It's actually astonishing that the Jabba/Leia scenes in ROTJ didn't cause a scandal, back in 1983

[ichab]

Here's an article about this from 2017. His opinion apparently hasn't changed since then.

https://www.polygon.com/2017/4/13/15288998/george-lucas-star-wars-celebration

"“There were all these tiny kids,” Lucas said. “They were all reaching their hands out, and they had no idea what was happening, but all they wanted to do was touch my hand." Sorry George, but not everyone is going to fawn all over you and love everything you do. The OT was loved by ALL age groups, not just kids. I was a kid and loved them, but so did my parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends etc. etc. It wasn't just one specific demographic.

The prequals deserved every bit of criticism they received. They were poorly written and relied too much on CGI. It was a great cast that was let down by horrible dialogue and poorly developed characters. And if Star Wars was only meant for kids, then why do you have scenes where arms are chopped off and the main hero turns bad and slaughters children? Give me a break. This is just more revisionist B.S from Lucas.

As to the OP, I don't recall any complaints about Leai's slave girl outfit because back then we enjoyed entertainment for what it was: fun, but not something to be taken overly serious. It was the one and only time she wore a skimpy outfit in the movies and it was for maybe 15 minutes of screen time. Plus she kills the guy who made her put it on. I don't see how anyone could have a problem with it unless you are talking about people who get off on trashing everything old because it doesn't fit their modern sensibilities.

 

[Commander Troi]

To be fair, Carrie wished she hadn't been talked into wearing the outfit and told Daisy never to let anyone do it to her. But, as pointed out, it was 1) a common pulp trope, 2) she strangled Jabba, which was/is cool to both kid me and adult me, and 3) it wasn't the worst thing done to/worn by an actress back in the 80s (sadly).

 

[ichab]

Heavy Metal came out way before ROTJ and you had scenes like this....

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This is what was appearing on MTV around this time....

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[DonIago]

I was only 8 in 1983, but I don't remember finding Leia's outfit especially scandalous.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Carrie was originally chosen because she was not sexy. The Mormons put a lot of money into A New Hope, and they insisted on casting frumps.

The worm turns.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[fireproof78]

I don't see how anyone could have a problem with it unless you are talking about people who get off on trashing everything old because it doesn't fit their modern sensibilities.

I had a problem with it when I first saw it but largely ignored it because the rest of the film is so fun. But, yeah, it could be excised from SW with little loss for me.

 

[Christopher]

I was only 8 in 1983, but I don't remember finding Leia's outfit especially scandalous.

There was no shortage of bikinis on TV in the late '70s and early '80s. And metallic bikinis had been a fantasy/SF trope since the days of the '30s pulp covers. See Flash Gordon's Princess Aura, the very similar Princess Ardala from the 1979 Buck Rogers TV series, or Red Sonja from the comics. Heck, even Filmation's 1979 Flash Gordon animated series had Aura spend the entire series in a bikini.

As YLu said, the controversy over Slave Leia was never about the amount of skin shown, but rather about the implications of rape and sex slavery, and about the objectification of Carrie Fisher for the first time in the trilogy. But those are concerns that have come along in more modern times, as cultural attitudes have evolved. Back then, objectifying women in the media was the norm, and implied or overt rape threats against women had been a routine peril trope going back to antiquity. And since it was only an implied, figurative threat that Leia escaped from quickly, it wouldn't have been seen as a big deal. Exotic warlords or crime bosses being surrounded by scantily clad harem girls had been a stock media image for generations. Their casual exploitation of women was just part of what defined them as depraved and ruthless villains.

At most, there might have been complaints from some quarters that the hitherto wholesome and kid-friendly Star Wars series had gotten sexed up like so many of its contemporaries, but I think many would've seen it as the franchise growing up along with its audience.

 

[valkyrie013]

Well, honestly, TV hasn't really gotten any better in the sex sells department, women or men.. Look at Game of Thrones, hell look at the latest Cowboy Bebop with there nudity.. People say its gotten better.. no it hasn't. Still plenty on the TV..

