1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

No "true fan test." Back to my analogy, who would you ask for an analysis of a complicated question about WWII? A WWII historian, or someone who watched Band of Brothers once? No gatekeeping there, just a matter of who knows more about a certain topic.

There’s a reason apples taste different than oranges.

If I wanted analysis of a complicated question about a real life event, such as WW II, there are people to go to.

If, however, I want to hear an opinion on an actor’s performance in a work of entertainment, anyone who’s seen the movie is eligible to offer their conclusions.

4 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

No, not at all. Again, there's no "true fan test."
You and I are both Star Wars fans who just disagree about where on the same target the dart landed, and I'm perfectly fine with that. You seem to be a pretty invested Star Wars fan, and I respect your opinion even if I disagree. Holding or not holding a certain opinion (aside from ones like "I like Star Wars) doesn't make you a Star Wars fan or not a Star Wars fan. To look at the previous analogy, two WWII historians of equal merit could give you contradictory analyses of the same question.

And yet, if someone isn’t the proper type or degree of Star Wars fan, you find their conclusions regarding an actor’s performance to be less worthy of consideration.

Sure, we could go back to your WWII example. I’d rather not, though, because I don’t want oranges in my apple pie.

7 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

First, please stop using the term "true fan" because it's stupid and not what I'm talking about. It's a strawman.

OK. When you stop making the distinction between “Star Wars fans” and the rest of the audience, bestowing more importance upon the smaller segment.

11 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

No, I'm not suggesting that. But I'd guess that most of the time, a Star Wars ornament is purchased by a Star Wars fan or for a Star Wars fan, not just the "general audiences."

Spend 19 years and counting married to someone who collects Hallmark ornaments, then make that guess again. 😁

10 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You know what the simple solution to this is? Treat people as individuals. Which I do. Every situation and every person is different, and when you don't come with a bunch of labels and categories, life is much simpler and more enjoyable.

Unless, it seems, you’re talking about someone’s response to an actor’s performance. Then, you apply heirarchies of validity to their opinions, based upon how they meet your standards of appreciation of the property.

2 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Unless, it seems, you’re talking about someone’s response to an actor’s performance. Then, you apply heirarchies of validity to their opinions, based upon how they meet your standards of appreciation of the property.

No. Because I judge them as individuals. What I'm pointing out is a tendency. A tendency for people to ask/answer different questions depending on their background. A die-hard Lando fan is probably going to ask "does this measure up to Billy Dee Williams?" while a casual observer is more likely to ask "do I like this?"

Both are equally valid, but are asking different questions and one has more undergirding his conclusion.

5 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

If I wanted analysis of a complicated question about a real life event, such as WW II, there are people to go to.

If, however, I want to hear an opinion on an actor’s performance in a work of entertainment, anyone who’s seen the movie is eligible to offer their conclusions.

Again, that depends on the question, as it does with many questions.

If, for example, the question is "Is TLJ a good Star Wars movie?" a Star Wars fan who knows the material well has a more educated opinion (whichever answer they give) than someone who doesn't care that much about Star Wars and just wanted to watch an action movie. If the question was "Is TLJ an enjoyable movie?" then they'd be on equal footing, if still coming to their answers (whichever they are) from massively different perspectives.

So if I say "I think TLJ was a terrible Star Wars movie" and you say "but a bunch of casual viewers liked it" that does nothing to convince me. If you say "I thought it was a good Star Wars movie, and here's why" I'm still going to disagree, but that has potential to shift my position because you are answering the same question differently.

If I watch a Transformers movie, I will have an opinion on its quality and on how much I enjoyed it. But, having practically no prior knowledge of Transformers, I would not have an opinion on whether or not it's a good Transformers movie or not and my statement of like or dislike should not be cited in a discussion of whether it's a good Transformers movie or not because that's not the question I was answering.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

No. Because I judge them as individuals. What I'm pointing out is a tendency. A tendency for people to ask/answer different questions depending on their background. A die-hard Lando fan is probably going to ask "does this measure up to Billy Dee Williams?" while a casual observer is more likely to ask "do I like this?"

