Forum Discussion
There was really nothing sexual about the frog. Seriously. Nothing. It’s a frog.
I suppose that you can say that Baby Yoda is used to perpetuate the theme of killing children, but really, what it was doing was eating. That is pretty much it. I wouldn’t place its intelligence on a scale where it can purposefully kill things for the sake of it. It is what it’s name suggests: a child. A baby, who, much like other babies, is dictated by hunger. So, in a way, this is really just a predator/prey relationship.
But your thoughts are well though out and logical.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
That still leaves us with the other situation though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
. . . Recap . . .
Dvveebo: [...] "The thing is that the [frog] lady disrobing in front of the protag isn't weird though. This exact scene is a consistently used one in various stories. Just remove the word [frog] from the narrative. People likely aren't going to get upset about a ' 'Frog' ' -Lady disrobing, because they don't see it as; A lady undressing in front of the main character. They're too distracted by the emphasis on the fact that she's a frog - before she's a woman. "
Commander_Ney0: [...] "There was really nothing sexual about the frog. It’s a frog. "
See... Not only are you proving a part of my point, but you're taking it further by trying to gloss over the fact that the character is female at all. Even going so far as to refer to her as an "It."
As such, you're seemingly giving the [nudity of a female character being depicted] - a pass.
(Which is what I expect most people to do. Which is what I imagine the writers were assuming would happen as well. Hence why I assume; sneaky writing. )
What you decide to permit as unimportant may actually be more so than you can know.
Are you aware of the Furry Fandom? How many people are? Many Americans I've observed who think poorly of the fandom can recall being disturbed by their ' 'Furry friends' ' from High School. Because Furries had been exposed to [Animal-based anthropomorphic characters] depicted in [potentially inappropriate] materials earlier in their lives (such events that they determined to be enjoyable) - they made social expressions of swapping Anthropomorphic Materials among friends depicting things akin to the disrobed Frog Lady. (If not worse... )
The deviation from species doesn't inherently stop all individuals from perceiving the material for what it is. (An intellectual removing their clothing in front of another.) Implications of an inappropriate theme for some audiences.
What sets the Frog Lady apart from a strictly a frog is that she has humanesque characteristics which qualifies her as an Anthro Character.
- 5 years ago
I can't see what the big deal is.
Chewbacca has been running around nearly naked since '77 and no one has had a problem with it.
- 5 years ago
Kanrei13: [...] "Chewbacca has been running around nearly naked since '77 and no one has had a problem with it."
Most wookies do run around in such a fashion.
Wookies' thick fur is both warm, somewhat protective, and concealing - to the point that they don't require Sweaters, etc. (Death by) Overheating would become a primary concern if they chose to cover themselves in the same way that species with (exposed/hairless) skin would. I'm sure other problems would occur (such as painful issues with zippers and velcro...) that would make clothing less favorable to the Wookie species - hypothetically...
The above demonstrates that Wookies lack of clothing is tolerated more, based on applicable real-world logic. And by the same logic, the [Frog] Lady requires her clothing much in the same way that a human female would.
((I'm sure somewhere out there, less audible / less noticed people might have had gripes with how Wookies (or more specifically Poor-Medal-less-Chewy) have/has been depicted but we should discuss more specifically concepts and situations pertaining to the happenings revolving around The Mandalorian. ))
- 5 years ago
@Dvveebo If the writers were intentionally putting this in there, what is the point? Very few will notice, and fewer will care. Why would the authors put this in the episode if they weren’t going to make an obvious point about it? Also, I don’t think poorly of Furries. People can like what they are into, and I don’t care because it is their lifestyle and doesn’t involve me in any way.
Considering your point on the Child being a monster, I do not believe that it knows that those creatures will turn into sentient creatures. The eggs themselves are unfertilized, so they are much more like chicken eggs that someone can buy than actual creatures. Baby Yoda does not understand that with time, the eggs will turn into functioning creatures. It only understood that the rhino thing would kill Mando because it was a direct, foreseeable and immediate consequence. If you showed a child of a similar intelligence as Baby Yoda the eggs, I doubt they would think that they were anything but colorful balls, not something with the potential of complex, aware life.
- 5 years ago
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RE: [Frog] Lady.
