Please, please, don’t make a fuss. It’s just plain Yogurt. Adorable.

I already peaced out of it. 😁

I think Mandalorian season 3 was confirmed. No Ahsoka and/or Rebels sequel series (live action or animated) has been announced, just rumored. Then there’s the supposition that I saw that the Gideon storyline connects to the Thrawn name drop and that storyline on The Mandalorian is the “Rebels sequel series.” As always with such things, I adopt the disclaimer from Letterman’s Stupid Pet Tricks bit: “This is an exhibition, not a competition. Please...no wagering.”

Crazy talk! He’s perfect! Because...of his height. /shrug

A certain segment of the audience (or, at least, a certain segment of the public that has learned they can make money stoking the embers of dissatisfaction into an inferno of rage-inducing conspiracy theories) would eat them alive. That's not to say I don't think they'd do a good job. I think they'd do a great job. But upon moving from the small screen to the big screen, that certain segment would transition their narrative of division from them being the "upstarts doing Star Wars right and thumbing their noses at Kathleen Kennedy and Disney" to "sellouts toeing the company line of social agendas." Get Favreau back ON screen, too. Yeah...he voiced Rio in Solo. But an actor who can turn a line that's a callback to product placement from a decade earlier into a tear-jerking moment? Yeah...give him something to do.

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....

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. 😜 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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

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.

Shocking and out of character. Must have been posted by someone three inches shorter than the original Tramp. 😜

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.

You’ve said their opinions carry less weight. 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.) 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.

(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.

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.

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? 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’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.”

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?” There you go, tossing oranges into the apple pie again. 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. Great. Sounds fun. Hopefully, though, none of them expresses an opinion about Donald Glover as Lando until they’ve earned the appropriate XP. 😁

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.) 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.

“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?

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.

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. 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. OK. When you stop making the distinction between “Star Wars fans” and the rest of the audience, bestowing more importance upon the smaller segment. Spend 19 years and counting married to someone who collects Hallmark ornaments, then make that guess again. 😁 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.

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.)