Both are equally valid, but are asking different questions and one has more undergirding his conclusion.

Again, that depends on the question, as it does with many questions.

If, for example, the question is "Is TLJ a good Star Wars movie?" a Star Wars fan who knows the material well has a more educated opinion (whichever answer they give) than someone who doesn't care that much about Star Wars and just wanted to watch an action movie. If the question was "Is TLJ an enjoyable movie?" then they'd be on equal footing, if still coming to their answers (whichever they are) from massively different perspectives.

So if I say "I think TLJ was a terrible Star Wars movie" and you say "but a bunch of casual viewers liked it" that does nothing to convince me. If you say "I thought it was a good Star Wars movie, and here's why" I'm still going to disagree, but that has potential to shift my position because you are answering the same question differently.

If I watch a Transformers movie, I will have an opinion on its quality and on how much I enjoyed it. But, having practically no prior knowledge of Transformers, I would not have an opinion on whether or not it's a good Transformers movie or not and my statement of like or dislike should not be cited in a discussion of whether it's a good Transformers movie or not because that's not the question I was answering.

So, we’re doubling down on the importance and opinions of “true fans,” but justifying it because it’s being applied to all franchises.

And that’s somehow in no way even adjacent to gatekeeping.

Got it.

Just now, Nytwyng said:

So, we’re doubling down on the importance and opinions of “true fans,” but justifying it because it’s being applied to all franchises.

And that’s somehow in no way even adjacent to gatekeeping.

Got it.

No. It's got nothing to do with the concept of a "true fan."

It's a matter of knowing what you're talking about and answering a given question. That's why I made the WWII analogy. If you aren't interested in engaging honestly, I'm not sure why I bother.

It is a plain, clear, undeniable fact that some people are going to be more qualified to answer a given question than others. It's true for WWII, it's true for math, it's true for cooking, it's true for Star Wars, it's true for everything.

Like I said, it depends on the question being asked, and on the person answering it.

Just now, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

No. It's got nothing to do with the concept of a "true fan."

It's a matter of knowing what you're talking about and answering a given question. That's why I made the WWII analogy. If you aren't interested in engaging honestly, I'm not sure why I bother.

It is a plain, clear, undeniable fact that some people are going to be more qualified to answer a given question than others. It's true for WWII, it's true for math, it's true for cooking, it's true for Star Wars, it's true for everything.

Like I said, it depends on the question being asked, and on the person answering it.

“If you don’t reach a certain level of knowledge and investment in this entertainment franchise, your views on this franchise are less important than mine and should be discounted, because I meet those benchmarks.”

How, exactly, is this not using the “true fan” gatekeeping tactics?

3 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

“If you don’t reach a certain level of knowledge and investment in this entertainment franchise, your views on this franchise are less important than mine and should be discounted, because I meet those benchmarks.”

How, exactly, is this not using the “true fan” gatekeeping tactics?

Again, that's a strawman.

No benchmarks. A matter of answering different questions. As I stated multiple times. No "less important" no "discounted."

And if I'm "gatekeeping," what exactly am I "gatekeeping" from? Who am I "gatekeeping"?

3 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Again, that's a strawman.

No benchmarks. A matter of answering different questions. As I stated multiple times. No "less important" no "discounted."

Are you sure? You’ve said over and over who can and can’t say a movie was a “good Star Wars movie,” a “good Transformers movie,” and so on (as opposed to just being able to say, “I liked it”); what limitations certain people have imposed on how far their opinions can go (Ex: certain people can only say that they liked Donald Glover’s performance vs others who are allowed to comment on Glover’s performance as Lando.)

10 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

And if I'm "gatekeeping," what exactly am I "gatekeeping" from? Who am I "gatekeeping"?

As noted earlier, I don’t think you’ve set out to do so consciously like some do. But, you’re saying in so many words that the opinions of those who don’t invest in a franchise to your satisfaction should not be given the same sort of consideration as others’. You’re erecting a barrier separating segments of the audience.