Commander_Ney0: [...] "If the writers were intentionally putting this in there, *what is the point?* Very few will notice and fewer will care."
I agree; What's the point of The [Frog] Lady having the Tech skills required to bypass a dangerous mechanical lifeform, but apply none of those skills to help repairing the ship, while only demanding that the MANdo do all the required work to get what she wants? (If B.Y can be contained in a pouch on the Mando, and the egg canister can be contained on the [Frog] Lady, then why didn't the two adults work together to restore the ship faster, with this solution in mind?)
What's the point of writing and portraying seemingly, skilled, (hairless) female characters simply as nude (potential desirables) instead of depicted as useful?Very few members of an audience ever notice the passionate intricacies that are included in materials. Many people cannot point out the level of detail in a Mandalorian court - but a creator may have painstakingly gone out of their way to place concepts which deepen the lore, etc simply by being in a shot.
Perhaps it is just that Creatives want to share something they made and there are limitations imposed as to what they can express so they have to do so in more intricate ways that are more tolerable.
Commander_Ney0: [...] "Why would the authors put this in the episode if they weren’t going to make an obvious point about it?"
Points in Star Wars tend to change their meaning and sometimes aren't obvious at all. Somethings that people wonder about may never be fully elaborated upon, as some creatives prefer including ' 'Mystery Boxes' ' for fans interpretations to run wild with. - 5 years ago
Commander_Ney0: "I do not believe that it knows that those creatures will turn into sentient creatures."
Indeed; The Child may not understand that unfertilized eggs are being reserved for saving a species.However, The Child COULD BE capable of FEELING with the Force the significance/cause and effect of their own actions.
The child could empathically understand the Mando's frustration and stress as the Mando firmly says; "No!" Don't eat those things. And the Child could empathically understand the feelings of despair/bleakness the Frog Lady would emanate upon seeing the reduction of her eggs - through means of the Force.Commander_Ney0: "The eggs themselves are unfertilized, so they are much more like chicken eggs that someone can buy than actual creatures. Baby Yoda does not understand that with time, the eggs will turn into functioning creatures."
((I'm glad they officially clarified the eggs are unfertilized - Even though I suspected as much. Official word is always nice to see. ))
They never specified if those are her last eggs that she'll ever produce or not...? If such is the case, it wouldn't matter if they weren't fertilized because they'd still be as critical to the species' survival. (Some animals on our real world will only breed once a year. Similarly; Some animals die very shortly after dispensing their genetic materials-there's no do over.) [Frog] Lady seemed to imply that this was a critical time for her bloodlines chances of survival, regardless.Commander_Ney0: "It only understood that the rhino thing would kill Mando because it was a direct, foreseeable and immediate consequence."
B.Y spat out a frog based on social responses to their own behaviors.
The social response of the Mando and the [Frog] Lady towards B.Y's actions were indication enough for B.Y to discontinue their actions - yet B.Y didn't.
Again though, I'm willing to drop this specific argument, because B.Y *could be* starving, based on the Mando neglecting The Childs basic necessities.Commander_Ney0: "If you showed a child of a *similar intelligence* as Baby Yoda the eggs, I doubt they would think that they were anything but colorful balls, not something with the potential of complex, aware life. "
As far as I know, in our real world, there are multiple intelligences which can include; Verbal/linguistic, mathematical/logical, visual/spatial, bodily/kinesthetic, Naturalist, Music/Rhythmical, & Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, //Emotional intelligence/s.I'm not entirely sure where 'The Force' would categorize into all that, but given the activities Young Force Sensitives can be observed participating in, I'm guessing The Force just adds a +2 modifier to all INT bases... ?
The Force - The thing that binds living energies together in the Star Wars universe. Space magic. Baby Yoda's entire species is said to be strong with the Force, much more so than other species. So maybe they get a +4 boost to all intelligences?
I'm not sure that a child of similar INT exists to be compared against B.Y considering s/he has space magic coursing through their very fiber of (fictional) existence. - 5 years ago
((Double post))- 5 years ago
Who cares what it eats
I eat lamb 😛
About STAR WARS™ Battlefront™ II
Recent Discussions
- 3 hours ago
- 2 days ago
- 2 days ago