While we’re at it—

Jeremy Bulloch: 6’

Temuera Morrison: 5’7”

12 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

As for Tom Cruise, it’s far easier to make a shorter person appear taller than it is to make a tall person short.

Well, do they make Tom look taller, or the other people in shots with him shorter? That's the real question here ... and, what's the difference?

5 hours ago, Jegergryte said:

Well, do they make Tom look taller, or the other people in shots with him shorter? That's the real question here ... and, what's the difference?

The difference is spelled out in Tom Cruise's contracts. It's right alongside the part that says no other actors can be filmed running alongside Cruise, and that the line "Remember the tooth" (from Dune) must never be spoken while Tom's mouth is open.

I would love some Sebastian Stan Skywalker cameos (or longer parts even, own show even!)

Doubt it's going to happy though...

Would also love some more Mace Windu, but older and grittier and with a wallet that says Bad Mutha F*&#er.

Cal Kestis (not sure if I spelled that right) would also be very cool.

Or Yaddle.

But I reckon we'll get more Fett before too long. Will he be with Djarin or against him?

I'd prefer my Mace Windu to be older and a bit more mellowed out. He was already the grittiest Jedi with his own special really-not-darkside-at-all fighting style.

12 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

I'd prefer my Mace Windu to be older and a bit more mellowed out. He was already the grittiest Jedi with his own special really-not-darkside-at-all fighting style.

Not just that, also kind of a d***. In TCW in the Boba arc, when Boba is captured, he actually comes clean and has a remorseful awakening moment... "I see now I've done terrible things". But he won't forgive Mace for killing his father, and instead of expressing regret or compassion or helping the kid work through his sorrow, he just says "Well, you're going to have to."

Basically reinforcing Lucas's point that the Jedi have lost their way.

19 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Alden Ehrenreich: 5’9; Harrison Ford: 6’1”

Billy Dee Williams: 6’; Donald Glover: 5’9”

Lecy Goranson: 5’5”; Sara Chalke: 5’8”

Terrence Howard: 6’; Don Cheadle: 5’8”

Edward Norton: 6’; Mark Ruffalo: 5’8”

Adam West: 6’2”; Michael Keaton: 5’9”; Val Kilmer: 6’; George Clooney: 5’11”; Christian Bale: 6’; Ben Affleck: 6’4”; Robert Pattinson: 6’1”

George Reeves: 6’2”; Christopher Reeve: 6’4”; Tom Welling: 6’3”; Brandon Routh: 6’2”; Henry Cavill: 6’1”; Tyler Hoechlin: 6’ (and Routh and Hoechlin both played Superman standing next to one another )

I think you’re overestimating how much the average viewer cares about this. Even when a significant trait of the character is his or her height, most people care more about the performance. Otherwise, people would have soundly rejected the 6’3” Hugh Jackman playing the 5’3” Wolverine.

Good thing nobody told Peter Jackson about this.

(I mean, they certainly couldn’t use techniques to make the other performers around them look taller...that’s crazy talk.)

Alden Eirenreich looks nothing like Harrison Ford, neither does Donald Glover look like Billy Dee Williams. They didn’t even try to get actors that looked like the originals. This was one of many complaints I heard among fans before and after Solo was released, particularly Eirenreich. So I stand by my objection.

As for Hugh Jackman, yes, technically, he shouldn’t have been Wolverine because he was indeed too tall. However, the movie kept everything internally consistent. The problem with using two different actors of different heights (and/or look nothing like one another) playing the same character at different adult ages within the same continuity that can cause a break of suspension of disbelief, at least for a while. It’s jarring.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Alden Eirenreich looks nothing like Harrison Ford, neither does Donald Glover look like Billy Dee Williams. They didn’t even try to get actors that looked like the originals. This was one of many complaints I heard among fans before and after Solo was released, particularly Eirenreich. So I stand by my objection.

But (in my experience, at least) that had to do with overall appearance, not so much height.

Height, when being judged by the naked eye, is relative. You can very easily make a short person look tall by their surroundings or a tall person look short by their surroundings.

When you see two tall people walking down the street, but one is several inches taller than the other, the other might look short. When they part ways and you see the shorter tall person walk by an actual short person, now he looks very tall.

It's very easy to disguise height, especially when you have control over how much the viewer sees.

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Alden Eirenreich looks nothing like Harrison Ford, neither does Donald Glover look like Billy Dee Williams. They didn’t even try to get actors that looked like the originals. This was one of many complaints I heard among fans before and after Solo was released, particularly Eirenreich. So I stand by my objection.

