Solo: A Star Wars Story

Well, I guess they found their scapegoat for when this turd drops. Now they can just label everyone who doesn't give it glowing reviews as an intolerant, pansexual-hating bigot.

Star Wars never has to make a bad movie ever again so long as they can blame the negative reviews on "intolerance."

Brilliant marketing.

In fact, it's almost as if they saw the less than stellar reviews coming in after the embargo lifted and were like "Quick, scramble the narratives! What group are we targeting this time? Get an interview going STAT!"
 
Last edited:
Now I know where to look, this is the original article:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...ty-solo-star-wars_us_5af77d59e4b00d7e4c1b37a9

Its VERY clear the reporter went into this with a definite agenda on LGBT characters. He has deliberately brought up the suggestion on pansexuality and Jonathon has panicked and poured out the platitudes, rather than possibly cause offence. This is hugely annoying.
Want proof . This is the same reporter on Poe and Finn:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...ng-to-john-boyega_us_5a9f0a22e4b0e9381c131d76

I have to feel slightly sorry for Junior Kasdan. He's just not the sharpest knife in the kitchen when it comes to interviews . His father ,when faced with the same question, obviously tried to put it into context and doesn't fall into the same trap.

Its very clear this is nothing AT ALL on the scale very heavily suggested by the reporter (nor anything to do with Lucasfilm other than their writer not handling the question very well) . The reporter deliberately formulated and asked the question, he's put this idea out there and then built up the case around it as he writes the article ,very selectively. If anyone can be accused of fanning the flames its him. I wouldn't dare suggest his likely sexual preferences but I suggest he sticks to fan fiction in the future and writes his dream screenplay "Lando : The Scarlet Cape" and hope Lucasfilm doesn't sue .

I'd like to say more, in much stronger and descriptive terms but then I'm likely to be criticised for being another kind of stereotype.

As regards the reporter ,a famous Monty Python said it best : "Its people like you whot cause unrest."
 
Last edited:
bfd7f55a3750d871c78fb06c24452a44.jpg
 
Now I know where to look, this is the original article:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...ty-solo-star-wars_us_5af77d59e4b00d7e4c1b37a9

Its VERY clear the reporter went into this with a definite agenda on LGBT characters. He has deliberately brought up the suggestion on pansexuality and Jonathon has panicked and poured out the platitudes, rather than possibly cause offence. This is hugely annoying.
Want proof . This is the same reporter on Poe and Finn:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...ng-to-john-boyega_us_5a9f0a22e4b0e9381c131d76

I have to feel slightly sorry for Junior Kasdan. He's just not the sharpest knife in the kitchen when it comes to interviews . His father ,when faced with the same question, obviously tried to put it into context and doesn't fall into the same trap.

Its very clear this is nothing AT ALL on the scale very heavily suggested by the reporter (nor anything to do with Lucasfilm other than their writer not handling the question very well) . The reporter deliberately formulated and asked the question, he's put this idea out there and then built up the case around it as he writes the article ,very selectively. If anyone can be accused of fanning the flames its him. I wouldn't dare suggest his likely sexual preferences but I suggest he sticks to fan fiction in the future and writes his dream screenplay "Lando : The Scarlet Cape" and hope Lucasfilm doesn't sue .

I'd like to say more, in much stronger and descriptive terms but then I'm likely to be criticised for being another kind of stereotype.

As regards the reporter ,a famous Monty Python said it best : "Its people like you whot cause unrest."

So...this is Fake News, basically.
 
Why draw attention to a characters sexuality unless it is specifically part of the narrative. It’s not something that matters or has any relevance. A person is a person. Why do they need to be labelled or put in a category? Do people only watch movies if they feel they are being represented?

Though I have disagreed with you on other things, i completely agree on this point.

Unless a given character's orientation serves the plot directly it is not relevant and does not need to be highlighted... because if you *do* highlight it--and it's not because the story specifically needs it--then it doesn't make your character more interesting... it only shows that you are pandering to a desired audience for the sake of doing it.