25 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Are you sure? You’ve said over and over who can and can’t say a movie was a “good Star Wars movie,” a “good Transformers movie,” and so on (as opposed to just being able to say, “I liked it”); what limitations certain people have imposed on how far their opinions can go (Ex: certain people can only say that they liked Donald Glover’s performance vs others who are allowed to comment on Glover’s performance as Lando.)

No, I've said that's the question they are typically answering, not that's the only question they are allowed to answer or that they can't answer another question. The issue I take is when you take the answer to one question and use it to argue against an answer to a different question.

To a certain extent, some people may be unable to really draw a conclusion as to "is this a good [qualifier] movie?" because they do not have enough information. But that's not a blanket statement, and is generally pretty subjective.

25 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

As noted earlier, I don’t think you’ve set out to do so consciously like some do. But, you’re saying in so many words that the opinions of those who don’t invest in a franchise to your satisfaction should not be given the same sort of consideration as others’. You’re erecting a barrier separating segments of the audience.

No, not exactly. And I'm certainly not erecting barriers. An opinion has value based on a number of factors. An opinion with more "value" from those factors (which can vary tremendously) is probably going to pull more weight than one that doesn't. That's not something I'm putting on it, that's just a fact of life and a natural and good part of human interaction.

Would you take the word of someone who has never watched the movie over someone who has? That's an example of opinions with different values. Again, all on an individual basis. Even in the above question, there are other factors at play that could change the equation and "value" of the different opinions.

As for the barriers, not at all. If someone wants to talk Star Wars, no matter how much they already know, I'd love to talk Star Wars with them. Hopefully, if they don't know much, they'll learn something and will be set down a path to become more invested and interested in Star Wars. The more the merrier, and if I enjoy something, I want others to enjoy it too.

In that game I mentioned earlier, I was asked if I could GM for a girl I know and her friend. They didn't know much about Star Wars (or RPGs, for that matter) beyond the basics and one of them hadn't even watched all the movies, but had heard me talking about it and thought it might be fun. I agreed because I thought it'd be a great opportunity, both to play the game and to introduce them (they are fairly young) into a hobby and interest that I find quite worthwhile. So I started them as young characters without a whole lot of knowledge or experience so that the players could grow alongside their characters as they discover new things and learn more about the Force rather than my usual bent, which is much more lore-heavy and requires more previous knowledge.
She was having so much fun that she invited another of her friends, also someone who doesn't know a lot about Star Wars, to join the game.

12 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

No, I've said that's the question they are typically answering, not that's the only question they are allowed to answer or that they can't answer another question. The issue I take is when you take the answer to one question and use it to argue against an answer to a different question.

To a certain extent, some people may be unable to really draw a conclusion as to "is this a good [qualifier] movie?" because they do not have enough information. But that's not a blanket statement, and is generally pretty subjective.

So, using one of your own examples....

When I was younger, I had about a dozen Transformers toys (one purchased entirely because it used the Macross Valkyrie/Robotech Varitech molds...it was a better Robotech toy than any Robotech-branded toy out there. 🤣 ) I watched the original cartoon most days after school (although I know there are some I’ve never seen). I read the first couple of years of the Marvel comic series. But, there have been many other Transformers toys, cartoons, comics, and games between then and 2007.

Dare I speak on whether or not Michael Bay made “good Transformers movies?” Or should I keep my broader audience trap shut in deference to “true fans?”

18 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Would you take the word of someone who has never watched the movie over someone who has? That's an example of opinions with different values. Again, all on an individual basis. Even in the above question, there are other factors at play that could change the equation and "value" of the different opinions.

There you go, tossing oranges into the apple pie again.

19 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

As for the barriers, not at all. If someone wants to talk Star Wars, no matter how much they already know, I'd love to talk Star Wars with them. Hopefully, if they don't know much, they'll learn something and will be set down a path to become more invested and interested in Star Wars. The more the merrier, and if I enjoy something, I want others to enjoy it too.

Then! Let! Them!

