Talk:Hutt (Star Wars)

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)

Please include specific dimensions for the species. (I have the impression that Jabba's model is not the same scale in all scenes...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 03:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

In The Clone Wars, Ziro is referred to as Jabba's uncle. There are also references that families are important to Hutts, and their crime syndicates are based on family. I would've thought it's impossible to have any concept of family without sexual reproduction. In evolutionary terms, a species that reproduces asexually would soon diverge into subspecies. There must be some kind of Hutt mating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.74.89 (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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?

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)

Yet More Hutt Physiology

Well, I haven't got a clue, but there is some sloppiness going on here. There seems to be some confusion between the words gender and sex. These terms may be used interchangeably in common parlance, but biologically they have nothing to do with each other. Gender is a behavioural issue - switching from a "male" to a "female" role is a behavioural change only. To change sex however means actually changing psysiology - a pretty important distinction.

Just to confuse things a bit further, you also have to be careful with the words hermaphrodite and asexual. Asexual reproduction is reproduction by mitosis, with no meiosis involved. Hermaphrodites may be self-fertilising, but they have male and female organs, which means that they have gametes produced by meiosis. Self-fertilising is therefore a better term to use than asexual.

What is most confusing is that Hutts are described as both hermaphrodite and asexual. Clearly, this is false - they have to be one or the other. Someone familiar with the universe should clarify which one they are. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• In light of the recent episode of The Clone Wars wherein we see that Ziro the Hutt has both a mother and father, one could determine that the use of "asexual" is more of a vernacular for relating to Hutt biology, but more accurately, they are capable of choosing one sexual gender or another for meiosis and can also choose to fertilize themselves - further adding to their biological superiority to other species in that a solitary Hutt can repopulate the species - adding to their arrogance.

Of course, Ziro having a "father" and "mother" could also be more of a non-biological parenting distinction. And the two "parents" may have never coupled to produce Ziro, and just shared in his upbringing.

But if we're to assume that "Mommy the Hutt" and "Mummy the Hutt" combined DNA to produce Ziro, AND Jabbe seemingly spontaneously prodced Rotta - AND that we consider hermaphroditic biology and asexual reproduction to be mutually exclusive - then one logical conclusion can be that "asexual" was a misnomer in Star Wars literature, commonly considered a vernacular reference, and that sexual meiosis, whether by coupling or fertilizing oneself with the equipped hermaphroditic parts, is what is likely going on.

Of course, that's applying a "real world" take on a fictional, alien species. Perhaps in Star Wars "asexual reproduction" and "hermaphrotidic biology" are not mutually exclusive.

Cross-eyed yet? Medleystudios72 (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"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)

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)

All living things are eaten by something when they die, by bacteria or something larger. If they arnt eaten by anything you would have corpses of Hutts all over the planet, and thats one big pile of fat arses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.153.230 (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine not being digestable wouldn't save you from being chewed up and sent through the digestive track of a large animal... 66.167.32.16 (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The mouth of Sarlacc spat Zorba out. Yet the Krayt dragon, I don't believe did any vomiting... -WarthogDemon 05:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

clone wars Jabba?

Wasn't the Hutt in the Clone Wars movie that got his son stolen from him Jabba? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.172.142.95 (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Pizza the Hutt

Can Pizza the Hutt be considered Star Wars canon?

Yes I belive it can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.54.14 (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would consider Pizza the Hutt to be worth noting despite not appearing in any Star Wars films. --Thomasdelbert (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Pizza the Hutt is definitely part of the Hutt family and to leave it out of this article would be extremely insulting.Mundilfari (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

its not plus there are many hutt familys (Star wars geek) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.168.201 (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed pizza the hutt was removed so I added him again. As long as there is an article about hutts there should be a section about pizza the hutt. This is after all not a fan forum and is an encyclopedia. 'Pizza' is a spoof character but he should be included as his popularity exceeds all the other hutts except for Jabba.TurtleMelody (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

non canon

This noncanon fluff is kind of obnoxious and could be missleading to someone less informed --71.131.30.178 (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pizza The Hutt? thats got to be some kind of joke right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.54.14 (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. It's from Spaceballs. - TheGreenMartian (forgot to log in)

Referencess

We need tons more refs for this page. Lots42 (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hutt (Star Wars). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721104912/http://huttese.freeweb.hu/index.html to http://huttese.freeweb.hu/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Confusion about "Notability"

I don't understand why Wikipedia deletes almost all articles about fantasy/sci-fiction characters or events (outside of book/film main article) while blaming it to not have any "Notability". I assume, because it's about fictional characters or events and not about real world... So why this article is not deleted than? I don't understand this hypocrisy of Wikipedia! ScienceDiscoverer (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)