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.

12 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

As for Hugh Jackman, yes, technically, he shouldn’t have been Wolverine because he was indeed too tall. However, the movie kept everything internally consistent. The problem with using two different actors of different heights (and/or look nothing like one another) playing the same character at different adult ages within the same continuity that can cause a break of suspension of disbelief, at least for a while. It’s jarring.

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.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

But (in my experience, at least) that had to do with overall appearance, not so much height.

Height, when being judged by the naked eye, is relative. You can very easily make a short person look tall by their surroundings or a tall person look short by their surroundings.

When you see two tall people walking down the street, but one is several inches taller than the other, the other might look short. When they part ways and you see the shorter tall person walk by an actual short person, now he looks very tall.

It's very easy to disguise height, especially when you have control over how much the viewer sees.

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.

40 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

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

I rarely agree with Tramp, but I didn't really care for Glover's Lando. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't all that great either.

1 minute ago, HappyDaze said:

I rarely agree with Tramp, but I didn't really care for Glover's Lando. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't all that great either.

Fair enough. Now I have heard of someone who didn’t care for it.

But I bet it wasn’t because he’s not the same height as Billy Dee, right? 😏

2 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Fair enough. Now I have heard of someone who didn’t care for it.

But I bet it wasn’t because he’s not the same height as Billy Dee, right? 😏

I thought it was okay, but I didn't especially like it. They all kinda felt like different characters from the originals, so it didn't really grate on my nerves as much as some other things I could mention. I enjoyed Solo and thought Glover did a good job, it just didn't quite feel like Lando to me. Billy Dee is irreplaceable.

But no, it had nothing to do with height.

4 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I thought it was okay, but I didn't especially like it. They all kinda felt like different characters from the originals, so it didn't really grate on my nerves as much as some other things I could mention. I enjoyed Solo and thought Glover did a good job, it just didn't quite feel like Lando to me. Billy Dee is irreplaceable.

But no, it had nothing to do with height.

Also fair.

It’s appeared to me to be a constant that Glover’s performance was enjoyed by audiences. Everything else had been fair game to criticize, but every comment I’d seen, viewers had been won over by Glover’s charm and charisma in the role.

19 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Also fair.

It’s appeared to me to be a constant that Glover’s performance was enjoyed by audiences. Everything else had been fair game to criticize, but every comment I’d seen, viewers had been won over by Glover’s charm and charisma in the role.

Let's be fair here... the "general audience" of star wars movies and the folks that lurk around here are hardly the same thing.

This might not be the biggest hive of scum and villainy of Star Wars forums, but it does have its fair share of neckbeards with oddly specific gripes with certain things about the movies.

Things that most other people would just go "eh?" about when brought up. (You know, like the fact that Donald Glover is 1 inch shorter than Billy Dee Williams and that somehow ruins the credibility of him playing that role...)

19 minutes ago, OddballE8 said:

Things that most other people would just go "eh?" about when brought up. (You know, like the fact that Donald Glover is 1 inch shorter than Billy Dee Williams and that somehow ruins the credibility of him playing that role...)

But it’s 3 inches, don’t you see? Three! Inches! How could he possibly play the character with that disparity ? It’s like Lucasfilm didn’t even care enough to reject him for such a height difference !

(There ya go, Tramp. Saved you the trouble.)

1 hour ago, OddballE8 said:

Let's be fair here... the "general audience" of star wars movies and the folks that lurk around here are hardly the same thing.

This might not be the biggest hive of scum and villainy of Star Wars forums, but it does have its fair share of neckbeards with oddly specific gripes with certain things about the movies.

Things that most other people would just go "eh?" about when brought up. (You know, like the fact that Donald Glover is 1 inch shorter than Billy Dee Williams and that somehow ruins the credibility of him playing that role...)

Most people who are in the "general audience" do not really care about Star Wars or think about it that much. They just watch because it's a fun set of films (and more power to 'em). Those of us who do are much more likely to find something we aren't especially pleased with. Star Wars is kinda a big deal for me for a variety of reasons, and so I am much more invested than "general audiences."

I dive very deeply into the lore, world-building, and story, and can become pretty invested in characters. Most people I know who have watched Star Wars only have a surface-level knowledge at most and can't really carry on an intelligent conversation about it. That's not an insult to them, it's just that they don't care enough to know a lot about it.