”Hopefully...they’ll learn something?” Sounds a lot like something we’d hear from...um...Vagrant Images. 😏 There appears to be a lot of assumption built in there, and it circles right back around to devaluing their appreciation of the property.

22 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

In that game I mentioned earlier, I was asked if I could GM for a girl I know and her friend. They didn't know much about Star Wars (or RPGs, for that matter) beyond the basics and one of them hadn't even watched all the movies, but had heard me talking about it and thought it might be fun. I agreed because I thought it'd be a great opportunity, both to play the game and to introduce them (they are fairly young) into a hobby and interest that I find quite worthwhile. So I started them as young characters without a whole lot of knowledge or experience so that the players could grow alongside their characters as they discover new things and learn more about the Force rather than my usual bent, which is much more lore-heavy and requires more previous knowledge.
She was having so much fun that she invited another of her friends, also someone who doesn't know a lot about Star Wars, to join the game.

Great. Sounds fun.

Hopefully, though, none of them expresses an opinion about Donald Glover as Lando until they’ve earned the appropriate XP. 😁

I’ll even go that Transformers example one better.

I’ve never been in the Power Rangers demographic. I was a few years older than the target audience when it hit the States. I’ve seen a few episodes and clips here and there. I understand the broad strokes of it. And it’s just not my thing.

When I heard about the pro-fan-made short Power/Rangers, I watched it. I thought Katee Sackhoff and James Van Der Beek did amazing jobs, and - while acknowledging that it’s a drastic departure from the tone and concept (a charge I myself level at both the Teen Titans cartoons and the Titans live action show), it’s a Power Rangers that I’d be interested in seeing. (I was particularly intrigued by the idea of alien forces conscripting children from uninvolved worlds to be soldiers in their conflict.) But, I suppose I shouldn’t comment on their performances since I’m not a “Power Rangers fan.”

Just now, Nytwyng said:

So, using one of your own examples....

When I was younger, I had about a dozen Transformers toys (one purchased entirely because it used the Macross Valkyrie/Robotech Varitech molds...it was a better Robotech toy than any Robotech-branded toy out there. 🤣 ) I watched the original cartoon most days after school (although I know there are some I’ve never seen). I read the first couple of years of the Marvel comic series. But, there have been many other Transformers toys, cartoons, comics, and games between then and 2007.

Dare I speak on whether or not Michael Bay made “good Transformers movies?” Or should I keep my broader audience trap shut in deference to “true fans?”

Sure you can speak on it. I also have no idea of the broader implications so there might be something I'm missing, but it's up to other people how they view your opinion.

2 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

There you go, tossing oranges into the apple pie again.

No it isn't, it gets to the broad point. Are you saying that all opinions have equal value? That is to prove my point that not all opinions have equal value.

3 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Then! Let! Them!

I... already do?

4 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

”Hopefully...they’ll learn something?” Sounds a lot like something we’d hear from...um...Vagrant Images. 😏 There appears to be a lot of assumption built in there, and it circles right back around to devaluing their appreciation of the property.

I said "If they don't know much, hopefully they'll learn something." That means, hopefully they will take in new information that they find interesting. I don't what's so hard to grasp about that.

4 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Hopefully, though, none of them expresses an opinion about Donald Glover as Lando until they’ve earned the appropriate XP. 😁

If they say "Oh, I thought Glover was a great Lando!" I'll say "Cool, why do think that?" Not as a passive-aggressive "that's dumb" but as a legitimate question. Why do you draw this conclusion? I don't say "you don't know enough to have that opinion."

1 minute ago, Nytwyng said:

But, I suppose I shouldn’t comment on their performances since I’m not a “Power Rangers fan.”

That is not at all what I've been saying.

I direct you to this:

33 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

No, I've said that's the question they are typically answering, not that's the only question they are allowed to answer or that they can't answer another question. The issue I take is when you take the answer to one question and use it to argue against an answer to a different question.

12 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Sure you can speak on it. I also have no idea of the broader implications so there might be something I'm missing, but it's up to other people how they view your opinion.

