Solo: A Star Wars Story

ESB is the only movie he's shown to be hitting on Leia, the supposed source for his "ladies man" moniker. He's more shown to be generally charismatic, able to smile his way out of any situation, but I'll let that go for now. ESB is a 2 hour 7 minute movie, Lando is in it for 9 minutes. Of those 9 minutes, he makes what, 2 passes at Leia? Each instance lasts under a minute. So you're judging a man's entire life based on less than 2 minutes of his 9 minute screen time. And that >2 minutes is being extraordinarily generous. Furthermore, I don't believe I need to remind you what pansexual means, a subject that has already been brought up a number of times. There's nothing here that's being retconned. Nothing that's being contradicted. The only contradictions are the ones in your own assumptions.
 
In one of the special versions of rotj wasn't there a female who got distraught then jabba dropped the dancer into the rancor pit. I may be thinking of different movie here.


Or the fat guy that started crying when Luke killed the rancor?

Or jabba that that hairless rat thing.

So we can infer that they may have had a relationship that wasn't entirely platonic.


It's always been there, you just never knew to look.
 
Wasn't Salacious Crumb more of a pet/court jester than anything? Though, I do remember reading somewhere that in Legends, he had an unrequited adoration and loyalty to Jabba. Sorta a more perverted version of Han and Chewie's platonic relationship.
 
I'm pretty sure she was distraught because she was sick of being a chained up slave being pawned over by a giant slug. Tends to affect people negatively, you know.
Did you just assume she doesn't like to be chained?


I was thinking it was the 6 boob lady not oola.
 
I bet there wouldn't be nearly the same outrage if they revealed that Leia had a previously unknown bisexual relationship on alderaan when she was a fresh faced young lady.
 
Aren't Ewoks pansexual?

YRxw3.gif
 
I can't find the interview, but months ago Stan Lee reacted to some comic character changing and defended fans by saying they weren't upset because they were racist/misogynistic/gender phobic/whatever, it was because they changed their favorite character. For most of the fans, that's it. People get emotionally invested in these characters and get upset when they change them. That's it. I wish people when give other people the benefit of the doubt and chill the hell out before they started throwing accusations or insinuations around. In 2018 the official sport of the U.S. is being offended by another person having an opinion. People need to chill.

Completely agree. Some of the stuff that`s been thrown around at people who just are not happy with unnecessary change to a favorite, already established character has been over reactive and eye opening to say the least.
 
After keeping up with this thread over the last month+ I had very low expectations going into this film tonight.

I was quite pleasantly surprised.

If you want your only Star Wars to be from 1977-1983, don't go see this film. There's nothing here for you.
If you enjoy good storytelling and good old fashioned fun and can get past someone else playing an iconic character, this is the film for you.
 
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?

Spyder, with all due respect, your posts--and this one in particular--are way too long. At least on this subject matter. This is a movie thread on the internet. You cannot expect people to read these novellas.

So, I did not read your post, I only skimmed it. I saw toward the bottom you asked me a question about a speculative story treatment, but I think the question refers back to another gargantuan post you made recently--which I also did not read, but skimmed. Something about Lando's pansexuality being just an act to confuse people? I dunno, man, like I said, these posts are just way too long to read.

Having said that, I'm happy to answer whatever question you have, but you're gonna have to summarize it here for me. Succinctly.

The Wook
 
Reading a lot more of the reviews this morning I am struck by one recurring theme. Far too many people are asking why did they bothered making this at all.

The words "adequate", "sevicable", "OK" are quite common,with phrases like "just fine" ," enjoyable in places" ,"not really special" continually appearing in many posts. One described it like a Netflix version of a Star Wars movie, not consistently bad enough to really hate on it, not enough brilliant moments to make it a great movie, just enough of the bad and the good to keep you watching.

Even the reviewers who loved TLJ are luke warm to it at best. And many of those that gave it a "fresh"score on RT are doing so with a rating that barely scrapes over the pass mark.

Perhaps unsurprisingly its Chewie that seems to be really getting the biggest positive reaction from everybody, with Lando close behind. Alden????
Well, Alden is at his weakest in the beginning where ,without the older more familar characters to spark off, the payoffs for his charcter story arc don't work as well. Later on he gets better, but alot of people seem to be saying hes his own version of Solo, rather than he makes a brilliant Han. They aren't saying he is a disaster in the role, just OK for the most part. Like the bulk of the film.......

And again thats the most common criticism of it along with " there aren't many surprises"or "we know this story already". Which could mean it might be better recieved by the older fans. Or possibly and more likely not.

Given all the garbage thats been floating about this week I might wait until its been out a while. Or not. It didn't work for me when I waited for TLJ and I had dialled expectations well down after reading the feedback here. I guess its going to be a flip a coin on the day.

Saying that there is nothing released over the Half term in the UK for it to compete against (until 6th June Jurassic World2) so it should do quite well.
 
ESB is the only movie he's shown to be hitting on Leia, the supposed source for his "ladies man" moniker. He's more shown to be generally charismatic, able to smile his way out of any situation, but I'll let that go for now. ESB is a 2 hour 7 minute movie, Lando is in it for 9 minutes. Of those 9 minutes, he makes what, 2 passes at Leia? Each instance lasts under a minute. So you're judging a man's entire life based on less than 2 minutes of his 9 minute screen time. And that >2 minutes is being extraordinarily generous. Furthermore, I don't believe I need to remind you what pansexual means, a subject that has already been brought up a number of times. There's nothing here that's being retconned. Nothing that's being contradicted. The only contradictions are the ones in your own assumptions.

What were they supposed to do? Actually say he's straight in the movie?

Han: Lando's not a system. He's a man. And he's only attracted to females.

:rolleyes

A good writer would never explicitly explain a character like that. They would let a characters actions define that character.

It also bears mentioning that ESB was created in the 70's/80's. And would be created with the sensibilities of the time. For a blockbuster that children were going to watch, that meant straight characters. While Star Wars is a timeless tale, it is also a product if it's time.

This "they never actually said he's straight" argument is simply invalid and needs to be let go. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding about good writing and historical perspective.
 
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