As for the rape/sex slavery aspect.. IT EXISTS.. That is honestly one of the reasons whey I don't like women in the front lines of war, if they get caught, guess what, there going to be raped, etc.
Just showing the truth, if a woman gets cought by the enemy, in TV or real life, there exists a near 99% chance that she would be used. So Leia being caught and forced to atleast dress up and be window dressing is a reality. If more time had passed it would have been alot worse. Them catching her and just throwing her in a cell and brought out and tossed in Sarlacc would have not have been realistic. Slavery exists on Tatooine.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Body armour is a weapon.

Only a moron wouldn't strip her naked.

You leave a slave with a weapon, like maybe a length of chain, and theres a major upheaval to the pecking order in the palace.

 

[Unimatrix Q]

1. I think its more likely that Jabba had a cloaca, rather than penis.

You want to know what he may have done?

Open at your own risk. Don't say i didn't warned you.

Spoiler

You really want to know?

Spoiler

Really sure??

Spoiler

OK

Spoiler

He may have used his tail.

https://www.deviantart.com/bellosh101/art/Manga-Jabba-s-Tail-Caresses-Leia-738694526

There's a scene in ROTJ that implies something like this.

 

[Christopher]

Well, honestly, TV hasn't really gotten any better in the sex sells department, women or men.. Look at Game of Thrones, hell look at the latest Cowboy Bebop with there nudity.. People say its gotten better.. no it hasn't. Still plenty on the TV..

It is hugely missing the point to think that it's about nudity. There's nothing wrong with nudity per se. Visit any museum -- artists have been celebrating the unclothed human form since the dawn of history. The only issue is whether it's treated in a respectful way or an exploitative one, and more importantly, whether the performers are comfortable doing it or are pressured into it.

Certainly Game of Thrones got lots of criticism for its heavy use of rape and misogyny as story devices, but that's a different matter entirely from nudity or consensual sex scenes. And modern shows differ from older shows in one notable way, in that they're much more balanced in showing both male and female frontal nudity. Indeed, the male frontal nudity in shows like GoT or Altered Carbon or Watchmen is often even more graphic than the female, since the women's genitalia are generally not actually visible.

As for the rape/sex slavery aspect.. IT EXISTS.. That is honestly one of the reasons whey I don't like women in the front lines of war, if they get caught, guess what, there going to be raped, etc.
Just showing the truth, if a woman gets cought by the enemy, in TV or real life, there exists a near 99% chance that she would be used.

Yes, of course, but you want to talk about that in a fluffy fantasy movie with talking teddy bears bringing down an evil space empire with their cute little bows and arrows?

It's not about whether something happens or not. It's about sensitivity to the audience's reactions, and whether it's appropriate to use a subject matter that could be traumatic for them. Rape happens, yes, and it's happened to many people in the audience. So treating it in a cavalier or trivializing or prurient way can be hurtful to them, or can make them feel excluded and unwelcome in a production's fanbase. Thus, it's important to be careful about how you use themes of sexual assault or predation, to avoid using them gratuitously and to approach them with sensitivity. Generations of fiction treated the threat or actuality of sexual assault on women as a source of lurid titillation or routine peril, because it was aimed at male audiences. Today, with women's voices being heard more and women having more participation in the creative industry, the subject is approached with more care.

 

[The Wormhole]

Carrie wished she hadn't been talked into wearing the outfit

Although I do seem to recall after the buy out, Disney tried to eliminate all Slave Leia merchandise for being completely un PC, and Carrie Fisher actually spoke out against that,

 

[Commander Troi]

Carrie was originally chosen because she was not sexy. The Mormons put a lot of money into A New Hope, and they insisted on casting frumps.

Huh? This is the first I've heard of Mormon money, but hey, maybe I just didn't know. But this is definitely the first time I've EVER heard anyone call young Carrie Fisher "frumpy" or not sexy!

@DonIago go home, you're too young.

 

[Kor]

Considering Leia being put into a bikini, chained to a horny slug, the "kiss" and the implications of what he may have done to her.