Why thank you for your blessing.

Now...someone who’s watched the Star Wars movies from time to time. They get to comment on Glover’s portrayal of Lando? Or must they steep themselves in ancillary media to do so?

It is indeed apples and oranges. You’re now equating someone who’s not seen a movie at all with someone who has but doesn’t meet your standards to comment in a manner you approve.

Why must they take in information that you want them to in order to enjoy something or discuss it to your satisfaction?

17 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

If they say "Oh, I thought Glover was a great Lando!" I'll say "Cool, why do think that?" Not as a passive-aggressive "that's dumb" but as a legitimate question. Why do you draw this conclusion? I don't say "you don't know enough to have that opinion."

Yet you’ve explicitly stated that without some abstract level of knowledge about the character, they can’t comment on Glover’s performance as Lando...just his performance in general. Or rather, that they can comment on it, but you’ll consider their view to carry less weight than that of someone who’s steeped themselves in all of the ancillary media but still might not actually get all of the information they’ve consumed.

Again, I don’t think you’re doing it consciously or maliciously. But, it sounds like you’ve set up conditions for yourself in which there are “true fans” (sorry...there’s just not a better catch-all term) and everyone else, and the “true fans” are the only ones with viewpoints with listening to (unless, of course, they can satisfactorily justify their opinions to a “true fan”).

25 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Are you saying that all opinions have equal value? That is to prove my point that not all opinions have equal value.

They certainly don't,

If Carpenter gives his opinion on whether something is structually sound, I'm going to put more weight on his opinion than his apprentice who lacks the experience and knowledge.

On 12/1/2020 at 11:29 AM, Nytwyng said:

I have honestly never heard of anyone who didn’t care for Glover’s performance.

And, I notice that you chose (once again) to gnaw on a single bone, and conveniently ignore every other example provided.

Most...honestly don’t care, as long as they enjoy the performance and the story overall.

The James Bond franchise must be pure torture for you, causing even greater apoplectic fits.

First off, Donald Glover played the part well. I don’t take that away from him. My point was that he doesn’t resemble Billy Dee Williams all that much. He does look more like his predecessor than Eirenreich does though.

On 12/1/2020 at 11:39 AM, Nytwyng said:

Preach!

In my earlier examples, I included Brandon Routh and Tyler Hoechlin, both of whom have played Superman. When they appeared side-by-side as different universes’ Superman in the Arrowverse’s Crisis on Infinite Earths crossover last year, Hoechlin appeared much smaller than Routh. But they’ve got a whole 2 inches difference between them. And when Hoechlin shared the screen with Tom Welling as Smallville ’s version of Clark Kent, the difference didn’t appear as striking despite 3 inches difference between them.

Of course, all of this presupposes that the audience is sitting there looking for the minor quibble made up of an apparent height difference between two actors playing the same character years apart, in different installments in a series/franchise. And, honestly, to date I can count the number of people I’ve seen do that on one hand finger.

The difference with the Superman situation you brought up is you’re dealing with different versions from different continuities. The Brandon Routh Superman is not the Henry Cavill Superman, who is not the Tyler Hoechlin Superman, who is not the Dean Cain Superman, etc. each is a distinct character in his own right . So having variety in height and/or appearance is entirely appropriate.

This is not the case with Han Solo, Lando Calrissian, or Luke Skywalker. Han Solo should look like Harrison Ford, and be the same height. The same with Lando looking like Billy Dee and being the same height as him, and Luke not only looking like Mark Hamill, but also being within one inch of his height. Get the heights right.

At 6’, Sebastian Stan is an inch shorter than Harrison Ford. He towers over Mark Hamill’s 5’9” height. He is also an inch taller than Pedro Pascal (5’11”), and the same height as Brendan Wayne (one of Pascal’s body doubles in the show). That’s the problem. Luke Skywalker is much shorter than Din Djarin . Sebastian Stan is the same height or taller than Din Djarin.

