Like it's not a bad thing if someone is gay, Lesbian, bisexual, etc, but Lando?? I just smell more PC garbage coming from Disney. It's not that I'm against it per say, I just never saw as Lando as being into guys as well as girls. He's not that type of guy.
shareWhat are you talking about? where is the evidence ? Did you see the movie? Is there a gay scene? tell me.
shareI've heard people say he is in the movie. Idk if it's actually true, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
shareIt was an offhand remark by one of the filmakers. It's not actually in the movie.
shareYes it is. Lando flirts with Han. It's subtle, but there. The co-writer, Jonathan Kasdan also confirmed that Lando is pansexual.
Interview:
"So, given the opportunity to speak with father-and-son “Solo” co-writers Lawrence and Jonathan Kasdan, I asked them about Lando’s possible sexual fluidity. Is he pansexual?
“I would say yes,” Jonathan Kasdan emphatically said.
“There’s a fluidity to Donald and Billy Dee’s [portrayal of Lando’s] sexuality,” Kasdan continued. “I mean, I would have loved to have gotten a more explicitly LGBT character into this movie. I think it’s time, certainly, for that, and I love the fluidity ― sort of the spectrum of sexuality that Donald appeals to and that droids are a part of.”
“He doesn’t make any hard and fast rules. I think it’s fun,” Kasdan said. “I don’t know where it will go.”
His father was more cryptic about the intentions. When I mentioned the moment in the movie when L3 jokes about Lando’s flirty attitude toward Han, Lawrence Kasdan said, “That is her personality. Maybe it means something, maybe it doesn’t.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lando-calrissian-sexual-fluidity-solo-star-wars_us_5af77d59e4b00d7e4c1b37a9
Sounds like a non-issue just like the supposedly "gay moment" in the Beauty and the Beast remake.
I can't say for sure as I haven't seen it yet. But, that's my prediction....
Now, I keep having images of Lando in bed with Chewie.
I don't care if someone is LGBTQ. I don't like KK rewriting established Star Wars characters especially since they're so bad at it. Rey or Poe would've been a better choice. They're also stereotyping a lot with their new agenda. Did they make Lando pansexual because he's a flamboyant dresser?
Like I said, I'm sure in the actual movie it's a non-issue.
shareI'm not sure if you're in denial.
Of course, it won't be obvious in the movie because they don't want to offend more conservative viewers. Meanwhile, they're pandering to the LGBTQ community by hinting at it in the movie and the co-writer confirming it.
It's called playing both sides.
If it's not obvious in the movie, it's a non-issue. It's just trolling for more publicity.
share"It's just trolling for more publicity."
That and pandering to a specific demographic.
Obvious for me would be two naked men in bed french kissing. A Star Wars movie is going to be more subtle than that.
It'll probably be more explicit in the novelization. For instance, throughout The Last Jedi novel, Rose was longing romantically for Finn and jealous of Rey. In the movie, the "romantic attraction" is only shown at the end.
It won't be obvious in anything except the comments made, just like that stupid Beauty and the Beast thing....
shareor the even stupider Lesbo-valkyrie thing in Thor:Fragglerock which turned out to be (cut out) bait to lure in certain demographics and create social buzz, faux-relevance and critics' favor.
It's an old marketing ploy and we are playing along.
Dude, he's a PYMP who is too suave and debonair for labels or limitations. He does what he wants... and WHO he wants!
shareWhy do SJW’s have to shove sexual orientation in our faces all the time?
In the original Star Wars movies a great many of the characters could have been gay but it wasn’t important to the story, revealing a characters sexual orientation never is important to the story unless romance is thrown in.
Grand Moff Tarkin or Wedge could of been gay for example but it doesn’t change the story of New Hope one bit so it’s never mentioned.
Well, Luke did say to Wedge "You can't do any more good back there..."
shareThe heterosexuality of Luke, Han and Leia were "shoved," right? After all, that triangle and subsequent romance was 100% irrelevant to the original trilogy, completely unnecessary.
share*sigh* The key difference worth noting Frog, is that heterosexuality is and always has been the proclivity of the overwhelming majority of people so there's that. More to the point though is that Han's romance with Leia in particular played a significant role in his character growth and development from the selfish, greedy scoundrel to the selfless hero. It's a far cry from some out of left field retcon tacked on way after the fact.
shareAh, so your first argument is tyranny of the majority. Got it.
Second argument is inconsequential because Han's growth is due to finding a place in the Rebellion and fighting for what's right.
His relationship with Leia simply BENEFITED from that.
I'm afraid "tyranny" doesn't have anything to do with anything here. It's just about what naturally "is". You can look at it however you wan't but the fact is Han's and Leia's growing love for each other and the way he changed for the better because of it was inexorably linked with his investment in the rebellion.
He specifically opted to abandon his plan to leave the rebellion to see to his own impending affairs with a Jabba in order to protect Leia, despite knowing the dangerous situation he was putting himself in when before his attitude was "Better her than me". That's character development. Subjectively debating about the exact percentile of influence is neither here nor there. The point is it played a meaningful part of the narrative and wasn't just awkwardly thrown in.
The "tyranny" of what brought you into existence and 4 billion years of other life, yes. I wonder when you SJWs will be breeded out of the genepool... hopefully sooner rather than later.
And guess what, when you make entertainment for the general public, you are in fact going to integrate the majority opinion and preference (which is overwhelming in this instance) more of the time than not... how absolutely crazy, right.
Because Disney has to push their liberal agenda is why.
shareI wouldn't care at all if this screenwriter decided to create a brand new character to fill his agenda but for this (white) Joe Blow screenwriter to believe he can just like that retcon the one single iconic black (straight) male character in all of Star Wars into some sexually ambiguous nonsense is completely unnecessary, dumb and disrespectful.
That's some kind of arrogance that some random (screenwriter thinks he gets to alter an iconic Star Wars character of 40 years into something he was never meant to be just to get some virtue signal brownie points because he couldn't come up with an interesting enough character of his own to pull this crap with. No thank you. Do this crap with your own original characters instead of high jacking & redefining ones that are already established and iconic.
why? because it is society's DEFAULT way to get free press via potential controversy.
because we're DUMB ENOUGH to fall for it repeatedly.