Umm, sorry dude, but this longer version of the interview changes nothing. And your suggestion that Kasdan "panicked" is completely baseless.
The interviewer asked Kasdan if Lando was pansexual, and Kasdan emphatically said yes. Then, unprompted, Kasdan doubled down on the reveal by dragging Billy Dee into this crap, saying that both Donald and Billy Dee portrayed Lando as a sexually fluid (read: pansexual) character.
The suggestion that Kasdan was just playing along is absurd.
The Wook
Perhaps "panicked" is on the extreme side for describing it, and I can agree with that. The good point here, however, is that he did seem to be at least a little caught off guard. It wasn't J. Kasdan who pushed the issue, but the Huff Post interviewer. J. Kasdan went the PC route with his response, going so far as to say he wished he could introduce a more explicitly LBGT character, and expanding his commentary to Billy Dee. Larry Kasdan kept his responses on the subject more measured, and limited his commentary to the L3 character, but still left it open with "That is her personality. Maybe it means something, maybe it doesn't." You can clearly see who is the seasoned veteran of the two with interviews like this.
Huffington Post and The Hollywood Reporter jumped all over this, and spun the LBGT angle. I don't find that surprising, and I'd bet that is has far more to do with spinning it in the direction that will cause more controversy and get them more clicks, than actually attempting to push any agenda. At the end of the day, they are media businesses, making money. The political agendas, while obviously a thing, would always be secondary to making that cheddar. Of course the media panders to their market demographic, hence the spin.
We've established some examples already of sci-fi characters that would fit a similar contextual definition of "pansexual". It has been all over Star Trek, with Kirk and Riker being prime examples that would fit the bill, though the Data and Tasha Yar examples are the most explicit.
Let's go a little deeper about the "fluidity" part, which people seem to want to lump straight in to their "gay" category. We are all at least a little fluid in our sexuality, even if we honestly have never had a single fleeting homosexual thought in our lives. It seems well understood that women are commonly more fluid than men, not only more likely to experiment with other women at some point in their lives, but more likely to change and adapt what they find attractive in men as well over time. For us straight men, any time we might find ourselves adapting our own standards of what we find attractive in a woman, that would be an example of sexual fluidity. If you ever felt like you had a certain "type", and if that type has ever evolved over time, that is also sexual fluidity. Obviously, if we have ever had any experimental moments, maybe in our youth, or maybe when intoxicated, or in prison, or whatever really, that would be a more explicit example of fluidity. The point is that we, as humans, are all naturally fluid to some extent or other. What we find sexually attractive can evolve and change with circumstances, and it does not necessarily equate to being gay at all, even when it does actually cross gender lines. Life is just more complicated than a black or white, 1 or 0, you're either with us or against us, unchanging situation. Reality tends to be a little more in the gray areas, whether that frightens you or makes you uncomfortable, or not.
That is all J. Kasdan actually said, about either Glover or Billy Dee. I would go so far as to say that this fluidity commentary, with respect to either actor, was maybe taking it too far, probably out of his desire to appear inclusive and PC. We only ever saw Billy Dee's Lando showing interest in Leia, so coming up with an example to support the idea of there having been fluidity in his portrayal is nebulous and a bit of a stretch. It is a subjective evaluation of Billy Dee's performance, and likely factors in his own interpretations, but I would defend his right to the opinion, at least.
Still, even the addition of some fluidity to the character does not change anything previously established. There was never anything established before about Lando having a narrow human females only policy, and I do think there is plenty of room here to expand on the character. The speculative plot lines I suggested were meant as an example of how it could work, without going too far for Star Wars with respect to the subject of sexuality, and I would be surprised if the movie actually strays beyond the type of ideas I presented. We will have to wait and see what we actually get.
I don't think J. Kasdan was "playing along" in the sense that he just made it all up to appease the interviewer, but I do see an element of him having run with the question, and extrapolating the subject matter to go with the flow of the interviewer's spin. Obviously, none of us can do more than speculate about Kasdan's intentions and what he actually meant by his statements, but I do feel like the subject matter covered was at least something of a surprise going into the interview for him, so he rolled with it.
Again, this is purely speculation on my part, but I also feel like maybe he was worried on some level that his answers were going to disappoint the interviewer who was looking for something more explicit than what they actually wrote. Hence the follow up about how he would have loved to have introduced a more explicitly LBGT character, and thinks that it is time for that. Perhaps he felt like he might be accused of playing it too safe and subtle, having limited it to a sub-textual theme, and wanted to establish that he at least had the personal desire to do more to save face. Speculative, yes, but I don't think it is a stretch at all.
I am curious though, Wook. How would you feel about it if the movie ends up handling this subject similarly to my speculative story points? Would such a treatment be acceptable to you, or did I play it too safe, pedestrian, or predictable, or what?
While you and I seem to have some differences in our social politics, you might be surprised to find out that I actually fit your previously stated high SWIQ standards quite well. My personal politics are actually a lot more old-school moderate than anything close to the bleeding-heart liberal you might expect, and we probably see both Star Wars and the real world more similarly than it might appear in this thread. We probably have more in common than we have differences, so I would value your feedback and insights.
I can glean from your posts that some part of you is holding out some hope for this movie, despite all the fears you have expressed about it. It certainly showed after the premiere, when spoilers were coming out and you wanted to know the dirt on specifics like how the Kessel Run is handled. So, what say you, sir?