Jonathan Kasdan

This kid born September 30, 1979 is...

  • older than me.

    Votes: 14 70.0%
  • younger than me.

    Votes: 6 30.0%
  • the same age as me.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • me.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    20

TheFirebird1

Active member
Pale Horse said:
There's actual dialogue about it. When Qi'ra is talking to L3-37 alone in the cockpit of the Falcon. Lando figured out how to pleasure the droid.
I always interpreted that line as her unrequited love for Lando starting to spiral into a bit of lunacy. Lando cared for her, evidently, but undoubtedly didn't share her feelings. The idea that a physical relationship "worked" was more of a delusional input from her character.
Edit: As Dr.Sartorius noted, it also seemed more like a rather pitiable attempt at humor rather than an actuality.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
TheFirebird1 said:
Not to get too off-topic, but his orientation wasn't exactly a main point in the film. In all honesty, Lando seemed just as heterosexual as he was in his previous two appearances. Kasdan didn't really make an effort to have Lando be seen as pan in the movie, either. It seemed to be more of what he thought about the character.

We saw Lando being attracted to Leia in The Empire Strikes Back, but that doesn't narrowly define him as heterosexual. Otherwise, I agree with you; it's not particularly part of the text.

TheFirebird1 said:
Granted, you might have interpreted L3 differently, but from my point of view (and also Ron Howard's and Jon Kasdan's, if I remember correctly), she was always meant to be a satirical look on a lot of protesters and so-called "freedom fighters" today. Her viewpoints weren't meant to be taken seriously, but were rather used for humor (whether that worked out or not, I'm inclined to disagree, but I see where Kasdan was coming from).

I think her viewpoints were meant to be sympathetic and serious, and the rebellion she leads as legitimately stirring, but they were also treated as a source of humor. I'm not sure they succeeded in both having and eating their cake, in this case.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
I wonder if Kasdan will write Indy as a pansexual, too? Maybe have a scene of a male college student leaving his home, quipping that he and Marion are 60s swingers anyway. It's 2018. Can't have your main character be a straight white male unless you're a bigot.
 

Dr.Sartorius

New member
Raiders112390 said:
I wonder if Kasdan will write Indy as a pansexual, too? Maybe have a scene of a male college student leaving his home, quipping that he and Marion are 60s swingers anyway. It's 2018. Can't have your main character be a straight white male unless you're a bigot.

I hope they do that just so it pisses you off. (y)
 

TheFirebird1

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
It's 2018. Can't have your main character be a straight white male unless you're a bigot.
From what I seem to remember, Alden Ehrenreich portrayed a very white, very straight man in Solo. Hell, movies like Thor: Ragnarok had very straight and white guys and are part of the Disney pantheon.
Jon Kasdan isn't some radical left-wing terrorist. Sure, his political views most certainly slide to the left, but I don't think he's going to repaint Indy in any drastic ways.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
There is a lot of tilting at windmills going on with the Political Agenda Panic here. If you are constantly harried by hypothetical plot points you invented for a movie that does not exist, it is possible the radical is you.
 

TheFirebird1

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
We saw Lando being attracted to Leia in The Empire Strikes Back, but that doesn't narrowly define him as heterosexual. Otherwise, I agree with you; it's not particularly part of the text.
I concur. Of course, we're not entirely sure of Lando's orientation, but based on the examples provided (Solo and Empire Strikes Back), he certainly seems to slide that way.
Attila the Professor said:
I think her viewpoints were meant to be sympathetic and serious, and the rebellion she leads as legitimately stirring, but they were also treated as a source of humor.
This was one of my main problems with the movie itself. There was a definite cognitive dissonance between what we were supposed to think and what the movie intended. It didn't always pay off, unfortunately.
 

Joosse

New member
Dr.Sartorius said:
Might have under performed? It's at best a $50 million loss. That's a little worse than under performing.

My point was that the reason the movie made less money than they hoped for, but that was in no way due to the script. For people to dislike the script they would have to have seen the movie. And a lot of people didn't go because of bad marketing decisions. Like releasing just after Infinity War and Deadpool 2.

IndyBuff said:
Making Lando pansexual, adding an SJW droid, rewriting parts of Solo's backstory that fans had previously loved. Sure, that's just what Indy needs.:rolleyes:

Now the pan sexuality is just what you read into it. Sure, it is one possible explanation.

