Donald Glover is officially a young Lando Calrissian!
Lucasfilm announced today that Donald Glover, an acclaimed actor, award-winning writer, and Grammy-nominated artist, will be playing the part of Lando Calrissian in the still-untitled Han Solo Star Wars film, helmed by directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. Glover will join Alden Ehrenreich — previously cast as Han Solo — in bringing two iconic Star Wars characters back to the big screen, but at a time in their lives previously unexplored. This new film depicts Lando in his formative years as a scoundrel on the rise in the galaxy’s underworld — years before the events involving Han, Leia, and Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back and his rise to Rebel hero in Return of the Jedi.
“We’re so lucky to have an artist as talented as Donald join us,” said Lord and Miller. “These are big shoes to fill, and an even bigger cape, and this one fits him perfectly, which will save us money on alterations. Also, we’d like to publicly apologize to Donald for ruining Comic-Con for him forever.”
Glover is best known for creating and starring in the critically acclaimed FX series Atlanta (which had the highest premiere numbers for any basic cable comedy show since 2013), as well as for starring in four seasons of the show Community, and for his Grammy-nominated album Because the Internet, performed under the name Childish Gambino. In addition, Glover appeared in the Academy Award-nominated The Martian, and will be seen in the upcoming Spider-Man: Homecoming.
The untitled Han Solo movie is set for release in 2018.
Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate:
I wonder how they managed to let that time line fuckup happen with Maul? If you've been following Rebels and Clone Wars you can see that it clearly doesn't add up.
Yeah. I suppose that in that holo talk he and Q'ira were having at the end, he could have had his mechanical legs already? I have no idea when Solo takes place as in relation with Clone Wars and Rebels, though.... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
Yeah. I suppose that in that holo talk he and Q'ira were having at the end, he could have had his mechanical legs already? I have no idea when Solo takes place as in relation with Clone Wars and Rebels, though....
By the time of Rebels, he has no galactic power of any sort, much less an affiliation with any kind of crime organization. [Reply]
Originally Posted by notorious:
Don’t know why they needed to tie Maul to any of this. I didn’t like that part.
It was a half-assed attempt at an "ooh-ahh" that made zero sense. I don't know why they didn't just go with black sun and then show someone like prince xizor at the end? Real SW fans( at whom these movies are targeted ) would have loved that shit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate:
It was a half-assed attempt at an "ooh-ahh" that made zero sense. I don't know why they didn't just go with black sun and then show someone like prince xizor at the end? Real SW fans( at whom these movies are targeted ) would have loved that shit.
Likely it was a set-up for the Obi-Wan movie - as previous works have Maul surviving from his hate for Kenobi. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate:
That's why they purged the entire EU? They've actually been on it pretty tight with the exception of this one mistake.
I think they make their exceptions when it’s convenient.
Why bring in Maul if they didn’t plan to take that storyline somewhere? [Reply]
Just finished Solo, though I wasn't paying close attention during the Corellia scenes I got the gist of what was up.
Liked this one a lot -the tone, the cast, the cinematography and the plot -it was all good. The whole SJW droid angle was hamfisted but at least they kind of lampshaded it with Lando's reactions.
Won't bother seeing TLJ given what I've seen through spoilers, but I can't help but think the Mouse could have avoided some of the backlash had they followed R1 with Solo. [Reply]
Originally Posted by JD10367:
So what you're saying is, in best defense to the haters, that the best we can say is these movies are carbon-copy ripoffs of earlier ones. :-)
The inherent problem is that none of this "mythology" really warranted keeping a storyline alive for umpteen movies. Lucas hit gold with the first film in 1977 by stealing a western samurai romance plot and covering it in outer-space trappings and cutting-edge (for the time) effects. But, honestly, the Star Wars world doesn't have anything going for it that warrants continuous re-telling and continuous new movies. "Star Trek" had underlying themes of exploration and humanity seeking out other cultures. The Marvel universe tells stories of different beings with different powers and backstories. "Star Wars" just has lightsabers and pew-pew-pew going for it. I was 10 years old when the first film came out, and it will always be my favorite film ever, but there was nothing there to call for so many sequels telling the same stories with the same plot devices.
This post might be the best explanation on Star Wars. [Reply]
Just watched this. I thought the scene of the train heist and the scene of the Millennium Falcon escaping the fighters were well staged. I also thought Chewie had some good scenes.
The story was fine and the dialogue was adequate, which is more than any of the other modern SW movies that I've watched can say.
Chief complaint: the casting. There's a fine line between "charming rogue" and "smirking douche" and the lead actor falls on the wrong side of it, imo. The rest of the cast was serviceable.
Minor complaints: the usual SW stuff. Goofy shit, pointless callbacks, writing for a sequel etc. [Reply]