3 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

They certainly don't,

If Carpenter gives his opinion on whether something is structually sound, I'm going to put more weight on his opinion than his apprentice who lacks the experience and knowledge.

As I told our P-47, though...that’s an apples and oranges issue.

A carpenter has objective skills, as well as physics and science to back up his opinion.

Meanwhile, when discussing an actor’s performance as an existing character, there’s little or nothing comparable involved, unless we want such performers to strictly mimic those who’ve come before in the role. Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig should all have been doing Sean Connery impressions, for example.

Perhaps an example a bit closer to the mark is Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh as Superman. Routh captured a lot of the essence of Reece’s Superman, and sometimes it did seem that he was doing an impression of Reeve, but he also added his own touches and interpretation. The same can be said of Glover as Lando when compared to Williams. They’re clearly the same character with similar traits and attitudes, but different performances (as to be expected since they’re different performers).

But, apparently, saying, “I thought Glover did a good job as Lando,” requires a dissertation on why, with credentials to prove one’s fan status.

1 minute ago, Nytwyng said:

Why thank you for your blessing.

Now...someone who’s watched the Star Wars movies from time to time. They get to comment on Glover’s portrayal of Lando? Or must they steep themselves in ancillary media to do so?

Show me where I said they couldn't.

1 minute ago, Nytwyng said:

It is indeed apples and oranges. You’re now equating someone who’s not seen a movie at all with someone who has but doesn’t meet your standards to comment in a manner you approve.

Nope. Already addressed this multiple times.

2 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Why must they take in information that you want them to in order to enjoy something or discuss it to your satisfaction?

Not what I said at all.
When I was first getting into Star Wars, I didn't know a lot. I started out going "Ooo... X-Wings!" and then I'd learn about X-Wings. Then I'd learn about Y-Wings and go "Ooo... those are cool too!" and then I'd take in even more information, and it'd make me like Star Wars more.
So if someone has a very base level of knowledge, and then you introduce something new, something they find fascinating, maybe they'll be more interested in Star Wars and want to learn more on their own. Maybe I can loan them a visual dictionary I have on my shelf so they can flip through and explore it themselves.

6 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Yet you’ve explicitly stated that without some abstract level of knowledge about the character, they can’t comment on Glover’s performance as Lando...just his performance in general. Or rather, that they can comment on it, but you’ll consider their view to carry less weight than that of someone who’s steeped themselves in all of the ancillary media but still might not actually get all of the information they’ve consumed.

Again, I don’t think you’re doing it consciously or maliciously. But, it sounds like you’ve set up conditions for yourself in which there are “true fans” (sorry...there’s just not a better catch-all term) and everyone else, and the “true fans” are the only ones with viewpoints with listening to (unless, of course, they can satisfactorily justify their opinions to a “true fan”).

I have not explicitly stated that, because I never said that at all.

Again, you are missing the individuality point. As I've stated many times, I do not have criteria, I judge people on an individual basis.

This whole time I've been saying that opinions have different values based on a number of factors.

Separately, people sometimes answer different questions. If I answer the question of "Do you think Glover did a good job playing Lando?" and say no, then you can't take a bunch of people answering the question of "Did you enjoy Glover's performance?" and say "look, all these people disagree with you. That means your opinion is invalid."

There are no "true fans" and "everybody else" because I look at people as individuals, and everyone has a different level of knowledge and understanding in different areas and categories.

As for "satisfactorily justifying their opinions," no. I would ask anybody "why?" when they state they think a certain way. "Why do you like that? Why do you think that?"

2 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

But, apparently, saying, “I thought Glover did a good job as Lando,” requires a dissertation on why, with credentials to prove one’s fan status.

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The difference with the Superman situation you brought up is you’re dealing with different versions from different continuities. The Brandon Routh Superman is not the Henry Cavill Superman, who is not the Tyler Hoechlin Superman, who is not the Dean Cain Superman, etc. each is a distinct character in his own right . So having variety in height and/or appearance is entirely appropriate.

(I totally forgot Cain. I think I’ve tried to put him out of my mind. 🤣 )
Still ignoring the other examples, I see.