The Droid I grant you, had it's annoying moments. But I saw it more as a parody of SJW's than anything else.

And be honest, with so many conflicting sources the whole backstory had become a mess. They had to do something about it.

And you know what they say. You can't make an omlette...

That everybody is going to like.
 

TheFirebird1

Active member
Udvarnoky said:
There is a lot of tilting at windmills going on with the Political Agenda Panic. If you are constantly harried by hypothetical plot points you invented for a movie that does not exist, it is possible the radical is you.
Yup. It's a complete example of confirmation bias. As some have noted, it's worrisome that a fanbase is complaining about what they consider "PC elements" when we haven't even seen anything from the film yet.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
There is a lot of tilting at windmills going on with the Political Agenda Panic here. If you are constantly harried by hypothetical plot points you invented for a movie that does not exist, it is possible the radical is you.

Forgive me for not trusting a LucasFilm run by Kathleen Kennedy not to ruin Indy. Disney as a whole is smart enough to pick their battles and not go out of their way to push agendas in their movies or attempt to alienate their audience. Kennedy/LF is a different story. Look at the TLJ or how KK and her crew are making it seem like anyone who has issue with that film or Solo is a sexist, racist, or bigot. She's the boss, and ultimately she says what will and will not be in an Indy film now. Given her track record thus far I have little faith in some agenda not being forcefed into an Indy film.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
TheFirebird1 said:
Yup. It's a complete example of confirmation bias. As some have noted, it's worrisome that a fanbase is complaining about what they consider "PC elements" when we haven't even seen anything from the film yet.

If Lucas was writing the script, it would be a safe bet to expect cringey dialogue, right? Well, in my POV, with KK in the captain's chair at LucasFilm, it's a safe bet that some sort of political statement will be in Indy V. I am judging a film under her creative leadership based on the films I have seen made under her creative leadership. I would be more than glad to be wrong.
 

TheFirebird1

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
Forgive me for not trusting a LucasFilm run by Kathleen Kennedy not to ruin Indy. Disney as a whole is smart enough to pick their battles and not go out of their way to push agendas in their movies or attempt to alienate their audience. Kennedy/LF is a different story. Look at the TLJ or how KK and her crew are making it seem like anyone who has issue with that film or Solo is a sexist, racist, or bigot. She's the boss, and ultimately she says what will and will not be in an Indy film now. Given her track record thus far I have little faith in some agenda not being forcefed into an Indy film.
I think you should consider who's involved in Indy 5's production. This is a Spielberg and Ford driven film, and Spielberg is notorious for his directorial control--I seriously doubt he'll have anyone order him around. In addition, this production seems (at the moment) to be rather independent of the Lucasfilm/Disney behemoth.
Look, I didn't enjoy TLJ at all (honestly thought it was despicable), but Indy is a beast of a different kind. What flows with Star Wars doesn't flow with Indy. And besides, rumor seems to be that Kathleen Kennedy might be out of a job soon--speculation, sure, but one with backing, so she's the least of Indy 5's production problems now.
 

Dr.Sartorius

New member
My point was that the reason the movie made less money than they hoped for, but that was in no way due to the script. For people to dislike the script they would have to have seen the movie. And a lot of people didn't go because of bad marketing decisions. Like releasing just after Infinity War and Deadpool 2.

There were a lot reasons why it bombed but I don't think the marketing was one of them. Word of mouth sucked and yeah, they should have stuck to December.
 

TheFirebird1

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
If Lucas was writing the script, it would be a safe bet to expect cringey dialogue, right? Well, in my POV, with KK in the captain's chair at LucasFilm, it's a safe bet that some sort of political statement will be in Indy V. I am judging a film under her creative leadership based on the films I have seen made under her creative leadership. I would be more than glad to be wrong.
Here's the problem with that, as I noted in my previous post. The Indy franchise is a hell of a lot different than Star Wars, especially management wise. At the moment, the script seems to be under heavy control of only one person and one person alone. That would be Steven Spielberg.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
Forgive me for not trusting a LucasFilm run by Kathleen Kennedy not to ruin Indy. Disney as a whole is smart enough to pick their battles and not go out of their way to push agendas in their movies or attempt to alienate their audience. Kennedy/LF is a different story. Look at the TLJ or how KK and her crew are making it seem like anyone who has issue with that film or Solo is a sexist, racist, or bigot. She's the boss, and ultimately she says what will and will not be in an Indy film now. Given her track record thus far I have little faith in some agenda not being forcefed into an Indy film.

