Solo: A Star Wars Story

I just want to now whatever happened to character development and meaningful story lines? Retconing an original character in this way is nothing more than pandering because KK knows that some will fork over hundreds of millions of dollars if you just mention your including a lgbtqrstuvwxyz character.
 
The more I think about this Lando nonsense the more I realize that it is a brilliant move on KK's part. Disney can now use this as a shield against critisim for just how bad of a train wreck this film is, and judging by the reactions outside of this small forum we have bought into it hook, line and sinker.

You know it is convenient how this news was not mentioned until AFTER Solo was getting rated the worse Star Wars film since TPM.
 
If you want to create diversity in your cast, be it sexual, ethnic, religious, etc. then create NEW characters. Don't retcon existing characters to fit an agenda that did not exist 40 years ago when they were created.

There has never been a hint in official SW material or EU stuff over the last 40 years that has shown Lando being anything other than a "ladies" man. You can't just shoehorn stuff like this in, and expect people to simply take it.

I know, this would take Disney and KK producing credible story telling and consistency which they do not and will not endorse. Some fans will defend them because they can't process the fact that Disney and KK are making the whole thing one bad joke.
 
Last edited:
If you want to create diversity in your cast, be it sexual, ethnic, religious, etc. then create NEW characters. Don't retcon existing characters to fit an agenda that did not exist 40 years ago when they were created.

There has never been a hint in official SW material or EU stuff over the last 40 years that has shown Lando being anything other than a "ladies" man. You can't just shoehorn stuff like this in, and expect people to simply take it.

I know, this would take Disney and KK producing credible story telling and consistency which they do not and will not endorse. Some fans will defend them because they can't process the fact that Disney and KK are making the whole thing one bad joke.

:lol What agenda is that, exactly? Seriously, what's the evil conspiracy you feel is going on here? I am genuinely interested. I assume we all realize that there were people pushing for acceptance and tolerance of ***** people in the 70s and 80s; that harmless "agenda" isn't new....

...and nor is it on display here. You'd think if this was LFLs marketing plan, or KK's master scheme for covering up the stench of a bad film, reporters could get a quote from LFL on record. Solid proof there, that it was only a shield created after the film was declared "worst since TPM" (didn't the screening go over well?)... They must have found out no one liked it and traveled back in time to get Kasdan's kid to have this in his mind as he wrote. He said himself it's not canon, not explicit on screen - but isn't everyone all up in arms about the hints of it they feel they've seen?

And again, "good storytelling" and "***** Lando" aren't mutually exclusive concepts. I get that you'd like to see good Star Wars stories on screen and don't like this idea for Lando, but pretending it can only be one or the other doesn't strengthen your argument. It seems silly to insist that "LANDO CAN ONLY LIKE GIRLS!" but "good stories where Lando might not only like girls, though it's never revealed to be the case" is somehow sillier...
 
For all intents and purposes

Just wanted to say THANK YOU for saying that correctly. The internet has drastically shortened my patience-fuse with misquotations and such. Every time I see "for all intensive purposes" I want to put someone's head through a wall. >_>

(Oh, also, as I said the first time you brought it up some time and several threads ago, Kathleen never worked for Disney, wasn't vetted by Disney, had no working relationship with Disney beyond her and her husband's production company being involved in a couple movies Disney distributed. If, as you say, you know this to be true, why do you keep saying she was "sent in by Disney"?)

As for Lando's proclivities... I see no "agenda" here. Captain Jack Harkness already blazed that trail in the geek/mainstream cultural zeitgeist. And David Bowie preceded him out here in Reality-Land. I prefer "sapiosexual" or other similar terms -- one who is attracted to the person, regardless of the flesh they happen to be wearing. Or maybe not "regardless". I mean, appearance matters (you're lying if you say it 100% doesn't), but I mean being less or not at all fussed about "boy bits" or "girl bits" or hair or no hair or tentacles or whatever.

