Lit Sexualizing in EU–does it fit Star Wars?

"You call that sideburns?! You are shame to your gender Vien'sai'Malloc!"

 

How is this relevant to anything?

 

That gold outfit is actually pretty sexy.

 

My understanding isn't that they shave everything (Jesus, that would be exhausting); they just don't have more than a fine layer of hair over most of their bodies--like Nightcrawler.

 

Maladi and Harun look like they are fur-less

 

So does Nightcrawler a lot of the time.

 

Yes, but he has the excuse that most artist don't realise that he is supposed to have fur

 

There's a fine line between "not realizing" and "not bothering to draw little hairs everywhere".

 

As a kid watching X-Men: Evolution I didn't realize Nightcrawler was supposed to have fur until someone called him "the fuzzy blue guy". Simply because the designers didn't bother to do anything except make him "blue-skinned Kurt".

 

Also the Devaronian females are more Beast then Nightcrawler

 

its not

 

Its not what?

 

Maybe fur on Devaronians, male and female, is a genetic trait, like skin color in Twi'Leks and humans.

 

To actually contribute something useful to this discussion, I am reminded of Michael Stackpole's contribution to the realm of Star Wars sexuality. Specifically, that characters had sex and thought about sex.

It seems strange but the X-wing books were one of the few cases in the entirety of the Expanded Universe where people were \sex rather than having it implied. Admittedly, one of these is the rather surreal case of Corran Horn's attraction for an otter woman but I suppose that was just taking the "Species=Race" thing to its natural conclusion. Also, really, Leona Tavira stands out as the sex kitten of the EU for the simple fact that characters acknowledged their attraction to her.

One thing this helped the books with was that it actually made the story feel more authentic. A lot of Star Wars is a fairy tale where you have to fill in a lot of the blanks for yourself. It was one of the reasons why there was a lot of confusion regarding whether or not Shira Brie and Luke were lovers. They'd kissed in the past and the timeline had a very large sense of vagueness about these things. There would have been nothing off for retconning Luke having a relationship with her. The fact these allusions are SO allusion-ey, though, can have something of a weird effect on the narrative.

I submit Gariel Capiston.



Gorgeous picture btw, and I'm not a blondes man. However, Gariel Capiston is one of Luke Skywalker's book romances. The two were attracted to one another enough that Luke going to meet her was considered to be enough of an incentive for her to bring a fleet to Corellia. Except, well, there was no relationship. They were sort of attracted to one another and knew each other for a couple of days. It leads to a large amount of dissonance if looked at objectively. Luke and her having some form of romance while he's in Bakura makes a good deal more sense but there's never any real mention of it.

Star Wars is a children's series. It's not a childish show but it's for kids. The ultimate in family entertainment but I think we can tweak things just a little bit more that the idea of sex isn't quite as nonexistent as George Lucas made it to be. Mister "A Kiss is a Sex Scene" threw out quite a bit which got incorporated into the EU rather oddly. I doubt Star Wars is going to get fully PG-13 under Disney but it'd be nice if girlfriends, boyfriends, people living together, and the occasional roguish type going off with a partner was acknowledged.

It's why we all love Zeltrons after all. Heck, it's why MON MOTHMA loves Zeltrons. The only person in the galaxy who doesn't love Zeltrons is Leia.

The EU would be diminished without them.





Plus, there is the fact that Star Wars is a children's show but it's not a LITTLE KIDS show even if I first saw it when I was four (and loved it). There's a variation in the level Star Wars is meant for starting at Ewoks/Droids and going up to the 13th-14th year age bracket where I'm probably not the best example since I saw probably 200 R-rated movies during said time period. Then again, maybe that was just the Nineties as Terminator 2 was squarely marketed at kids like me. Admit it Dark Horse, your Aliens comics were for kids who wanted to feel older.

Heck, this is going to stun people who know me. I actually like Cade Skywalker's approach to sexuality and the implications of an "open door" relationship with Delilah Blue. When Cade was banging everything that moved which was remotely female but she only objected when he slept with a Sith Lord. A woman, I point out, who was probably carrying a Dark Side STD of epic proportions. Why? BECAUSE SITH ARE EVIL THAT WAY. Really, the matter of fact way that was dealt with was something I hope got past the censors as it seemed perverse an arrangement like that between two people (with as good for the goose as the gander hopefully on Delilah's side) being FAR less offensive to me than all the rampant violence and nihilism on display.