Three inches difference between the actors playing Becky Conner.

Four each between the actors playing Jim Rhodes and Bruce Banner.

Two to three between actors playing the “same” Bruce Wayne.

The audiences didn’t care. Not about their heights, relative to each other or other actors carrying over from other installments, anyway.

14 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

At 6’, Sebastian Stan is an inch shorter than Harrison Ford. He towers over Mark Hamill’s 5’9” height. He is also an inch taller than Pedro Pascal (5’11”), and the same height as Brendan Wayne (one of Pascal’s body doubles in the show). That’s the problem. Luke Skywalker is much shorter than Din Djarin . Sebastian Stan is the same height or taller than Din Djarin.

Let’s take all the thrashing and shouting about character heights as a given.

And let’s assume that anyone other than you cares that, for a hypothetical appearance, an actor playing Luke is 3 inches taller than another actor playing Luke.

This is not an insurmountable problem, and is done all the time in tv and movies.

Yet here we are...you’re screaming that one actor didn’t resemble another who’d played the character enough to your satisfaction, despite turning in a performance that you liked, while at the same time ranting that an actor who does resemble another who’d previously played the part shouldn’t be hired because of three inches, in an industry that fudges performers’ heights every single day.

21 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

First off, Donald Glover played the part well. I don’t take that away from him. My point was that he doesn’t resemble Billy Dee Williams all that much. He does look more like his predecessor than Eirenreich does though.

I understand that Lando isn't a real person, and that throughout the ages, roles in classical stories have been portrayed by a great many different actors. Lando looks exactly like whomever is playing him.

So from where I am standing, it doesn't really matter even a tiny little bit whether Donald Glover looks like Billy Dee Williams or not. But I do strongly feel that Glover portrayed the collection of tropes that make up Lando's character a lot better then Williams did. Of course, you'd have to watch Glover portray the older, more responsible, less rogueish Lando from Empire to make a real comparison.

And if you're making a movie that has young Lando in it in 2018, Donald Glover is going to do an infinitely better job than 80 year old Billy Dee Williams.

22 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

apparently, saying, “I thought Glover did a good job as Lando,” requires a dissertation on why, with credentials to prove one’s fan status.

I don't think he's saying that at all... 🤔

You're clearly an intelligent dude, but you seem to be missing his point and wrapping up his argument with word play.

From my point of view anyway...

2 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

(I totally forgot Cain. I think I’ve tried to put him out of my mind. 🤣 )
Still ignoring the other examples, I see.

Three inches difference between the actors playing Becky Conner.

Four each between the actors playing Jim Rhodes and Bruce Banner.

Two to three between actors playing the “same” Bruce Wayne.

The audiences didn’t care. Not about their heights, relative to each other or other actors carrying over from other installments, anyway.

Let’s take all the thrashing and shouting about character heights as a given.

And let’s assume that anyone other than you cares that, for a hypothetical appearance, an actor playing Luke is 3 inches taller than another actor playing Luke.

This is not an insurmountable problem, and is done all the time in tv and movies.

Yet here we are...you’re screaming that one actor didn’t resemble another who’d played the character enough to your satisfaction, despite turning in a performance that you liked, while at the same time ranting that an actor who does resemble another who’d previously played the part shouldn’t be hired because of three inches, in an industry that fudges performers’ heights every single day.

I wouldn’t have hired Glover for Lando either, nor would I have hired Eirenreich for Han Solo. It wasn’t my choice, however. The industry has to use multiple various camera tricks or outright special effects to fudge performers’ heights. That wouldn’t be necessary if they simply hired people who were the right heights for their roles in the first place.

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I wouldn’t have hired Glover for Lando either, nor would I have hired Eirenreich for Han Solo. It wasn’t my choice, however. The industry has to use multiple various camera tricks or outright special effects to fudge performers’ heights. That wouldn’t be necessary if they simply hired people who were the right heights for their roles in the first place.