And let's be clear, I have ZERO problem with LGBT individuals. I have many many good friends who belong to that category. And in my real life experiences with them, their orientation has zero to do with why they are my friends or why i like them. I like them because they are good people and are interesting in many ways...but not *BECAUSE* of their given orientation. That is their private business, and is not a reason at all why i chose them as friends. They are not defined by whom they are attracted to, or what gender they may identify as.

So if in real life a person's orientation doesn't enrich my appreciation for their character, why would it do so in a movie?

Any time a point is made about highlighting a character's orientation without it being in service of the story i find it tedious and in disservice to the character itself.
 
Now I know where to look, this is the original article:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...ty-solo-star-wars_us_5af77d59e4b00d7e4c1b37a9

Its VERY clear the reporter went into this with a definite agenda on LGBT characters. He has deliberately brought up the suggestion on pansexuality and Jonathon has panicked and poured out the platitudes, rather than possibly cause offence. This is hugely annoying.
Want proof . This is the same reporter on Poe and Finn:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...ng-to-john-boyega_us_5a9f0a22e4b0e9381c131d76

I have to feel slightly sorry for Junior Kasdan. He's just not the sharpest knife in the kitchen when it comes to interviews . His father ,when faced with the same question, obviously tried to put it into context and doesn't fall into the same trap.

Its very clear this is nothing AT ALL on the scale very heavily suggested by the reporter (nor anything to do with Lucasfilm other than their writer not handling the question very well) . The reporter deliberately formulated and asked the question, he's put this idea out there and then built up the case around it as he writes the article ,very selectively. If anyone can be accused of fanning the flames its him. I wouldn't dare suggest his likely sexual preferences but I suggest he sticks to fan fiction in the future and writes his dream screenplay "Lando : The Scarlet Cape" and hope Lucasfilm doesn't sue .

I'd like to say more, in much stronger and descriptive terms but then I'm likely to be criticised for being another kind of stereotype.

As regards the reporter ,a famous Monty Python said it best : "Its people like you whot cause unrest."


Thanks for posting this mate .
Sounds like this ‘ Hack ‘ was more interested in creating News rather than reporting it ! - What a schit stirrer :behave

Ged
 
Now I know where to look, this is the original article:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...ty-solo-star-wars_us_5af77d59e4b00d7e4c1b37a9

Its VERY clear the reporter went into this with a definite agenda on LGBT characters. He has deliberately brought up the suggestion on pansexuality and Jonathon has panicked and poured out the platitudes, rather than possibly cause offence. This is hugely annoying.
Want proof . This is the same reporter on Poe and Finn:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...ng-to-john-boyega_us_5a9f0a22e4b0e9381c131d76

I have to feel slightly sorry for Junior Kasdan. He's just not the sharpest knife in the kitchen when it comes to interviews . His father ,when faced with the same question, obviously tried to put it into context and doesn't fall into the same trap.

Its very clear this is nothing AT ALL on the scale very heavily suggested by the reporter (nor anything to do with Lucasfilm other than their writer not handling the question very well) . The reporter deliberately formulated and asked the question, he's put this idea out there and then built up the case around it as he writes the article ,very selectively. If anyone can be accused of fanning the flames its him. I wouldn't dare suggest his likely sexual preferences but I suggest he sticks to fan fiction in the future and writes his dream screenplay "Lando : The Scarlet Cape" and hope Lucasfilm doesn't sue .

I'd like to say more, in much stronger and descriptive terms but then I'm likely to be criticised for being another kind of stereotype.

As regards the reporter ,a famous Monty Python said it best : "Its people like you whot cause unrest."

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
 
Last edited:
I'm so weak. Just bought my ticket for 7:00 Thursday. I wasn't gonna get hyped. Then I heard a massive spoiler and...choo choo! All aboard the hype train!
 
If that WERE the case Wook, then why doesn't the older Kasdan give the same answer to the same question? Because in all probablity ,like me, he didn't even know what the ******* word "Pansexual" meant. A deep attraction to kitchen cooking utensils ??? I'm fairly well read but even I had to look it up.

Given the sensitivity with the fanbase over the treatment of older SW characters by Lucasfilm plus the fairly ambivalent ( and sometimes strongly negative ) reaction towards "Solo", its lead actor in the role, plus the crisis they have had making it do you honestly think they would intentionally pour more petrol on the fire by doing this? You know like, lets really give the fans who hate what we are doing to SW even more ammo to shoot us down?