Nothing has been "changed" about Lando's portrayal in Empire and Jedi. Just "added to". We knew from how he was distracted by Leia that he liked girls. Now we know he also likes other options. How many people have had a guy friend who they find out one day is gay, and they never suspected? Heck, there's still an attitude amongst a lot of people in both the hetero and **** camps who feel bi people are "indecisive" or "fence-sitters" -- just, they can't wrap their heads around the idea that, just maybe, some people are attracted to both. I can totally see Han and Lando's relationship maturing over this period, now, from personal experience. A guy getting along with a guy he just met, suddenly the other guy hits on them, first guy says "sorry, not my thing", other guy says "it's cool", and they eventually become friends. This also happens with girls. And with guys and girls. I personally find people who utterly ghost someone after they find out they're not gonna get in their pants to be shallow, self-absorbed [jerks -- RPF won't let me say what I really mean here]. We already know Lando isn't, from his arc in Empire alone. So this totally jibes, IMO.

I was having a conversation a while back with my friend at work, (pre Black Panther) and we were talking about how they plan on recasting both the Spiderman and James Bond rolls with black actors. She said that her, being an African American, is insulted that they can't come up with a new strong black character that can stand on their own feet, and that they feel they have to use the weight of an already existing character to make it work. I wonder if any pansexuals would feel the same?

I'm meh about the James Bond thing. It's too messy to wade into, the whole "are they supposed to be the same person? is it a fictitious persona people adopt as part of the job? But then what about Bond's parents and family home in Skyfall?" morass. It's a superficial enough franchise, I'm fine with them casting any actor who can fill the role.

As for Spider-Man, it's not recasting Peter Parker with a black actor, a la Fox's FantFourStic. Miles Morales is a different Spider-Man, who lives in the same universe (heck, same city and borough) as Peter Parker. Other-gendered and -ethnicitied versions of established characters goes back more than half a century. Supergirl? Batgirl? Ms. Marvel? She-Hulk? John Stewart's Green Lantern? They haven't been that character, but a way of looking at how a person of another race or sex would respond to getting those abilities. Miles has a distinct personality and approach to his Spider-Man-ing from Peter. I like them both for who they are, since they're distinct individuals and not carbon copies.

It's been an awkward transition from decades ago with, say, "let's do a female Spider-Man" to today's gradually-increasing "let's do a Spider-Man who happens to be female". A black James Bond and the new Ghostbusters fall more in the former end of the scale, while Miles Morales and Cassie Lang are good examples of the latter.
 
The more I think about this Lando nonsense the more I realize that it is a brilliant move on KK's part. Disney can now use this as a shield against critisim for just how bad of a train wreck this film is, and judging by the reactions outside of this small forum we have bought into it hook, line and sinker.

You know it is convenient how this news was not mentioned until AFTER Solo was getting rated the worse Star Wars film since TPM.

So you are now ascribing an off hand comment by J. Kasdan about something he thought about regarding Lando's sexuality that's not in the film was part of a master plan by KK to have cover if they get accused of not being inclusive?! I seriously cant stop laughing at that!
 
After yesterdays tantrum I've studied various articles scattered across the newsfeeds about "Landos Pansexuality". I found some of the feedback from the LGBT community interesting. Some responses are surprisingly on a par with some post here, and in almost exactly mirrored my first post .

In summary quite a few find it the rumour that a lead character in a huge big budget blockbuster release just MIGHT BE LGBT which seems to emerge a few days before the release, BUT thats as far as it gets, more than a coincidence.

As Bryancd points out its often revealed as " just a thought process" that never actually transitions into movie screen time. And so its being defined as simply lip service to their community and more than a little annoying that the big companys aren't actually committing anything more solid than rumour to the script.

The most representative article I came across is this from "The Guardian" but its a well balanced appraisal from a gay writer.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/may/18/lgbt-characters-movies-star-wars-lando-calrissian

I'm done with the argument. I hope Solo is sufficiently well written and entertaining to put this clumsy attempt to draw a few more people into see it to one side . I'm uncertain at the moment , bearing in mind that until last night I was pretty keen to see it.
 
