Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

Some of that comes down to luck.

Just now, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Some of that comes down to luck.

That or hard work and willingness to put forth that effort.

16 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Show me where I said they couldn't.

You’ve said their opinions carry less weight.

17 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Nope. Already addressed this multiple times.

I disagree. You started by saying the opinions of those who don’t know as much about the franchise about an actor’s performance carry less weight with you. Over time, that morphed to equating those peoples’ opinions with those who’d never seen the movie in question. (Building your own straw man...but we’ll get there.)

19 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

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.

And, you’ve said those who don’t have immersive knowledge of a franchise have opinions that you don’t regard as strongly as those who do.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve exhibited the same sort of behavior in the past. Example: As a lifelong fan of the various Teen Titans comics (particularly The New Teen Titans starting in 1980), I went over 20 years wanting a Titans cartoon. Until I got one, at which point I just wanted it to go away. And, I was pretty trashy about it. Until, one Free Comic Book Day, talking with an artist who’d worked on the comics, the cartoon came up, and I used my standard line seen above (“I wanted it until I got it, then I just wanted it to go away.”) After talking to him for a while (he was sketching one of the characters for me), I realized that I’d been a jerk about it. My reasons for not liking it were valid, but the fact that I’d been a die-hard fan of the franchise for around 30 years at the time didn’t give my reaction any more authority than someone who’d just discovered it through the cartoon, and that’s all they knew. Ever since, I’ve tried (not always successfully) to avoid that pitfall.

And, again, I don’t think it’s anything intentional or malicious on your part, any more than my behavior about the Titans was.

At this point, I think we’re just talking at each other.

Maybe you’ve got a contextual bias that you don’t see.

Maybe neither of us is communicating what we’re seeing effectively enough to get our points across.

Who knows. What I do know is that we’re currently going in circles on a tangent that sprung from another tangent.

16 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

Question is, can this Ingruber play Han Solo? Just being a literal clone of Harrison Ford does not make you good at playing Han Solo. Also, does he even want to play Han Solo? And are you quite sure that the Hamill brothers are actors that have done things that are not just cameos or some minor voice work?

As for Lando... Why on earth would you continue to look if you already can get Donald Glover? 99.99% of the movie's audience doesn't have a superpower that instantly lets them measure an actor on screen's exact length by eyeballing it, and instantly cross-reference it with other movies in his head. And even fewer are going to care if somebody's height is off by an inch or two.

Also, I don't feel like you adressed any of my points in the slightest.

2 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Question is, can this Ingruber play Han Solo? Just being a literal clone of Harrison Ford does not make you good at playing Han Solo. Also, does he even want to play Han Solo? And are you quite sure that the Hamill brothers are actors that have done things that are not just cameos or some minor voice work?

As for Lando... Why on earth would you continue to look if you already can get Donald Glover? 99.99% of the movie's audience doesn't have a superpower that instantly lets them measure an actor on screen's exact length by eyeballing it, and instantly cross-reference it with other movies in his head. And even fewer are going to care if somebody's height is off by an inch or two.

Yes, he can. He’s actually done so in a number of fan films available on YouTube, which is how he got started in acting to begin with. He also did a near perfect impression of him in this video:

So, yes, he can indeed pull it off.

11 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

I'd bet neither Lucas nor McGreggor are even aware of this coincidence.

Caroline Blakiston (Mon Motha, Return Of The Jedi): 5' 9"

Genevieve O'Reilly (Mon Motha, Revenge Of The Sith): 5' 6"

David Prowe: 6'6"

Sebastian Shaw: 6'2"

Hayden Christensen: 6'0"

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, he can. He’s actually done so in a number of fan films available on YouTube, which is how he got started in acting to begin with. He also did a near perfect impression of him in this video:

So, yes, he can indeed pull it off.

Oh my god. He's absolutely terrible. He's just doing a poor Harrison Ford parody.

13 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

I'd bet neither Lucas nor McGreggor are even aware of this coincidence.

Caroline Blakiston (Mon Motha, Return Of The Jedi): 5' 9"

Genevieve O'Reilly (Mon Motha, Revenge Of The Sith): 5' 6"

David Prowe: 6'6"

Sebastian Shaw: 6'2"

Hayden Christensen: 6'0"

Sebastian Shaw was only shown from the chest up while in the suit. Hayden wore lifts in order to match Prowse’ height in the suit.

