Yes, feminism at it's core does speak about men's issues too. It has a heavier focus on women because women are treated worse on a grander scale, but toxic masculinity and patriarchal standards do harm men too and that is a common discussion at the core of feminism that works to create equality. Feminism is not misandry, though menninism/meninists or whatever it's spelled is for misogyny outright and is not even about the protection of men. Feminism on the other hand is about the protection and freedom of all to live in a fair, just, and equal society.

The scene of the bacta tank with Luke is also different, and there are many scenes similar across all media that depict both men and women in that. Evangelion for one has similar. It does not compare to the slave Leia outfit or scenes for what that metaphor itself is. For one, it's an actual medical procedure and attempt to heal Luke. No one is crying foul on Milla Jovovich's similar scenes in Resident Evil. No one is complaining about her clone tanks in that movie series either. That compares to Luke in the bacta tank. Leia in her slave outfit does not.

This may all be true for someone who thinks about the outfit in context of the movie, but the watchdogs have no interest in doing that. If they see a product that depicts a woman in anything less than an empowering manner, they're going to blow the whistle and make sure all of the internet knows about what a terrible, terrible thing is happening. Somewhere in America, some little girl who's parents don't teach self esteem and personal values is loosing sleep over one action figure.

I think it's too early to worry about movie edits.....hopefully.

I had a lot to say but Snowflakian sums it up expertly. If you can't see his points, I don't know that you're willing to think outside your box.

awww are the poor first world girls offended by a 20 something year old movie that may imply subjection, when it's suppose to! there are people that are actual slaves in the world today ya know? I find it offensive that all the hyper libs are so damn quick to squash everyone else's rights to free speech and expression, while calling everyone else phobic and bigots. A chick in a bikini choking out an alien mob boss is one of the most definitive images in Sci-Fi! if she was dressed Amish, or a tasteful pants suit, or what ever kind of outfit wouldn't offend the delicate sensibilities of the hyper offended community and people that think there twisted views are new or revolutionary. the scene wouldn't even be that memorable. we get it, your not objects! but do you get upset when in every Marvel movie the main star has to show off his body? I've seen more Hugh Jackman ass than I'd ever want, but do I feel "offended" by it? no. Here's a quick question for anyone agreeing the costume should be banned, how would you feel if Katelin Jenner wore the Leah Bikini for Halloween? I'm just wondering who's offendedness trumps who's now? is Bruce being insensitive to alien spice slaves? or would you be transphobic for suggesting he was? I'm just not so use to everyone NEEDING something banned. if you don't like something, walk away! don't buy it. but quit trying to reshape the planet into your insane image!

Maybe next Disney will get rid of Darth Vader because he's a bad father

...atleast we know they'll never have a problem with Boba Fett, he only does things for money, Disney can relate to that

There is no rationalizing this. It was a part of the movie and it happened. Jabba was trying to debase her. That's part of his character. Are we supposed to think that Jabba wouldn't do such a thing now? It literally makes no sense to me. I'm not dying for more Leia figures depicting this, but it's absolutely ridiculous to say, "never again!" It was part of the movies, deal with it.

Doesn't anyone remember that she fucking strangled him with the goddamn chain she was locked up with? She won!

I think Disney should ban the Little Mermaid as well, she offends me because she's not dressed. And they should close down their water parks too because it encourages skimpy swim wear and that offends me too. Its degrading to people to see them half dressed....It's only fair

And if you go to a water park I guess that means your a pervert because you couldn't possibly like it for any other reason than everyone there is half naked

...and the only way to make me feel better about this is if I can sue somebody and be financially compensated. LOOK I'm from 2015!

Disney isn't reacting to anything, they make decisions like this all the time, and have been making moves like this since long before you and the internet had SJW's and tumblr to blame for attacks on nerd culture. Disney makes their own decisions and keeps control of their characters, and if there's a certain look they don't like for their characters, then those characters are just not going to look that way in any official capacity, end of discussion.

And hey, Slave Leia was nice while it lasted, fans will always like and accept it and praise the fifteen minutes of movie that ended with Leia choking the life out of Jabba, but it's still not the iconic look some people are making it out to be. It really isn't all that important at all, and any sudden lack of merchandise for it isn't going to change anything really about Star Wars.

True & it makes you wonder if moving forward they'll be afraid to make women in films too sexy or that they can't make those figures? Someone could take offense to almost anything these days. Maybe they should put all women in pantsuits so nobody takes offense.