In all probablity the answer is no. I reserve judgement but I don't belive they are that stupid.

Why?
Because they are hoping it will do well enough that they can make enough money off of it to cover the massive costs involved in reshooting a huge amount of it, and probably make trilogy of Solo films. That won't happen if it bombs.

The most interesting thing for me out of all this has been reading the feedback from ALL sides of the arguement. The LGBT community is of the opinion ( for the most part like a number of us) that retconning a character like this is lipservice at best, cowardice at worst.

My initial reaction to the news was like yours. Deeply annoyed. A number of us have been rather badly upset in the direction new SW has gone. So its not surprising we are deeply suspcious and reactionary towards any rumour of further character changes.

But Yes.In my opinion it is "Fake news" Thats basically it.

Landos taste in bespoken tailored capes, a suspiously clean and well maintained spaceship , his dangerously pimp and decorated crew quarters caused a certain person to run around screeching in utter joy that there may possibly, you know, be a GAY character in SW. Because somebody who takes so much self interest in himself MUST BE (plus he also called Han "baby." Now theres the smoking gun).

But wait. This doesn't fit into HIS STORY. Its never been mentioned anywhere in SW before. Didn't he make a pass at that Princess Leia? So thats not right but maybe that makes him bi. But hold on ,his female robot got bitchy about the "baby" comment. Maybe he is into robots!!!And isn't that gold robot in SW supposed to be gay??? So the reporter is so confused but desparately wants to draw attention to this possibility so what can he make him, what ,what, what s the word?

Pansexual, that will do, that will cover EVERYTHING.

Do you honestly think Disney and Lucasfilm would go along with that?

Jonathon got mugged. He got a question that he had no idea how to handle, he panicked, tried to be conicilatory and say, well ,maybe its a good idea, perhaps in the future and the reporter leapt on it. His father absolutely didn't. And he helped write the character in the first place.

Want another example? Bryancd just posted it. Another reporter out of nowhere pops up with the same question, both guys look "surprised" and rather than cause a strong reportable rebuke, just agree with it, no story here, lets not cause any offense to any life forms.

I got to admit Donalds OTT reply made me laugh, the Disney PR department must be having a heart attack. It sounds like he wants to shag anything and everything in the SW universe. Which unfortunately probably makes him likely to be the first registered galactic sex offender in SW history (canon and non canon) and certainly in a DIsney movie.

He obviously DOESN'T want his own Lando movie to be ever made.Go Donald!!!
 
Last edited:
[Kasdan] panicked, tried to be conicilatory and say, well ,maybe its a good idea, perhaps in the future and the reporter leapt on it.

That is a gross mischaracterization of what he said.

And Glover has just doubled down on Lando being pansexual. So there's THAT!

The Wook

ps~Besides, anyone who sits down for an interview with that liberal outlet knows full well what kind of questions they're gonna be asked.

pps~Why would Disney/LFL do this? Well, @joshvanrad already answered that question. They're anticipating a bomb, they've likely already written the film off as a loser, and to save whatever artistic face they can, they've decided this "pansexual" reveal will put them in position to point the fingers at critics of the film, calling them out as homophobes. Just like Ruin Johnson said that anyone who doesn't like TLJ feels that way simply because they are sexist--intimidated by, and contemptuous of, strong female characters in films.
 
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?
 
tumblr_ouh7t2U4W21qgvqxoo5_r1_400.gif


Also...
Lucas wasn't advocating for more inclusion of incest, to be fair, so it's apples and oranges.
To be fair, Leia wasn't Luke's sister until writing sessions for Return of the Jedi. Luke's sister was going to be a new character, but, now that there was only going to be that one more Star Wars movie, and not three more after it (Luke movies -- not even the Prequels that he also wasn't going to make), the job ended up getting foisted onto Leia, being one of only four female characters with lines up to that point -- and of those, one was Beru, who was out for age, squick-factor, and barbecue reasons; and another was Camie, who was cut from the released film, so cna be considered moot (though I kinda like the idea of her turning out to be Luke's sister). So, really, it was Leia or the "stand by, Ion Control" lady.
 
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