Again, this isn't at all a criticism of those who don't care. If you can watch the Star Wars movies and enjoy them, I'm happy for you to enjoy something I enjoy. But if you don't know the difference between a Clone Trooper and a Stormtrooper, I'm not going to value your opinion as highly as even someone I disagree with who has a deep knowledge, understanding, and love for the universe.

The general audience is far more vital to the kind of success a big movie/tv franchise like Star Wars experiences than those of us who know, for instance, the ways that other media in the franchise intersect, influence, and contribute to the movies and TV series. In 2019, we saw what happens when a Star Wars movie is made primarily to please and appease the gatekeepers.

1 minute ago, Nytwyng said:

The general audience is far more vital to the kind of success a big movie/tv franchise like Star Wars experiences than those of us who know, for instance, the ways that other media in the franchise intersect, influence, and contribute to the movies and TV series. In 2019, we saw what happens when a Star Wars movie is made primarily to please and appease the gatekeepers.

I'm not saying they aren't. In fact, they are.

The Rise of Skywalker was pretty terrible. I also really enjoyed it, largely because I no longer cared about the story and was able to shut off my brain and enjoy the pretty lights. There were some things I genuinely liked, but mostly because I enjoyed the schadenfreude of TLJ getting smacked a couple times.

Only watched it once, haven't rewatched it. If it was made "primarily to please and appease the gatekeepers" then it failed miserably.

And I reject the term gatekeeper entirely. There is no gate. I want as many people as possible to enjoy Star Wars as I do and be as invested as I am. I restrict nothing from people based on their level of Star Wars knowledge, nor do I shun them. In fact, I'm GMing a game for three young Star Wars novices (two haven't even watched all the movies), using it to introduce them more to Star Wars and increase their knowledge and enjoyment of it. Does that sound like gatekeeping to you?
It is natural and expected to weight people's opinions based on perceived knowledge and expertise. Who are you more likely to listen to if asking about the intricacies of WWII? An historian, or someone who watched Band of Brothers that one time?

I’d say that dismissing someone’s opinion about a piece of entertainment (in this case, an entire sub-section of the audience enjoying an actor’s performance in one movie) because they don’t share your degree of knowledge of the entire franchise is a form of gatekeeping, adjacent to the sort of “true fan tests” that many female fans of many different franchises are faced with when trying to interact with the relevant fan communities.

”You liked Donald Glover’s performance in Solo ? Well, isn’t that nice. But if you don’t know the nickname Luke’s friends on Tatooine used for him, I’m afraid that doesn’t hold much weight with me.”

Now...I can buy into the notion that some people exhibiting gatekeeping behavior aren’t doing so intentionally or maliciously. Based on our previous interactions, I feel safe in saying that when you made that statement a few posts back, you didn’t see how that conclusion could be drawn.

That general audience who doesn’t know all of the extra details are more important to keeping a franchise successful than those of us who do. They make up more of the butts in the seats than we do.

When it comes to internal meta commentary on other entries in the franchise, rather than TRoS’s clumsy broad swipes, I’m a bit more partial to this small exchange from Doctor Aphra v2 #5:

5 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

I’d say that dismissing someone’s opinion about a piece of entertainment (in this case, an entire sub-section of the audience enjoying an actor’s performance in one movie) because they don’t share your degree of knowledge of the entire franchise is a form of gatekeeping, adjacent to the sort of “true fan tests” that many female fans of many different franchises are faced with when trying to interact with the relevant fan communities.

That's not at all what I said. I'm dismissing no one's opinion. And are you now calling me a sexist? I'm honestly asking, because I'm not sure.
I'm tempted to outright reject your accusations of "sexism" at "many franchises" but I really don't know enough. Why am I tempted to outright reject them? Because I've seen so many baseless, BS accusations of sexism that I pretty much just roll my eyes every time I hear it because it almost always ends up being bunk. Call it "the SJW who cried 'Sexism!' effect."
Oh, and being falsely called one myself certainly hasn't engendered much trust either. When words like "racism" and "sexism" lose their meaning, actual instances of both will be overlooked. That's why people should be responsible in their use of the terms.

6 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

”You liked Donald Glover’s performance in Solo ? Well, isn’t that nice. But if you don’t know the nickname Luke’s friends on Tatooine used for him, I’m afraid that doesn’t hold much weight with me.”

That is a really bad strawman and not at all what I am saying.