This whole thing kinda reminds me of the Django Unchained controversy from a few years back, where NECA showed off their figures from the Tarantino flick, and people responded in a negative manner, causing NECA to pull the figures altogether. People lambasted NECA's decision to do it by claiming that it was only a movie character, but NECA took the PC road claiming that regardless of it being a movie character, the character is still a slave in the movie and suggested that perhaps the world doesn't need an action figure of such.

Now I personally don't care if there is never a Slave Leia ever released again. I've had 30 years of chances to grab one, in various media and scales, and to this day, I still do not own one, because it's not a look or representation of the character that I care to have. And there is still nothing stopping me at the moment, from going back and grabbing one of those figures, as there are literally hundreds of thousands floating around there, with good representations, just waiting to be bought. So if another is never made, big deal. It honestly doesn't bother me. The times have changed, and fictional character or not, there just isn't a need to glorify slavery in plastic.

And if a grown woman wants to dress up as Slave Leia, then go for it. If it makes a woman feel empowered or sexy to wear it, then enjoy. Who am I to judge? It's a costume from a movie. Honestly, I saw far worse (not to mention sexist and risque) costumes on a trip to Party City yesterday than Leia's gold bikini look from Jedi.

As long as that particular scene isn't removed or altered from the original source material, I'm alright with Disney's decision. Now, if they are indeed changed or edited when the eventual re-release of the original pre-special edition trilogy drops (which Disney announced earlier this year is coming) then it's rage, rage, rage, and with good reason, as it would be no different than someone drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa simply because they don't like the expression on her face. You are taking someone else's work, and changing it to better suit your own needs.

I used to collect 1/6 scale military action figures, and I remember similar arguments over the rarity and controversy over Adolf Hitler figures in that scale. Military enthusiasts and WW2 action figure collectors like myself thought that there was no harm in owning one simply because it was a historical figure, there were plenty of different Axis soldiers available to us, and that it was not necessarily a representation of our beliefs. And then there was the other camp, that believed it should not exist, simply because historical figure or not, the world doesn't need an Adolf Hitler figure, because of what HE represented. While I used to argue that they were wrong for thinking that back then, it is now that I probably realize that they are right. Genocide, like slavery, sex slavery and trafficking are real world problems that probably shouldn't be on our toy shelves to be played with, fictional character or not...

There is another realm to explore however to all of this however. If Slave Leia toys and media are being washed out of the Star Wars universe going forward due to the implied sexism and slavery issues, then is Anakin Skywalker's origin due for a ret-con as well? After all, he was Wattoo's slave,...and a child slave at that, and child slavery is one of the greatest sins going on in the world today...period.

Okay, this convo really took a turn for the weird.

First of all, this isn't about being sexy or not. Being sexy is okay.

Slave Leia is not about being sexy. It's about subjugation, humiliation, and degradation. That's not sexy, that's sexual assault. The entire premise of that outfit is it's without consent. It's about coercion. That's sexual assault. That's what makes her choking Jabba with the chain satisfying as the ending turn on the outfit's history. It is her not letting herself be a victim and using those same shackles to strangle him with. The very ones Jabba tried to demean and hold her down with.

No one is talking about rewriting star wars or changing it. The 6 movies released as they are now will stay as they are now. This is about merchandise moving forward.

There is a difference between story and merchandising. The story as it stands as a piece of art across several movies as a saga is staying as it is, and will grow as the next 3 films develop the aftermath of the previous 6 for this overall universe.

No one is retconning what's already been put to film. This is only about the merchandise itself.

Though that's a very good point about Anakin and it is easily overlooked because of how it's played up for comedic ends with Wattoo. It won't be retconned, but I don't think they'll be making a point of that ever on any future young Anakin figures on the card back bio. It is part of his character history as much as the metal bikini is part of Leia's, but that also doesn't mean it has to define him or her either. It is one moment of their past that they escaped from to show it gets better and that they can still be strong willed complicated characters with complicated histories and actions all of their own. There are also mild questions about Anakin and Amidala's relationship itself because of their age difference to when she got pregnant and no one knowing for certain how old he was then considering she met him when he was a kid.

But yeah, let's make this clear real quick. No one is talking about changing the movies as they stand now. No one is talking about a reboot and changing it all. This is only about the merchandising end.

Oh goodie! Long replies! I have lots of time...

So you completely recognise that what Jabba did is in keeping with the character? I believe - as I believed as a child - that the 'debasement' was more to do with royalty than gender - you believe otherwise. But she was the only royal on the team, so we'll never know for sure. I'd like to hear Lucas' thoughts.

You can keep saying things like 'it does not compare' but you and I both know if it was clothed Leia literally hanging on the wall and an unshirted Han - that would be an issue. We would be here right now arguing how it's wrong that Disney are no longer allowing carbonite Leia to be made and you'd be saying 'Slave Han is different...'. It's always 'different'.