I think height is obviously something they factor. But there has to be many things to actually factor. Actors ability, voice, tone, appearance, age, capturing the feel or essence of the character. Some of those are more important than something like height. You can fudge height. You can't fudge the voice or acting ability.

Finding someone within one inch of the original character while still hitting the more important qualities is setting the standards too high, which you'll be unlikely to meet in a selection of talented actors.

this is me, putting my two cents...

I liked all actors in Solo, and enjoy it as the world building Outer Rim style movie it is.. (along with Rogue One) I enjoy taking a break from the standard Jedi vs Sith and seeing how the Everyman lives in the Galaxy far far away...

While I didn't personally like how the sequels turned out, I enjoyed the actors (even though I was disappointed with how the Characters were treated, or misused..).. I also felt there was a disconnect between these three movies and the last 6. (not just from the extensive time jump, which is the longest jump in the entire saga.. it also had very little background information to catch us up with. and yes I know "there weren't any for any of the others, Ruus".. however...) In 4-5-6 you are introduced to the world of Star Wars and were given sufficient information to understand there was history. 1-2-3 despite perceived flaws, expanded the World, added backstory.. Now we have the Rise and Fall of Aniken and Vader.... Then 7.. while a retread of 4, there was enough for a stepping off point into something new... Just enough to be familiar and enough was set up to go in new directions.. A reformed Stormtrooper? Awesome, I'm ready to explore that character... oh.. 8 is a few hours after 7, and Finn is back to running away... in 9 he spent most of his time yelling Rey!

Oh, and Han Solo went from "not caring about your little rebellion" to a major player in it.... and then 30 years later is a deadbeat dad, who left Leia alone for.. a decade or two?

say what you want about the old EU (and the Vong) but that series had consequences. Chewie had a moon dropped on him... and he roared in defiance, in face of knowing he was going to die. (I challenge anyone who grew up watching these movies as a child, and only had the original Thrawn series and other books not shed a tear for Chewie in that moment)

Just now, micheldebruyn said:

I understand that Lando isn't a real person, and that throughout the ages, roles in classical stories have been portrayed by a great many different actors. Lando looks exactly like whomever is playing him.

So from where I am standing, it doesn't really matter even a tiny little bit whether Donald Glover looks like Billy Dee Williams or not. But I do strongly feel that Glover portrayed the collection of tropes that make up Lando's character a lot better then Williams did. Of course, you'd have to watch Glover portray the older, more responsible, less rogueish Lando from Empire to make a real comparison.

And if you're making a movie that has young Lando in it in 2018, Donald Glover is going to do an infinitely better job than 80 year old Billy Dee Williams.

That last part is obvious, but I will counter by saying that you could find an actor that was both closer in height, and looked mired like Williams. The same is even more true of Harrison Ford. We’ve already seen an actor ( in fact more than one) who is a dead ringer for Ford, and who played a younger version of him in the same movie with Ford ( Age of Adeline ). The actor in question being Anthony Ingruber . At 6’ tall, he’s also only an inch shorter than Ford. He would have been the perfect choice for a young Han Solo. That’s a far cry from someone who is 6’ replacing an actor who is only 5’9” tall. A better choice for a younger Luke would be one of Hamill’s two sons, Nathan or Griffin, both of whom are of a similar height to their father and also bare a strong resemblance to him. They’re also both actors.

12 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

I think height is obviously something they factor. But there has to be many things to actually factor. Actors ability, voice, tone, appearance, age, capturing the feel or essence of the character. Some of those are more important than something like height. You can fudge height. You can't fudge the voice or acting ability.

Finding someone within one inch of the original character while still hitting the more important qualities is setting the standards too high, which you'll be unlikely to meet in a selection of talented actors.

I don’t think it is. Look at Obi Wan. GL went out of his way to cast an actor who was essentially a dead ringer for a young Alec Guinness. Not only does Ewan McGreggor look and sound like Alec Guinness, but they’re the exact same height (5’10”). He was perfectly cast . So it can be done. George Lucas was a stickler for such details . So yes, I have very high standards. But I also believe that those standards can be met.