After yesterdays tantrum I've studied various articles scattered across the newsfeeds about "Landos Pansexuality". I found some of the feedback from the LGBT community interesting. Some responses are surprisingly on a par with some post here, and in almost exactly mirrored my first post .

In summary quite a few find it the rumour that a lead character in a huge big budget blockbuster release just MIGHT BE LGBT which seems to emerge a few days before the release, BUT thats as far as it gets, more than a coincidence.

As Bryancd points out its often revealed as " just a thought process" that never actually transitions into movie screen time. And so its being defined as simply lip service to their community and more than a little annoying that the big companys aren't actually committing anything more solid than rumour to the script.

The most representative article I came across is this from "The Guardian" but its a well balanced appraisal from a gay writer.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/may/18/lgbt-characters-movies-star-wars-lando-calrissian

I'm done with the argument. I hope Solo is sufficiently well written and entertaining to put this clumsy attempt to draw a few more people into see it to one side . I'm uncertain at the moment , bearing in mind that until last night I was pretty keen to see it.

Which is why it’s a lose, lose, lose scenario for any studio. Make a character gay, they are pandering. Mention a character may be gay but it’s not realized on screen, they are giving lip service. Have no gay characters and they are homophobic. This is why we can’t have nice things.
 
Oh come on, really?! You know it will be the first card they pull when this film drops off a cliff in week 2 “they hate this film cause muh diversity and inclusion”. It will be Ghostbusters reboot 2.0 with Soylo.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol. I can’t swallow the red pill for you. Just doing my part to make the RPF great again @Westies
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My “good boy” loves me as I am, referencing your signature.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you would use “Bigly” as follows:
Soylo is going to suck...Bigly
 
The only "agenda" in Hollywood is diversity in front of and behind the camera. White, straight, and male by default is the norm, and given our nations history of racism and secism, that's the normal outcome. The idea is to make sure everyone out there is shown they can be part of this world too... you know-- the ehe point of America.

Now, how studios go about pulling this off is a mixed bag, and full of missteps. But if any think that trying to do this is a bad thing, they should re-examine thier prejudices.
 
Not one person has stated in this thread that they are against diversity. You want gay...fine. You want Bi/lesbian, pan sexual...sure why not...(although one could argue...why is that needed in SW at all) but don’t retcon an established character!

It’s not really that hard to understand is it?
 
Not one person has stated in this thread that they are against diversity. You want gay...fine. You want Bi/lesbian, pan sexual...sure why not...(although one could argue...why is that needed in SW at all) but don’t retcon an established character!

It’s not really that hard to understand is it?

You guys should listen to Moocriket--he knows the score.

This gay Lando reveal is way too aggressive and in-your-face to the fan community at-large, in terms of trying to inject modern diversity into Star Wars. They should create a new character who's gay or pan-gay or whatever, if they want, but as Moo said, this is Star Wars and there really shouldn't be much sexual expression, regardless of the the orientations represented. Lando is suddenly quear?! Good God. They should take baby steps in putting forth their agenda.

The problem is, this is their idea of baby steps.

babysteps.gif

The Wook
 
Not one person has stated in this thread that they are against diversity. You want gay...fine. You want Bi/lesbian, pan sexual...sure why not...(although one could argue...why is that needed in SW at all) but don’t retcon an established character!

It’s not really that hard to understand is it?

In this case I agree, but at the same time, a lot if people say thIs, but still resist and complain about every attempt at it.
 
Last edited:
This gay Lando reveal is way too aggressive

You are so easily triggered. This is not a "gay Lando" reveal. And Lando calling Solo "Baby" or the droid accusing him of flirting is a big zero in support of that. Until you see Lando on screen being "gay" or whatever else makes you uncomfortable, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. That's the score.
 
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.
Back
Top