Solo: A Star Wars Story

Psab keel said:
If X character is in there that will be beyond ludicris. Whether the cartoon is canon or not it's still a stupid idea.

As far as Lando being pansexual that's stupid too. I mean unless the character's sexuality is relevant to the story which its not then what's the point of even including it?

Never before has Star Wars been concerned with any of the characters sexuality before, I thought the story was about wars in the stars?



Same goes for gender, race etc. If it's relevant to the story, include it. If not then don't worry about it. Why are these people inserting identity politics into a space fantasy?. That was never the point.
Click to expand...

This is what I keep coming back to. I'm woke AF and want to challenge anybody who thinks there's a LGBQT conspiracy or agenda-- but yes, sexuality has never been a part of Star Wars and shouldn't outside a basic romance.

I really think this is an overblown reaction to behind-the-scenes talk about what's in the character's DNA and motivation and how they effect performance and character... NOT because Lando is going to try and bone Han.
 
Last edited:
I know this idea of Lando came from an interview from Jon Kasdan when asked about the character. The point I was trying to make is that what does any of it matter if it's not relevant to the story?

That's the point of all of this. Tell a good story.

I don't care what sexual preference, gender, race, or belief system any of the characters have as long as the story is good and I like the characters.
 
This is the kind of thing that just gets to the point of absurdity.

Now we are discussing if Lando has sex with a female droid. Was any of this relevant to Solo, or any of the Star Wars movies?

No. So why are we even discussing it? It's a non issue.
 
Speaking of facts, let's take another look at this situation that has so many grown men's panties in a bunch.

The Huffinton Post, in response to interpretive commentary from a movie critic, posed the question to the Kasdans: "I asked them about Lando's possible sexual fluidity. Is he pansexual?" J. Kasdan answered, and did so in a politically sensitive way. Both Huffinton Post and The Hollywood Reporter posted articles about the interview, spinning the sexuality controversy, and it clearly worked as intended. How is Kasdan, or KK, or Disney responsible for starting the controversy, or pushing some agenda here? Because the answer was politically sensitive to current social issues? Because Kasdan *may* have actually thought about it previously? How else should the question have been answered?

How doess saying "There is a fluidity to Donald and Billy Dee's [portrayal of Lando's] sexuality" (the actual interview quote) equate to "Kasdan goes on to say, that not only is Donald Glover's Lando gay, but so is Billy Dee William's Lando"? That's a big jump from "fluidity" to straight-up "gay". Words and interpretations are being inserted/projected here, and not by the people in question. Or, is this just a total misunderstanding of the concept of sexual fluidity, combined with intolerance?

Is the term "pansexual" (again, not even introduced by either Kasdan, but the Huffinton Post interviewer) another point of confusion? In the context of Star Wars, unlike the real world, where there are endless possibilities of sentient beings, regardless of gender, humanoid or non-humanoid species, and even droid relationships to consider, I seems to me that "pansexual" is the most obvious and fitting term to use. Or is any sexuality beyond the hetero human-human situation getting lumped into the "gay" category somehow?

What about the hosts in Westworld? Is sexuality with these robots different, just because the robots are attempting to mimic humans? Does that make it kosher?

If it is back to the retcon argument, then where do we draw the line for what can be done to expand a character before it becomes a retcon? If Lando flirts with a blond humanoid female, would that be out of character or a retcon, since we only ever saw him flirt with a brunette humanoid female previously? Or, would that be acceptable because it doesn't offend certain people's personal sensibilities?

I bet some some the people crying foul over this wouldn't have any problem with an actual retcon where Lando takes the "red pill" and begins to understand how the feminist SJW forces in the galaxy are trying to marginalize him and take away his Force-given rights to dominate women the way the Force intended, and the way the humanoid females all really want it but have been brainwashed against by the Dark Side. They would be jerking off, all over their parents' basements. :lol

everything_youve_heard_about_me_is_true.png

Lando_and_Han.png
 
SpyderDan said:
Speaking of facts, let's take another look at this situation that has so many grown men's panties in a bunch.