I am not going to speak about Star Wars because I can't; I haven't seen them. And I am not sure I have to in order to conclude that whatever "agenda" they're pushing is completely disproportionate to your level of handwringing. And it's a high level, as even a cursory glance at your post history will demonstrate.

But Indy is not Star Wars. I just don't see Kennedy, who is close friends with Spielberg and who came up as his assistant, pushing the Beard around when it comes to his last Indy film. There wouldn't be much sense behind it. The Spielberg/Ford combo is proven box office boffo even in old age, and the studio knows it has an entire reboot era to do whatever the hell they want after the old men round off their contribution to the series they created.

Also, Spielberg is not a journeyman director like these Star Wars hires have been. He can demand creative authority and final cut, and mostly like did as a predicate for signing on. Remember, nobody forced Disney to ask him to do this project in the first place. They could have gone straight to the reboot, but they didn't, because they know they get to have it both ways.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
TheFirebird1 said:
I think you should consider who's involved in Indy 5's production. This is a Spielberg and Ford driven film, and Spielberg is notorious for his directorial control--I seriously doubt he'll have anyone order him around. In addition, this production seems (at the moment) to be rather independent of the Lucasfilm/Disney behemoth.
Look, I didn't enjoy TLJ at all (honestly thought it was despicable), but Indy is a beast of a different kind. What flows with Star Wars doesn't flow with Indy. And besides, rumor seems to be that Kathleen Kennedy might be out of a job soon--speculation, sure, but one with backing, so she's the least of Indy 5's production problems now.

I think the failure of Solo has brought all films in development at LF under much tighter oversight and scrutiny. I mean, from a business perspective, it would make sense to reevaluate everything after the latest entry in the most popular franchise in cinema literally flopped. This is IMO why you're seeing Kasdan drafted in to probably rewrite the script in whole, and why production may have been pushed back as much as a year. Perhaps Indy 5 was running independently of LF before, but I think the ball game has in the last few weeks changed dramatically. Spielberg at one time was sort of a partner to Lucas when it came to Indy; Lucas at least listened to him and Berg was a part of the creative process; now, with a corporate run LF, he is a hireling director like anyone else. I doubt he has much pull.

Even if she is out, her reported successor is her personal protege who from what I have read is just as bad as she is.
 

TheFirebird1

Active member
Udvarnoky said:
I am not going to speak about Star Wars because I can't; I haven't seen them. And I am not sure I have to in order to conclude that whatever "agenda" they're pushing is completely disproportionate to your level of handwringing. And it's a high level, as even a cursory glance at your post history will demonstrate.

But Indy is not Star Wars. I just don't see Kennedy, who is close friends with Spielberg and who came up as his assistant, pushing the Beard around when it comes to his last Indy film. There wouldn't be much sense behind it. The Spielberg/Ford combo is proven box office boffo even in old age, and the studio knows it has an entire reboot era to do whatever the hell they want after the old men round off their contribution to the series they created.

Also, Spielberg is not a journeyman director like these Star Wars hires have been. He can demand creative authority and final cut, and mostly like did as a predicate for signing on. Remember, nobody forced Disney to ask him to do this project in the first place. They could have gone straight to the reboot, but they didn't, because they know they get to have it both ways.
This is close to the point I was making. Spielberg has much more control over the franchise then Star Wars directors, who are more "one and done" type of employees.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
TheFirebird1 said:
This is close to the point I was making. Spielberg has much more control over the franchise then Star Wars directors, who are more "one and done" type of employees.

I doubt this because Steven seemed good to start filming in April as of only a few months ago. This would imply to me that the script was either mostly finished or complete and had met with his approval (otherwise, why book studio time? Why announce it would start filming in April?) Not long after, Solo comes out, bombs. Suddenly, Koepp, Steven's favorite screenwriter is pushed out, Kasdan is brought in to perhaps do a total rewrite, and the film is pushed back likely a whole year. This to me speaks of orders from above Spielberg, and is likely a corporate response to Solo. The timing is too convenient.
 
Top