Sorry, I was too busy following #killallmen while drinking male tears and trying to #banbossy because of #masculinitysofragile.

It doesn't need to be empowering. All representations of women should not be created to conform to an arbitrary set of ideologically driven standards. All depictions of women all the time do not all need to be 'empowering'. Jabba was a slug - he debased a royal (woman) for his pleasure. It fits his character, and Leia's reaction to it fits her character. Han in carbonite isn't empowering - nor should it be.

It's about class. That's my point.

It wouldn't matter if he went in there in speedo's - nobody would care. And a clothed Leia hanging on the wall in carbonite *would* be used as an example of objectification - you know it and I know it.

Han on the wall is the 'head on a spike' trope. Sex trafficked or dead in a ditch - Jabba is a gangster, and it fits. Also, this is dealing with a royal woman - royalty is never pimped or trafficked - they're too valuable. They may be bought and sold - but they aren't there for the dirty peasants.

Don't ask 'why' when reacting to a statement *you* made which does not reflect either me or my words at all. You're straw-manning, and very badly at that. But don't worry - if you only want to watch movies with invincible untouchable Mary Sue's where the only people who can be harmed with impunity are men - have at it.

Because they want to remove it - and censorship bothers me. And because it's a depiction of the character within the film - that's why. It's actually my least favourite image of her, but that's neither here nor there.

Yup, that's what Star Wars movies from 30 years ago are for - to reflect 'real world' contemporary issues.

So that young girls can't re-enact the scene in which the little weak Princess breaks free and kills the massive gangster who is oppressing her? My goodness - why would you object to girls living out this metaphor for their struggle against the patriarchy? Why do you want to stifle them? Why the misogyny?

Yet you can make a toy of someone turned into a wall hanger, and of someone who was to be executed for trying to save a friend... or someone who had their arm cut off... or a bounty hunter shot point blank in the chest... or a seven foot tall villain who throttles people to death... and so on.

It's the 'nor should it' part I take issue with. You're dictating what people should / shouldn't have access to.

Sex trafficking wasn't an issue when Jedi was made. It has become an issue as a bi-product of mass-migration. And by the way, almost half of all sex-trafficked people are young boys, and the majority of people that are people trafficked (non-sex) are men.

'Fan demand that has long-since switched to disgust'? Let's take a poll shall we...

Nobody is lacking understanding. The chance of the same person being responsible is slim to none since the first figures were 20 years ago. It doesn't make a difference - saying "We'll never make a figure of this woman wearing more than many women do on a sunny day, but we will carry on making the seven foot tall deformed murderer" just doesn't make sense... unless they think as you clearly do...

If those men sit at the back and do as they're told. 'Sit down and shut up' was the last one I read from female feminists to male feminists.

They would say nothing at all.

Glad you got rape in there somewhere. I felt it was lacking. See my comment about boys above.

Yup - male privilege and how men need to get rid of it. Toxic masculinity - and how men need to just stop being men. Patriarchy theory - how everything was built by men and then by default *only* serves men and not women. Rape culture - and how a woman claiming she was raped shouldn't have to suffer the indignity of a trial to prove it. Domestic violence - how it's wrong to even charge a woman for DV / spousal murder because she was probably victimised therefore right to do it. And so on.

Male suicide rate, homelessness, domestic abuse, child custody, job death rate, circumcision, gender sentencing disparities - yeah, feminism will get right on that...

Feminists are for men the way fundamentalist Christians are for gay people... they want to bring them into the fold, to help them, to help them recognise they're sick and broken and need to be fixed... if they'd just open their hearts and minds to the dogma of the religion they could help them stop being gay...

Any discussion that begins with the premise that 'toxic masculinity' and 'patriarchy theory' are just true - and then goes from there, it *not* going to help men at all. And it doesn't have a 'heavier focus on women' - that implies it's like 80% / 20% or something - it has a *total* focus on women - 99.99999999%.

And women are treated worse on a grander scale - in the west? They live longer, have more money spent on their healthcare, die less of almost all forms of disease, are less likely to be victims of violence, are less likely to be murdered, are less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be homeless, are more likely to graduate high-school, are more likely to go to college, have total reproductive rights, right to infant genital integrity, and so on. All of that doesn't even take into account abstract things like greater emotional support and greater mate selection preferences.

This is Star Wars. Star Wars is a fantasy movie for children, not a horror movie or a Japanese cartoon (which is a whole other cultural beast). If Leia was depicted in a bikini 'healing' in the Bacta Tank - people would find a way to make it about exploitation. They just would.

Your moral superiors know better than you. Listen and believe... listen and believe...