12 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Oh my god. He's absolutely terrible. He's just doing a poor Harrison Ford parody.

That’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it. I happen to disagree, as did a large number of fans who were pushing for him to get the role of Han in the movie. IMO, he did a near perfect impression of Han: his voice, mannerisms, and appearance.

I know I’m gonna regret this, but...

1 hour ago, RuusMarev said:

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?

Except...he didn’t.

Based on what’s been published, he appears to have been Ben’s primary caregiver at least when he was very young ( Last Shot ), while other sources tell us that both Han and Leia were often absent due to their respective careers (yet there are no cries that Leia was a “deadbeat mom.”).

At about 11/12, he began training with Luke. ( The Last Jedi Visual Dictionary - 15 ABY)

He was 20/21 when Leia was outed as “the daughter of Darth Vader. ( Bloodlines - 24 ABY)

He was 24/25 when he went to the dark side. ( The Rise of Kylo Ren - 28 ABY)

From the dialogue in TFA, it was after his turn that Han left. So...about 2 years split from Leia while their son was in his mid-twenties. ( The Force Awakens - approx 30 ABY)

So, we either need to point the finger at both Han and Leia for being absentee parents during Ben’s childhood (which they largely were in Legends, too, without complaints from the audience) or accept the truth that Han leaving when his adult son decided to follow in granddad’s evil footsteps isn’t exactly a “deadbeat dad.” If it didn’t work for you, it didn’t work for you, and that’s more than fair. I know that there’s a segment of the audience that likes to paint everything they didn’t like about the movies in the most dramatic, hot-button clickbait headline manner possible, but an examination of the events in stories published doesn’t really support the shock-value terminology.

36 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Also, I don't feel like you adressed any of my points in the slightest.

Shocking and out of character.

Must have been posted by someone three inches shorter than the original Tramp. 😜

36 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Oh my god. He's absolutely terrible. He's just doing a poor Harrison Ford parody.

Oh wow! He can talk along with a movie in the cadence of that recording!

Pfft...we ALL should have been up for the part of young Han, in that case.

27 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it. I happen to disagree, as did a large number of fans who were pushing for him to get the role of Han in the movie.

Would this be the same large number of fans who look at a performer on screen, then throw up their hands in disgust because they instantly discern a height difference between actors?

(Just between you and me...how beside yourself were you when Don Cheadle replaced Terrence Howard in the MCU? No resemblance, totally different acting style, no Terrence Howard impression, and four inches shorter. Oh, and no illusions that a supporting character was the lead.)

8 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

I know I’m gonna regret this, but...

Except...he didn’t.

Based on what’s been published, he appears to have been Ben’s primary caregiver at least when he was very young ( Last Shot ), while other sources tell us that both Han and Leia were often absent due to their respective careers (yet there are no cries that Leia was a “deadbeat mom.”).

At about 11/12, he began training with Luke. ( The Last Jedi Visual Dictionary - 15 ABY)

He was 20/21 when Leia was outed as “the daughter of Darth Vader. ( Bloodlines - 24 ABY)

He was 24/25 when he went to the dark side. ( The Rise of Kylo Ren - 28 ABY)

From the dialogue in TFA, it was after his turn that Han left. So...about 2 years split from Leia while their son was in his mid-twenties. ( The Force Awakens - approx 30 ABY)

So, we either need to point the finger at both Han and Leia for being absentee parents during Ben’s childhood (which they largely were in Legends, too, without complaints from the audience) or accept the truth that Han leaving when his adult son decided to follow in granddad’s evil footsteps isn’t exactly a “deadbeat dad.” If it didn’t work for you, it didn’t work for you, and that’s more than fair. I know that there’s a segment of the audience that likes to paint everything they didn’t like about the movies in the most dramatic, hot-button clickbait headline manner possible, but an examination of the events in stories published doesn’t really support the shock-value terminology.

Well, I was more referring to the movies, as I never got into the new book content. (I really tried in Aftermath, but the switching back and forth and the new take on Wedge threw me off, so I don't even remember finishing it... never even looked at the other ones..maybe someday.)