Hell, when Cade was being a roguish ladies man that was the only time I found him tolerable. I don't mind sex and sexuality in Star Wars. I would like to keep it clean and non-exploitative but the big change we need is acknowledging its existence. Let's face it, people DIE in Star Wars and you have plenty of it happening in the Clone wars Animated series. If you can do that, there's no problem acknowledging they've had relationships in the past.

The literature, which is one tier higher in the age bracket, can go a bit further. God knows, I'd rather know about Kyp Durroun and Kirana Ti getting it on (or Jan Ors and Kyle) than having someone in the Embrace of Pain for a page or two.





Likewise, I approve of the Jed'aii actually having some sexiness to their clothes. It's almost like they're not celibate monks or something!

Just as Lucas intended!

Jedi playing the field!

 

"Sexualizing in EU–does it fit Star Wars?"

What is this thread title trying to imply? That Star Wars is tight?

 

Sorry, I just couldn´t help it.

T2 was +18 where I live (that´s not equal to R though)... I guess today it would be PG-13 at most. And the good guys don´t kill anybody, something to ponder. Disagree about Aliens, there were several tales touching religion at least, and it gave an alternative sequel to Alien 3, at least up until that disaster of a final arc. What movie did the writer watch to write Ripley like that?

Cade sleeping around showed how ****ed up he was, I don´t see that shown in an all ages movie. And I don´t think Blue approved of the others, just only knew about the sith. She´s too forgiving too. TCW hinted at Padmé - Anakin having sex, but ... after the Sokka - Suki moment from Avatar series (how did that pass censors?) it falls very short.

Kyp hooked up with Kirana, or is it fanon?

 

I am not certain I understand what you mean; can you explain what you mean a bit more? bitte

 

He means that it is possible that not all will have it.

 

I disagree with you about rather seeing sexual scene > violence. Why? I'll tell you why. Violence in Star Wars isn't for the sake of violence. It's heroes protecting the innocent. It's not blind, slaughter-everyone-in-sight murder. It has a purpose; it doesn't exist for the sake of existing. Now, as for the Embrace of Pain–and yeah, that's not really necessary in LOTF–it really served a purpose in NJO. It got Jacen to the place he needed to be to be to be a hero. I don't understand why anyone would rather see two people getting it on than a hero saving the day.

 

Gorefiend - meh, I don't know about that. You could interpret it that way, but I don't think it's so definitive that censors would've had a problem--and clearly the censors agreed.

 

it's not relevant. i thought i was posting directly under your last post. But i guess not

 

You know, people saying "Disney would never allow [blank] in their movies" confuse me. Solent, have you never seen the Pirates of the Caribbean movies? Or Iron Man 3? Or National Treasure 2? All of those are just as Disney as Star Wars will be, and they have content like Charles is describing that is not only discussed and implied, but sometimes taking place just off-screen (See: the ending to PotC: At World's End). Saying that just because it's Disney that it won't have sexual content in it is buying into a stereotype, nothing more.

Disney has been trying to diversify their content for years. They have their kid's market, with the Mickeys and the Chip and Dale and everything else, and an adult market that doesn't get nearly as much fanfare. They've been making live-action movies geared toward adults for years now. The levels of success they've had has been middling, to say the least, considering that they've gone out of their way to acquire brands with strong film-making possibilities (Marvel, Star Wars, the Muppets) to diversify their portfolio.

So, no, just because it's Disney, I don't see content be a real limiting factor. It's because it's Star Wars that will be the limiting factor. Unlike Star Trek, which has had sexual relationships as a point of relevance since the Original Series, Star Wars has limited itself to kisses, accidental incest, and secret marriages. The EU has its levels to this as well, where the Marvel comics emulate the films by leaving things somewhat ambiguous, whereas authors like Stackpole or Kathy Tyers (remember Han and Leia's lovenest in Truce at Bakura?) are more "adult," because most of the novels are seen to appeal toward a more mature audience.

The question is, where will the new series of movies fall? I can see Episode VII playing it safe, not pushing the envelope further than a gold bikini shout-out. But from there, we go to the "spin-off" films. And from there, who knows? Maybe we'll see a youthful Han playing Indiana Jones, with a girl in every port.

 

Forget PotC--once upon a time, Disney owned Miramax. You know, Kevin Smith's distributor.