Careful... you might cause some heads to explode with that one...

Progressives are comfortable with that kind of depiction. It's evidence of toxic masculinity.

They shouldn't have to, not when they can just ban it.

The Little Mermaid was very cute... and Mermaids are usually sexualised... Yes. This is problematic. Young girls should be protected from this. Ban it.

Such as? Genuinely curious. The only one I can think of is 'Song of the South', and that was available right up until the 90's.

Boxes will need to be ticked. Characters will become two dimensional mouthpieces for progressive attitudes. In the real world women are all the shades of positive / negative it's possible for humans to be, on the screen that will not be allowed.

Murder is real. So is death. Ban Darth Vader or any character that is killed / kills in the movies.

Word.

'Slave Leia' doesn't exist - because she was a slave for all of a day. Anakin lived as a slave. I'll repeat myself here; If Leia was clothed and hanging on the wall and Han was in chains, you would be arguing right now, that *that* is sexual assault because it reduces a woman to an object used as a decoration without her consent.

Just so you guys know it's threads like this that are why women don't come here often.

Bracing myself for a couple of the tokenistic Notyourshield types, of course.

Also Lionheart, please stop using big words. You don't understand what they mean.

Like there's literally no point me even speaking because I'll just be torn into, made fun of and generally have to sit through a bunch of machismo grandstanding made all the more ironic by people making fun of the idea that toxic masculinity doesn't exist(again - you probably don't know what it means).

You're creating an environment where ultimately a lot of people are afraid to speak out. There's obviously no actual censorship happening in this case, but anti-SJW bullies can be some of the worst for coercing people into silence. it's the whole reason the SJW label exists in the first place, a way of mocking and silencing people without dealing with their arguments. Snowflakian went to the effort of putting forward a tempered and well reasoned argument and a bunch of assholes just go all HURR DURR DEM LIBERALS SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS TRYING TO CENSOR MUH STAR WARS LET'S ERASE THEM FROM REALITY I HAVE NO SENSE OF IRONY.

I'm really getting tired of this. Being a feminist geek is actually absolutely exhausting.

Ps. If a mod pulls me up on name calling, Social Justice Warrior is much worse than asshole because it's practically a slur at this point, used most often against women and trans folk.

this thread...sheesh...i'll be back when it's fun again..lol

SJW? oh yay a new divisive label to put people in little groups to fight paper tigers so they can feel oppressed and violated by a PG movie that came out before they were born! if things offend you the problem may not be the thing. just consider that.

Nothing to do with there being fewer female toy collectors? There are barely any threads 'like this' on these boards - and nor have there ever been. But well done for just making something shamey up and pretending it's true.

I understand perfectly what all the words I use mean.

'Machismo grandstanding'? Is this going to be a case of 'My bigotry is ok but yours is problematic?' methinks it is...

And I know exactly what 'toxic masculinity' means. Just because feminists have decided it exists doesn't mean it does. It's a theory - not a fact. Individuals can be toxic, but masculinity - just like femininity - is not inherently toxic. Go back to your gender studies course and come back when you've spent a few years away from the echo chamber.

Said every SJW ever about every place that people were allowed to disagree with them with impunity. What constitutes a safe space to an SJW is somewhere they get to state their opinions as facts, and people are banned from disagreeing. The fact is, there has been disagreement and discussion on this thread, and yet you still say it is a place where a 'lot of people are afraid to speak out' (a lot?) and it shows just how blinkered you're being.

SJW's bully the exact same way. The difference is one group says everyone should be able to speak, and the other says nobody who disagrees with them should be able to speak... or it's 'bullying'.

Arguments are being addressed. If all you want is agreement then you aren't asking for people to 'deal with arguments'.

If that's what you think he said, and that's what you think he got back, then stating that people are 'mocking and silencing people without dealing with their arguments' is the height of hypocrisy. What do you think this is:

"HURR DURR DEM LIBERALS SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS TRYING TO CENSOR MUH STAR WARS LET'S ERASE THEM FROM REALITY I HAVE NO SENSE OF IRONY.."

And calling them "assholes" to go with it.

You are the first person to drop to the level you claim people are already at. YOU.

Your entire post translates to: "Everyone needs to agree with my side of a discussion or you're all hateful monsters who bully into silence, and anyone that posts disagreeing with my biased assessment is just proving me right".

Nice logic (or lack of). Nice and self-serving.

Same here.

I have to admit, I really couldn't care less if only because I'm sick of seeing Slave Leia everywhere as if it's the only outfit Leia ever wore in the movies. For goodness sake, the first Black Series Leia we got was in that outfit, which is kind of an insult to her character.