If someone has only seen Solo and goes "oh, I liked Donald Glover's performance" (in which case I say "oh, good for you. I'm glad you enjoyed something in Star Wars.") and someone who is a die-hard Lando fan says "Eh, that didn't really feel like Lando to me." I'd put more weight on the latter statement because that person knows where the target is, and that's the real question. Picture a dartboard with a ton of overlapping bullseyes and rings. Two people can come to different conclusions as to the accuracy of the shot based on which target they are looking at. Both can be valid, but I may disagree with which target is deemed the most important.

A Star Wars fan is more likely to put the target as "That's a great rendition of Lando." (which I believe to be the more valid target in this case*) rather than "That's an enjoyable performance." Anyone can then disagree about how accurate the dart was to the target. Looking at the two different targets, I say it missed the one but hit the other. I don't think it missed by a whole lot, but it just wasn't quite right for my tastes.

*Because that's what someone playing Lando is trying to do. Be Lando. If he is Lando, then the other will naturally flow from it (because Lando is awesome ). Think of it like a Venn diagram where the "like Lando" circle is small and entirely inside the "enjoyable performance" circle.

I weight arguments based on the person's experience with the particular topic in question. For example, I don't think my opinion should be weighted very highly when it comes to Old Republic stuff since I don't know a ton about it because I don't like it very much. I most likely know more than a random person off the street, but not more than someone who really cares about that era.

18 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

That general audience who doesn’t know all of the extra details are more important to keeping a franchise successful than those of us who do. They make up more of the butts in the seats than we do.

Yeah, and I don't disagree. However, a die hard fan can account for many, many "butts in seats" by purchases aside from going to see the movie. A single RPG splat book is the cost of multiple movie tickets. I know it doesn't directly translate and I don't want to get into an argument about the profits from one vs. the other, but the point still goes. A Star Wars fan might spend a couple hundred dollars in a given year on Star Wars stuff, while someone who just casually enjoys the movies will spend maybe 50 bucks over the course of a few years (aside from any purchases made on behalf of Star Wars fans, which I'd count towards that fan's "total contribution" if you will).

If you compare the two "categories" of customer, I'm not sure which is more valuable in strictly monetary terms. I don't have enough numbers to even guess. But I do know that the core fanbase is very important and that Star Wars would not be what it is without them.

33 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

When it comes to internal meta commentary on other entries in the franchise, rather than TRoS’s clumsy broad swipes, I’m a bit more partial to this small exchange from Doctor Aphra v2 #5:

Nice.
(And accurate)

Like I said, it was schadenfreude. It wasn't because I thought they were good swipes.

37 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

That's not at all what I said. I'm dismissing no one's opinion. And are you now calling me a sexist? I'm honestly asking, because I'm not sure.

No, I was merely drawing a comparison between what you were saying (giving more credence to a “true fan’s” opinion than someone in the more general audience) and something similar that is generally accepted as gatekeeping behavior (the “true fan test”). I mentioned that such tests are more frequently leveled at female fans just for reference (since that’s the sort of story where they usually come up), not to point a specific finger. Sorry if that was muddy.

Stripping away that muddy element, my point stands: I’d conclude that telling a portion of the audience that their opinion about a performance carries less “weight” because they don’t meet a certain standard of franchise knowledge that you’re imposing or they’re coming at it from the “wrong” perspective is adjacent to the “true fan test” form of gatekeeping.

37 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I'm tempted to outright reject your accusations of "sexism" at "many franchises" but I really don't know enough. Why am I tempted to outright reject them?

For accusations to be rejected, shouldn’t there be actual accusations in the first place? See above.

37 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Star Wars fan is more likely to put the target as "That's a great rendition of Lando." (which I believe to be the more valid target in this case*) rather than "That's an enjoyable performance." Anyone can then disagree about how accurate the dart was to the target. Looking at the two different targets, I say it missed the one but hit the other. I don't think it missed by a whole lot, but it just wasn't quite right for my tastes.

*Because that's what someone playing Lando is trying to do. Be Lando. If he is Lando, then the other will naturally flow from it (because Lando is awesome ). Think of it like a Venn diagram where the "like Lando" circle is small and entirely inside the "enjoyable performance" circle.

Meanwhile, I think Glover did an outstanding job showing us Lando.

I suppose then, that I fail the “true fan test” and am not a Star Wars fan?

