By their own admission, producers and writers of the new films placed themselves into creative bubbles expressly for the purpose of preserving their vision from fan interference. I do respect that creative process, but that's better reserved for reboots and spin-offs, which these are not. Blinding the creative minds to the cultural institution that is now four decades in the making was a commercial blunder.
Among the more eye-rolling issues is the one of Lando Calrissian's sexuality.
There is currently a debate going over whether it was a mistake on the part of writers in making it primary to his character. For the record, I don't think it is primary at all. In fact, it wasn't until I engaged in a discussion over the pansexuality that I gave it any real thought. Did that make me insensitive? I don't think so. I mean, I didn't think ill of it when seeing it. I just found it to be an interesting character dynamic, as well as entirely implicit.
Writers and producers have outright said that they wished they could have gotten a stronger LGBT character into the film. But I have to call party foul. Deliberately inserting a character that meets a specific demographic for the purpose of visibility isn't progressive thinking. It's pandering. This is where we find the origins of the "token black guy", which is generally found offensive, except we're trading it for the "token LGBTQ".
Lando's suggested pansexuality is a gimmick in that it adds nothing to the plot of the film. With or without it, the story is unchanged because the story isn't about Lando. It's about Han. Han's romantic entanglement is both heterosexual and a plot device. It serves as the entire motivation for everything else that occurs in the film. Were the tables turned and the movie was about how Lando pursued a promise to a love interest, and that pursuit added up to perils and theatrical explosions, then it would be relevant.
As it is, it's a tacked on detail that, while interesting and character defining, was only put in so that the creative team could pat themselves on the back. CNN even sprung to the defense of the creative team by paraphrasing Han Solo in saying that these things can't always be done "by committee." Sure, I'll buy that - when you're talking about a original creative work. Solo is not that.
I'm sure this makes me sound horrible, but this isn't even an original idea. Captain Kirk was getting jiggy with aliens well before Kathleen Kennedy took credit for this. You can also stream a film called Galaxina on Amazon Prime (for the record, I advise against it) if you want to see humans and robots with complicated love lives. Or for the Trekkers, human/inorganic romance is more thoroughly addressed in the TNG episode called "In Theory" (S4:E25).
Before we make the mistake of thinking that LGBTQ-phobia had anything to do with the poor performance at the box office, let's remember that there were fan-community expectations that this would flop. Those predictions were being issued months in advance of the release, or the claims of inclusion from Disney brass.
So does Disney deserve any credit here? I just don't think so. They didn't even do anything revolutionary, but still took the time to point out their own accomplishment. Self-aggrandizing is something that doesn't mix well with the Star Wars universe. It's about danger and sacrifice, usually for the sake of stopping self-aggrandizing antagonists. So sitting at the keyboard now, both as a fan and consumer, I am intensely aware that it is the characters who manipulate the fervor of the crowd for their own gains that get blown up or dropped in reactor cores in this universe.
No, no I'm not advocating that anyone die over this. But the aptly phrased "strip mining" of the Star Wars universe (thank you, CNN) is becoming obvious. Episode VII was a thinly veiled retelling of Episode IV. Episode VIII was really an insult to fans, about which even Mark Hamill was outspoken. Solo became a self-congratulatory cameo to social progress that was better addressed by Modern Family, Glee, and more anime than you would think. But you know who doesn't care that Lando is pansexual? Pansexual people...
Disney wants recognition. That's what's wrong with Solo. This movie was made for them and the box office reflects that.
