Talk:Hutt (Star Wars)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Star Wars Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and leave a message on the talk page to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.

Contents

[edit] Physiology

Are there sources for stating that the Hutts are both "hermaphrodites, bearing male and female reproductive organs" and they "reproduce asexually"? It sounds like someone may have misunderstood something along the way. It is difficult to comprehend an evolutionary tract where asexually-reproducing creatures would need male organs.

Also...does Star Wars simply have no sense of canon in the way that Star Trek does? This reproductive information obviously doesn't come from the movies. Is it from books, comics, what? --70.20.145.231 00:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Said statements are backed up by statements in books that I have, although fictions can hardly be considered 'sources'. --The Hooded Man 00:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Their reproduction data comes from the Han Solo Trilogy, and the various Essential Guide to... &etc. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hutt Physiology...

According to The Hutt Gambit Hutts don't mate with other Hutts. They are completely self contained {for a lack of a better term) sexual creatures. Jabba the Hutt basically says that Jilac (now his aunt) simply decided to become pregnant. This means that Hutts do mate with each other.

Read the Hutt Gambit to see for yourselves.

Okay just a question. How does this statment: "Jabba the Hutt basically says that Jilac (now his aunt) simply decided to become pregnant," mean this one: "This means that Hutts do mate with each other." From the first statement it seems logical to assume that Hutt's do not mate with each other, otherwise how would Jilac "simply decide to become pregnant"? I'm curious how you rationalize that. Rogue Editor: I don't just edit, I re-edit. 21:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Another question: What is the source on Jabba the Hutt raping and torturing Leia?

[edit] Hutt physiology continued

Certain physical characteristics, such as the feminine felid eyes, of Gardulla the Hutt suggest that gender role assignments are on a biological basis. (See picture [1].) Compare to Jabba the Hutt. [2]

If Hutts can shift from hermaphrodite to a specific gender, why can't they shift other characteristics? --maru (talk) contribs 03:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Shift? Hutts are hermaphrodites with either male or female personalities, appetites and appearances. They are dominantly male or female in biology. Both 'males' and 'females' gestate offspring and have both sex organs.

Marudubshinki, Gardulla the Hutt always has the secondary characteristics, and Hutts don't go through transformations. Hence, she was born like that and gender is based on biology.

Yes, Hutts do shift genders. Please go read The Hutt Gambit. And saying Gardulla is always on the female side of things is a rather bold statement- what leads you to believe that. --maru (talk) contribs 00:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there more information on a Hutt's gender? In the Hutt's Gambit are the Hutts born "male" or "female"?

Neither. They apparently start off as hermaphrodites and most choose to become predominately male; better for business dealings, maybe? --maru (talk) contribs 04:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Hutt legend, "Ardos collapsed on itself over grief for its mate". If Hutts don't have mates, why would they create a mythology in which their gods do? 65.57.245.11 01:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "They have appeared throughout the original trilogy..."

"...except in two of the original films." In which case it makes more sense to name the one film they did appear in, instead of listing the two they did not appear in, for goodness' sake. Richard75 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Hutts didn't appear in one of the original trilogy if you don't mind counting deleted scenes, or Special Edition version of A New Hope; Jabba was deleted in the theatrical release of ANH, but was restored and updated in the Special edition. So it might make more sense to say that Jabba is mentioned but not seen in Empire Strikes Back? --maru (talk) contribs 01:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:jabbatheHuttROTJ.jpg

I removed Image:jabbatheHuttROTJ.jpg, which was under the section "Jabba the Hutt." Reason: No detailed fair use rationale is given on the image page for use of this image in this article. I personally don't think that it is justified to use this image in this article.. There is a prominent link at the beginning of the section that links to Jabba the Hutt, which has the same image very accessibly located at the top of the page. Thus I think that the use of the fair use image in this article is superfluous and beyond a reasonable "limited number" of images. --Iamunknown 19:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So Do They Taste Like Chicken Or Not?

Noticed a discrepancy which may or may not be editing related. From the books featuring Zorba The Hutt we learn that Hutts are indigestible. So how does Gardulla end up krayt dragon fodder? Is this an error on our (Wikipedia's) part, or is this just a case of two authors having two different ideas? -WarthogDemon 02:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that, too. Any Star Wars experts out there who can answer that?--H-ko 01:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I even tried checking the Star Wars wiki but I'm still confused. I think the answer is that they're not digestible but there's some discrepency(sp?) on whether or not Gardulla died at the jaws of the dragon. -WarthogDemon 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jedi Mind Trick

Uhhhh...Jabba is resistant to Jedi Mind Tricks for the simple reason that he is not weak-minded. The "explanation" in this article is silly. 24.7.97.65 (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)