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

By Mr. Scot,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted

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
scpanther22 Experienced

scpanther22

Posted
Posted

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.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • kungfoodude
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By kungfoodude · Posted

      TBH, these are the kind of players that get weeded out of professional sports pretty quickly. Also, CMC is not that guy. There is zero indication that he isn't competitive. 
    • kungfoodude
      Teddy Checkdown in trouble

      By kungfoodude · Posted

      I like the free agency. It actually helps basically all schools across the board. Pretty much only ancient HC's and/or HC's that haven't been able to adjust have been complaining about the free agency. Your fortunes can be made or broken every offseason. It's not like before where a bad recruiting class or two meant multiyear purgatory.  I will never understand all the bellyaching about the NIL. If you want to talk about what ruined college athletics, it has been naked greed. Conference expansions for TV revenue, ever skyrocketing AD and facilities costs and now the attempts to permanently ruin the postseasons(football and basketball).  All the kids did was get a very well deserved piece of a very, very, VERY broken pie.
    • tukafan21
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      Nobody is saying they don't count against the cap, because yes, they technically do count against the cap as it's money the team is paying and it needs to be accounted for. But what you're not grasping it seems is that if a player gets $10 million guaranteed in their contract, whether they get literally $0 as a signing bonus or $8 million as a signing bonus, it doesn't change the overall cap hit of the contract, because cap hits are about the guaranteed money, not how much is paid up front. The only thing that how much is paid up front changes, is how the cap hit can be spread out amongst the years. So yes, technically there could end up being a slightly bigger cap hit in year 3 and 4 due to a bigger signing bonus, but if that is the case, it also means there will be a lesser cap hit in years 1 and 2 than there would have been with a smaller bonus.  But over the length of the contract, the size of the signing bonus has literally zero affect on the overall cap hit of the contract, because THAT part of it is 100% about the guaranteed money and nothing else.
×
×
  • Create New...