As for the “I don’t want to talk about profitability of ancillary merchandise, but ‘true fans’ are more profitable when it comes to ancillary merchandise” segment, are you really suggesting that it’s only “true fans” buying the bulk of t-shirts in Target, Christmas ornaments at Hallmark, subscribing to Disney+, and so on? Absolutely, “true fans” make for a reliable base of consumers, but if that’s all that made up the bulk of the purchases, we wouldn’t see nearly as many t-shirts, or ornaments, or toys, or whatever else Lucas Licensing decides to approve this week.

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

But if you don’t know the nickname Luke’s friends on Tatooine used for him, I’m afraid that doesn’t hold much weight with me.”

Ooh, ooh, Mr. Carter, I know this one! It's Wormie!!

Kidding aside when I've met Star Wars fans through the years, I sometimes asked the question, "Ok, who's Wormie?". Never had someone answer it correctly. It was done in jest though. I wasn't trying to impress just having fun. For most of my adult life, I've been in careers where, "nerd" was a label that could actually have adverse affects, until you proved your worth. I get the tag thrown at me sometimes now since I'm of the age and point in my career (higher ranking position, my abilities are trusted) that I don't care anymore and can safely come out of the closet as a gamer/scifi/fantasy geek. And, it's not as big as a deal to be labeled such as it was 30 years ago.

I had a fun moment not so long ago. New guy I supervise had no qualms with expressing to anyone he was a Star Wars fan. I was proud of him. I was in my office while he was with others nearby in the next room working on paperwork. He began playing the Troopers (SW stormtrooper/police parody) clip on his computer that I couldn't see. I called out, "I recognize that tune, I know what you're playing". He replied, "There's no way you know". I then quickly informed him what he was watching to his astonishment and others' laughter. We're cops. It was Star Wars. I of course had viewed that clip a few times. 😁

Ok back to the kind of debate that gives us our labels.

Just now, Nytwyng said:

Stripping away that muddy element, my point stands: I’d conclude that telling a portion of the audience that their opinion about a performance carries less “weight” because they don’t meet a certain standard of franchise knowledge that you’re imposing is adjacent to the “true fan test” form of gatekeeping.

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.

2 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Meanwhile, I think Glover did an outstanding job showing us Lando.

I suppose then, that I fail the “true fan test” and am not a Star Wars fan?

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.

4 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

As for the “I don’t want to talk about profitability of ancillary merchandise, but ‘true fans’ are more profitable when it comes to ancillary merchandise” segment, are you really suggesting that it’s only “true fans” buying the bulk of t-shirts in Target, Christmas ornaments at Hallmark, subscribing to Disney+, and so on? Absolutely, “true fans” make for a reliable base of consumers, but if that’s all that made up the bulk of the purchases, we wouldn’t see nearly as many t-shirts, or ornaments, or toys, or whatever else Lucas Licensing decides to approve this week.

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

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."
Disney+ is a complicated question because it isn't just for Star Wars.

As for fans, I don't like categorizing it. But if I were to broad brush it just so we're on the same page, I'd say there are the general audiences who watch Star Wars in the theaters, maybe have some DVDs, and know the quote "Luke, I am your father!" Then there are those who are Star Wars fans and would identify as such, but aren't necessarily obsessed (or are young enough that they have very enthusiastic surface knowledge, or even very little knowledge at all and just really really like the spaceships). Then there are those who are really die-hard fans and know that the quote is "No, I am your father." and can recite the first 20 minutes of The Phantom Menace from memory, in an impeccable Jar-Jar Binks accent (okay, maybe that last bit was just me).

I don't exclude or "gatekeep" any body based on their level of Star Wars knowledge or enthusiasm. People are different and react to things and enjoy things differently. I've seen a Venn diagram floating around that shows something like five circles of different spheres of Star Wars (OT, PT, ST, animation, other stuff) and say that those in the middle are the true Star Wars fanatics. I disagree, because that is far too broad and actually is a "true fan" test of sorts. It's sort of like a question of quantity vs. quality. "How much Star Wars do you love?" vs. "How much do you love Star Wars?"

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.

As a minor part of our leadership team at work, whenever we have a new hire class, I’m part of the “meet the leadership team” meet and greet session. When introducing myself, I always begin with, “I am an unrepentant nerd.” 🤣

When interviewing for a promotion early on, the Team Lead I’d be reporting to and our Site Director were in the room. The only question the Site Director had for me was, “Are you going to see Iron Man 2 this weekend?” 🤣

Ackshewally, though, it’s Mr Kotter. (Just had to keep that nerd label applied...ackshewally offered with tongue firmly in cheek.)