Other movies of the seventies and eighties showed even more skin than that and got the PG rating. Clash of the Titans, for instance. Those were different times.

Kor

 

[Christopher]

Other movies of the seventies and eighties showed even more skin than that and got the PG rating. Clash of the Titans, for instance. Those were different times.

Or at least the definitions were different. PG then was roughly what PG-13 is now. Originally, G was for all-ages films and PG was for things that were more mature but not as heavy as R.

Still, I think the reason Clash of the Titans got a PG rating was because the nudity was in a non-sexual context. Had it been in a love scene, it would've been a different matter.

 

[Kor]

...
It's not about whether something happens or not. It's about sensitivity to the audience's reactions, and whether it's appropriate to use a subject matter that could be traumatic for them. Rape happens, yes, and it's happened to many people in the audience. So treating it in a cavalier or trivializing or prurient way can be hurtful to them, or can make them feel excluded and unwelcome in a production's fanbase. Thus, it's important to be careful about how you use themes of sexual assault or predation, to avoid using them gratuitously and to approach them with sensitivity. Generations of fiction treated the threat or actuality of sexual assault on women as a source of lurid titillation or routine peril, because it was aimed at male audiences. Today, with women's voices being heard more and women having more participation in the creative industry, the subject is approached with more care.

I saw Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves many years after the 1991 release date. I found the comedic treatment of the Sherriff of Nottingham's attempted rape of Maid Marian to be quite tasteless.

Kor

 

[Commander Troi]

^ I forgot about that in all the rest of the awful of that film.

 

[DonIago]

I can't recall what I might have thought of it the first time I saw the film, but certainly after the first time it's easier to consider it comedic because one knows he's not going to succeed.

 

[Unimatrix Q]

Objectively analyzed, with the inclusion of info about what we know about the Hutts from the EU, some of the Jabba/Leia scenes may actually be closer to porn than many people realize or are comfortable with, in their possible implications.

Especially after considering Jabba's reaction, when Han stepped on Jabba's tail in ANH.

The tail might be either (a part) of Hutt genitalia or at least be a erogenous zone. It also seems to change it's appearance in relation to if the Hutt is in a female or male state (at least according to how Hutt biology and genders worked in Legends).

It's possible that he Jabba used his tail to have sex with Leia, according to the implications of the scene in ANH and the ones in ROTJ.

 

[Christopher]

Objectively analyzed, with the inclusion of info about what we know about the Hutts from the EU, some of the Jabba/Leia scenes may actually be closer to porn than many people realize or are comfortable with, in their possible implications.

A lot of things in fiction can have sexual subtext read into them if you make the effort, but that doesn't mean they would've been scandalous if it was kept implicit. After all, that subtext will usually go over children's heads. There's a ton of sexual innuendo in Batman '66 and Bugs Bunny cartoons that I completely missed as a child.

Like I said, the Jabba/Leia stuff was an homage to a trope depicted on countless pulp-magazine covers going back to the 1930s. Of course it implied rape, but that was true of the entire women-in-peril genre that existed for generations. It was often a much more blatant implication on those pulp covers than it was in ROTJ, which was a pretty tame iteration of the trope.

Especially after considering Jabba's reaction, when Han stepped on Jabba's tail in ANH.

What????? Any creature with a tail will feel pain if it's stepped on. You're really reaching to read something sexual into that.

Besides, that scene wasn't in ANH until the Special Edition, 14 years after ROTJ was released, so it could've had no bearing on the creative process of ROTJ. The Jabba scene was cut out of ANH, and Greedo's subtitles were rewritten to incorporate the information from it. That's why the restored Jabba scene's dialogue just redundantly recaps what we've already been told in the Greedo scene, making it a rather pointless restoration. And the whole "stepping on Jabba's tail" nonsense was a clumsy way to get around the fact that Jabba was played by a human actor in the original footage (with the intent being to superimpose a more humanoid stop-motion Jabba on top of him), so Harrison Ford just walked behind him normally.