The Huffinton Post, in response to interpretive commentary from a movie critic, posed the question to the Kasdans: "I asked them about Lando's possible sexual fluidity. Is he pansexual?" J. Kasdan answered, and did so in a politically sensitive way. Both Huffinton Post and The Hollywood Reporter posted articles about the interview, spinning the sexuality controversy, and it clearly worked as intended. How is Kasdan, or KK, or Disney responsible for starting the controversy, or pushing some agenda here? Because the answer was politically sensitive to current social issues? Because Kasdan *may* have actually thought about it previously? How else should the question have been answered?

How doess saying "There is a fluidity to Donald and Billy Dee's [portrayal of Lando's] sexuality" (the actual interview quote) equate to "Kasdan goes on to say, that not only is Donald Glover's Lando gay, but so is Billy Dee William's Lando"? That's a big jump from "fluidity" to straight-up "gay". Words and interpretations are being inserted/projected here, and not by the people in question. Or, is this just a total misunderstanding of the concept of sexual fluidity, combined with intolerance?

Is the term "pansexual" (again, not even introduced by either Kasdan, but the Huffinton Post interviewer) another point of confusion? In the context of Star Wars, unlike the real world, where there are endless possibilities of sentient beings, regardless of gender, humanoid or non-humanoid species, and even droid relationships to consider, I seems to me that "pansexual" is the most obvious and fitting term to use. Or is any sexuality beyond the hetero human-human situation getting lumped into the "gay" category somehow?

What about the hosts in Westworld? Is sexuality with these robots different, just because the robots are attempting to mimic humans? Does that make it kosher?

If it is back to the retcon argument, then where do we draw the line for what can be done to expand a character before it becomes a retcon? If Lando flirts with a blond humanoid female, would that be out of character or a retcon, since we only ever saw him flirt with a brunette humanoid female previously? Or, would that be acceptable because it doesn't offend certain people's personal sensibilities?

I bet some some the people crying foul over this wouldn't have any problem with an actual retcon where Lando takes the "red pill" and begins to understand how the feminist SJW forces in the galaxy are trying to marginalize him and take away his Force-given rights to dominate women the way the Force intended, and the way the humanoid females all really want it but have been brainwashed against by the Dark Side. They would be jerking off, all over their parents' basements. :lol

View attachment 818436

View attachment 818437
Click to expand...




Here is a Hispanic female fan who disagrees with you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-vSJr6Ciz0

I know George Takei had a problem with them changing Sulu's sexual orientation. They changed Sulu in the new Star Trek as a nod to Takei's sexuality but he was unhappy with the change because he felt it was unnecessary and not in service to the story.

That's what the issue is. Is it in service to the story? No.

That's all it ever was about. But people want to make it about more than that and accuse fanboys of being homophobic, whining, racists who hate women.

The fact that there are even debates about these things is absurd.
 
You're not a bigot and I sincerely doubt anyone in this thread is.

Here's the ultimate question:
ARE ANY OF THESE IDEAS OR CHARACTER CHANGES OR STORY DEVELOPMENTS IN SERVICE TO THE STORY?

IF NOT THEN WHAT THE HELL DOES ANY OF IT MATTER?







 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is more than 5 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

JediMichael
Darkside Story - A Star Wars Parody
Replies
3
Views
418
Halliwax
Halliwax
JediG60racer
Star Wars Outlaws (video game)
2
Replies
36
Views
853
HeartBlade
H
janglesworthy
Star Wars Tales of The Empire D+ animated series
Replies
15
Views
627
Halliwax
Halliwax
division 6
Star Wars and Gremlins Actor Mark Dodson Dies
Replies
0
Views
224
division 6
division 6
Captain Dunsel
Back In Theaters: Star Wars OT & PT
Replies
9
Views
522
Rawktrooper
Rawktrooper
Back
Top