Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Disney says no more Slave Leia


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

Disney phasing out Slave Leia

To a generation of men, Carrie Fisher in a gold bikini was their Bo Derek running along the beach or Jane Fonda floating in zero-gravity. To a generation of women, Princess Leia strangling Jabba the Hutt with her chain was an image of female empowerment. But now, efforts are reportedly being made to ban “slave Leia” from the Star Wars universe.

According to recent comments made by comic book artist J. Scott Campbell, an illustrator on “Star Wars” comics, Disney is phasing out depictions of Leia’s slave outfit. In a series of Facebook comments, Campbell insisted that fans would be seeing less and less of Carrie Fisher wearing less.

Fisher herself might agree with the move. The outspoken actress recently interviewed “The Force Awakens” star Daisy Ridley, telling the young actress to “fight against that slave outfit!” and implying regret that she ever put it on.

“Daisy Ridley won’t have to fight against anything,” Campbell writes on Facebook. “Disney is already well on its way to wiping out the ‘slave’ outfit from any future products period. You will NOT see an(y) future merchandising featuring the slave outfit ever again. Trust me.”

Something tells me this decision won't go over well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Older star wars fans are just gonna have to get use to it. Disney wants the next generation, they'll cater to the old fans when they can but if it comes down to being more inclusive of new a generation(AKA the kids that are gonna keep this thing going and buy most of the merch) or cater to 30+ year old men that want their childhood in tact then Disney will bank on  the kids every time.

Not saying I agree with it but from a business standpoint I get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...