As for the EU, I agree that there was some issues with Han and Leia adventuring and politicking... but the children were cared for by Winter, C3po and assorted nanny droids.... and when the the twins were ever in trouble, Han was in the Falcon, going up against whoever took them. He didn't take a sabbatical.... welll except when Jacen went all Darth Caedus.. then they were actively running away...and plotting..

5 minutes ago, RuusMarev said:

Well, I was more referring to the movies, as I never got into the new book content. (I really tried in Aftermath, but the switching back and forth and the new take on Wedge threw me off, so I don't even remember finishing it... never even looked at the other ones..maybe someday.)

If you haven’t seen that ancillary material, that’s fair. Even at that...TFA told us that Han left when Ben went dark, while TLJ showed us in the flashback that Ben wasn’t a small child when he went dark (late teens/early 20s). We’re still not looking at a “deadbeat dad.”

8 minutes ago, RuusMarev said:

As for the EU, I agree that there was some issues with Han and Leia adventuring and politicking... but the children were cared for by Winter, C3po and assorted nanny droids.... and when the the twins were ever in trouble, Han was in the Falcon, going up against whoever took them. He didn't take a sabbatical.... welll except when Jacen went all Darth Caedus.. then they were actively running away...and plotting..

So, in Legends, when faced with an analogous situation...they didn’t go charging to the rescue. And, during the course of the story, gave up on redeeming Jacen and tasked his twin with training to kill him. As opposed to Leia never giving up on Ben, Han stepping up to try to bring him home, and Leia ultimately giving her life to reach him.

You guys are incredibly and impressively patient with each other.

I really enjoy reading through your exchanges.

5 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

If you haven’t seen that ancillary material, that’s fair. Even at that...TFA told us that Han left when Ben went dark, while TLJ showed us in the flashback that Ben wasn’t a small child when he went dark (late teens/early 20s). We’re still not looking at a “deadbeat dad.”

So, in Legends, when faced with an analogous situation...they didn’t go charging to the rescue. And, during the course of the story, gave up on redeeming Jacen and tasked his twin with training to kill him. As opposed to Leia never giving up on Ben, Han stepping up to try to bring him home, and Leia ultimately giving her life to reach him.

And my attitude towards the "Disney" trilogy has softened over the years... (I never blamed Han in these movies, nor Leia.. It's just how they were written, and I let it be what it is...) All in all, I'm more disappointed in missed opportunities with the new cast... so much potential..(not to mention that this was the last chance with the Original cast)

I think my main argument at this point is there wasn't a grand plan in place.. the MCU seems to have had one, Episode 1-3 had the Anakin arc. (4-6 was movie to movie like Rey arc, but I feel like Lucas did the better job..)

5 minutes ago, Jegergryte said:

You guys are incredibly and impressively patient with each other.

I really enjoy reading through your exchanges.

The hurt isn't as painful now, lol You should go through the early posts...

4 minutes ago, RuusMarev said:

The hurt isn't as painful now, lol You should go through the early posts...

I was there. I've participated.

2 minutes ago, RuusMarev said:

And my attitude towards the "Disney" trilogy has softened over the years... (I never blamed Han in these movies, nor Leia.. It's just how they were written, and I let it be what it is...) All in all, I'm more disappointed in missed opportunities with the new cast... so much potential..(not to mention that this was the last chance with the Original cast)

I think my main argument at this point is there wasn't a grand plan in place.. the MCU seems to have had one, Episode 1-3 had the Anakin arc. (4-6 was movie to movie like Rey arc, but I feel like Lucas did the better job..)

Clarification: I feel that after this much investment in this IP, I think by the third trilogy, I think we deserved to have a coherent saga. A progression of plot and character growth...

2 minutes ago, RuusMarev said:

think my main argument at this point is there wasn't a grand plan in place.. the MCU seems to have had one, Episode 1-3 had the Anakin arc. (4-6 was movie to movie like Rey arc, but I feel like Lucas did the better job..)

Don’t believe Feige’s “it’s all connected” story about having a plan. Just like all three Star Wars trilogies, the MCU has mostly had only the vaguest of plans. Phase 1 had the long shot hope of getting to Avengers. When it was a success, the new goal was “let’s adapt Infinity Gauntlet.” Along that path there were some milestones that needed to be hit, but no grand plan. (If there were one, some elements of the Phase 2 and 3 movies could have worked better as part of that plan.) But, if we look at Star Wars, the original trilogy blew through its plan (other than the basic good guys beat the bad guys) in the first movie, which is why it’s finale had the same goal as its intro: blow up a Death Star to free the Galaxy.

Are the sequels perfect? Nah. TFA did exactly what it needed to do: hit the ground running, establish the new characters, and hit some nostalgia buttons to say, “Star Wars is back!” TLJ took the threads that it was given, and got a little more introspective. I can understand some of what didn’t work for people, but also see how it did work narratively; it just wasn’t what some of the audience expected/wanted. And then there’s TRoS, which just further proves that there’s not a landing that Abrams won’t fail instead of stick. It seemed very reactionary, and designed more to cater to the loudest voices that didn’t like TLJ than to effectively close out the story. It doesn’t just feel disconnected from TLJ (going out of its way to contradict most of that entry’s story points), but even from Abrams’ own TFA. But, it’s got its moments. I’ve made my peace with TRoS, and it’s probably the one I’ve put on the most as just empty background noise this year. (Any other SW movie doesn’t work well for that purpose...I end up wanting to actually watch them.)

49 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Would this be the same large number of fans who look at a performer on screen, then throw up their hands in disgust because they instantly discern a height difference between actors?

(Just between you and me...how beside yourself were you when Don Cheadle replaced Terrence Howard in the MCU? No resemblance, totally different acting style, no Terrence Howard impression, and four inches shorter. Oh, and no illusions that a supporting character was the lead.)

The situation with Cheedle vs Howard is a significantly different circumstance dealing with Howard and Marvel having a falling out, and the fact that Howard was a relatively minor character in his film. Marvel had to make the best out of a bad situation. As it stands, most people don’t even remember Howard as that character. This is the same situation you had with Banner. Marvel would just as likely want you to forget Norton and Eric Bana before him.

The problem arises when you have to replace someone who has fully embodied that role. Imagine trying to replace Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark in the current MCU movies. This is why they went with de-aging technology to make Downey look younger for those scenes.

With James Bond, you have a very different situation as well given that the franchise routinely changes the actor every few movies. As such Bond doesn’t have a “signature” appearance outside of being very “debonair. He doesn’t have a specific height, a specific hair color, or eye color. He’s not patterned after or completely identified by one actor (though it is generally agreed that Connery was the best).

2 hours ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

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...

I think that last sentence was the wall we kept running into: each of us clearly saw what we were trying to express, but it seemed so self-evident that we couldn’t express it properly to each other.

It happens.

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

You’ve said their opinions carry less weight.

You just moved the goalposts. The question you asked that I was responding to was "Can they comment about X, or must they do Y first?"

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

I disagree. You started by saying the opinions of those who don’t know as much about the franchise about an actor’s performance carry less weight with you. Over time, that morphed to equating those peoples’ opinions with those who’d never seen the movie in question. (Building your own straw man...but we’ll get there.)

Never made that equation. Those were two separate examples. If you agree that someone who has never seen the movie in question would (typically) have a less valid opinion than someone who has, then you admit that different opinions can carry different weight based on the circumstances. But that wasn't even my main point. My point was, and read this carefully, there are two different questions in play. One, more common among dedicated Star Wars fans, is "Did he do a good job playing Lando?" The other, more common among casual viewers, is "Was that a well-acted and entertaining performance?" They have overlap, but are different (and both perfectly valid!). So you can't take the answer to one as an argument against an answer to the other.
So if I say "I don't think he did a great Lando." You can't then say "But the general audiences thought he did fine!" because they are likely answering a different question. If you say "I actually think he did a great Lando." then that's something we can talk about. But to answer my objection with a reaction to a different question, and then say my objection is invalid because of that reaction, is not going to actually have any effect on me. For one thing, I'm perfectly fine being in the minority. I've been in a minority of one before. For another thing, it doesn't actually address anything I said.

Now if you had said something like "Well, they decided to sacrifice a bit of 'true Lando' in favor of getting the most out of Donald Glover, a decision borne out by the general audience's reaction." I'd say "Oh, interesting. I still wish they'd stuck closer to Lando, but that makes some sense and maybe I wouldn't have liked it if I'd got it." because you actually address my points with a counter-argument and use evidence from the audience reaction to a different question to support your counter-argument rather than that audience reaction actually being your argument.

This isn't about Lando, and it never really was. I do not care that much about Glover's performance. I thought he did fine, but it didn't quite feel like Lando to me. This is about the broader principles at play.

As for a direct head-to-head comparison of someone who knows a lot about Lando and someone who's casually watched the movies and the question of "Did Glover do a good job playing Lando?" the "Lando expert" is going to carry a little more weight, just because he'll be able to make more and better arguments for why he doesn't feel Glover did a good job than the more casual fan would be able to. That doesn't make him right, however. He may be so immersed that he notices every little quibble and can't step back to see the bigger picture. There it's a measure of what metric is at play. Looking at something with a microscope vs. looking at it with the naked eye.
But if all (all is a very important word here) I have is someone who seems to have greater credibility saying "X is the case" and someone who seems to have less credibility saying "X is not the case" I'm likely going to side with the person who seems to have more credibility (a lot goes into "credibility"). This is something humans do every day and is perfectly healthy. It's a part of discernment, deciding who to trust and believe.

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

And, you’ve said those who don’t have immersive knowledge of a franchise have opinions that you don’t regard as strongly as those who do.

Not exactly, but sort of. Different opinions and arguments carry different value based on what is underpinning them. This varies from person to person and situation to situation and is broadly applicable throughout all of life. It depends on what knowledge the person has of the topic in question (topic in question being a very important qualifier), what I think of the person, the arguments they make, the topic in question, etc. I try to avoid making blanket statements like you say there because they are not true. There are far too many variables, exceptions, and edge cases because we're dealing with people and dynamic situations. I operate on an individual level, and don't like grouping people. I draw no thresholds, benchmarks, or dividing lines, and will talk Star Wars with pretty much anyone, regardless of their prior knowledge.

18 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The situation with Cheedle vs Howard is a significantly different circumstance dealing with Howard and Marvel having a falling out, and the fact that Howard was a relatively minor character in his film. Marvel had to make the best out of a bad situation. As it stands, most people don’t even remember Howard as that character. This is the same situation you had with Banner. Marvel would just as likely want you to forget Norton and Eric Bana before him.

The problem arises when you have to replace someone who has fully embodied that role. Imagine trying to replace Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark in the current MCU movies. This is why they went with de-aging technology to make Downey look younger for those scenes.

But you’ve said that it’s vital to recast as closely as possible to the original actor, in a discussion sparked because an actor, who hasn’t even been cast as far as we know, is 3 inches taller than the original actor in the role. And now bending over backwards to explain why recasting with someone who’s night and day from the original actor in nearly all respects is just fine and to be expected when it actually happened.

(Maybe very few remember Howard - a very hot commodity in 2008 and again in recent years thanks to Empire - was replaced by Cheadle because, despite their many differences, Cheadle’s performances have just been that good? But, based solely on that height difference alone, you’d have passed on Cheadle, wouldn’t you?)

And replacing Downey in the current MCU would be no problem. Marvel films in Atlanta a lot, so maybe they can head across town to borrow some zombie makeup artists from The Walking Dead to show Tony in his current state. 😜

18 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

With James Bond, you have a very different situation as well given that the franchise routinely changes the actor every few movies. As such Bond doesn’t have a “signature” appearance outside of being very “debonair. He doesn’t have a specific height, a specific hair color, or eye color. He’s not patterned after or completely identified by one actor (though it is generally agreed that Connery was the best).

That “routine change” wasn’t a factor for the first five movies. And if “it is generaly agreed that Connery was the best,” why was no attempt made to ensure that whoever took over the role was as close a match to Connery as possible? The very reason that he doesn’t have a set height, hair color, etc, is specifically because the producers haven’t chosen to establish one in their casting; the reason you say you accept the changes is is a direct result of them not obeying the pattern that you claim is vital when recasting a role.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Sebastian Shaw was only shown from the chest up while in the suit. Hayden wore lifts in order to match Prowse’ height in the suit.

Huh...it’s almost like...film/tv crews...know how to fudge and/or hide differences in height when it’s necessary for the story....

Interesting....