Han Solo movie: Star Wars hunk 'Lando is pansexual, he wants to have sex with EVERYTHING'

I am the king of geeks. I had all the bounty hunter action figures from Empire.

Even Bossk which you could only get thru mail order. No way Boba Fett flick be worth a damn.

Hollywood doesn't know how to make good movies anymore.

 

That was such a cool scene. very short, but left a memory. I've still got and collect those kind of things. Not as much as I used to when I didn't have kids and a wife, but still check the toy aisles when I'm out shopping. Got some nice reissues a couple years back of Bossk and IG 88 at a local small toy/comic shop. Thought I'd grow out of action figures, but I still love them.

I feel the same way about the Boba Fett flick unfortunately. Once the Disney Formula is applied, he'll have to have a couple mandatory sidekicks or maybe just one if they can get all their diversity list in one package...like a Black Lesbian Woman.

I hope they can pull this off, but I have my doubts after these first 4 Star Wars flicks from Disney.

 

if you had ignored the criticisms of these new movies, sure...but people have been heavily criticizing the Disney formula, and their attitude and have tossed Solo to the garbage.
Don't think it's just me, and that there is nothing to back this up. ignore the people all you like, but the latest installment tanked because of people who see this, and feel the same as I do about it.

 

Had your Baron Karzaa avatar - was a fave toy, and bunches of Micronauts loved that too.
Loved Shogun Warriors too. Luke always got ate by Godzilla in the end.

Godzilla is always the King - ( not Elvis )

I didn't stop playing with Star Wars toys until age 13, I am embarrassed to say. Gave my collection away to different kids around the subdivision who didn't have any.

I thought it was a great idea too - the Boba Fett movie - and as a HUGE Lucas fan had hopes.

But it is like I was saying in the Doctor Who thread - 663 Doctor Who toys and junk at BBC.co.uk aside from dvd discs.That's a lot of junk.

These new guys writers or directors ... they don't understand Fantasy/Sci-Fi books obviously or they don't care and it's just a franchise for marketing trinkets and toys. Writers or directors under estimate the intellectual level and don't understand Fantasy/Sci-Fi reader audiences. We've read a lot of books - we're book worms and literature people, ok?




...

 

Hell yea, loved all of those. I think I still have some of the old Shogun Warrior toys in a box somewhere in the basement. I sold all the large ones over the years, and some of the 5 inch ones...but have a few still kicking around. The ones that I had opened and played with. Sold all the boxed stuff over the years.

Love Baron Karza and the Micronauts. Great toys. Was rumored awhile back that they were thinking of making a Micronauts movie, I'd love that.

Haha don't be embarrassed, I'm 49 and still find myself playing with an action figure now and then. Usually, when I'm stuck on the phone lol.

 

Still got the large Great Mazinga w/ ALL THE MISSLES - or large Draggoon w/ the Axe ?





?
...

 

Haha, no unfortunately. Mazinga was the first one I ever got. my Parents got it for me for Christmas, and my sister got Raydeen. They both got a ton of play. Those missiles, and the clips that held them to his legs didn't last long, and lord knows where his Spaceship brain is.

The last one I had, and sold about a year ago was the Godzilla shogun. I do still have the Mazinga and Raydeen loose...but they're pretty worn out. Just can't get myself to toss them due to all the memories.

 

When I gave mine away it had every missle and both swords, the plane.

The kids expression was so grateful he was only slightly taller than Mazinga

- I'll never forget it.

To give is better than to ...


Anyways did you see the new giant size fully lit up Millenium Falcon ?

It's about $100. Looks great. Really ...( my 1977 Kenner one was too )




...

 

Haven't seen the new one yet, but I did have the original. Thing was great!

This is another thing that bothers me about the new Star Wars, there just aren't enough cool ships and toys to collect. Not interested in Rose Ticos, and whatever that popsicle looking speeder that Rey was riding on. Nothing in these movies, character or vehicle wise that I actually want to buy.

Maybe they'll offer a Lando Pansexual pack, with a pantless Lando, and a half dozen droids and Aliens with extra peg holes on the backside...

No thanks. I'll just stick to re purchasing the old stuff.



Kids faces light up when you give them a cool toy, and I love seeing it. I had some Playmates Star Trek vehicles that I had opened up for display, and later got tired of them. They didn't have any boxes , and the kids liked them so I gave them to my kids. They absolutely lit up when I gave them to them to play with, they couldn't believe I was doing it lol.
They were lightup versions of the Klingon Cruiser and the Romulan battleship. Simple things like that to a child mean a lot, and seeing them smile and enjoy it is priceless.

 

The first thing I thought when I saw the first stills reading about the Star Wars 'Solo' movie was:

"Hey - Lando Calrissian should be riding up front in the Falcon next to Han. Chewie is a dog."

I remember being mad Billy Dee Willliams, a very under-rated actor, didn't fight alongside Luke or Han down on the planet, or on the Death Star. He deserved a bigger part in Lucas Jedi.

Will you come back to the thread, give us a review, and tell us how Ron Howard did on the movie?


He re-shot 3/4 of it after the other guys quit. They were just trying their version of the story, and some Disney execs said stick to the formula or get out. Star Wars is apparently a very tightly controlled franchise. The first writer/ directors said, "OK, we quit."

You can't trust MSM or even online reviews - they're all bought off or owned by studios like Roger Ebert. There haven't legit movie reviews since Siskel died. Medved and those other clowns are industry shills. The mags/ papers are owned by TimeWarner or NBC/ Universal like Deadline/Vareity, compromised by ad revenue, etc.




...

 

The constitution was created by bankers, for bankers, and of bankers in an attempt to keep a lid on local democracy and secure a more stable form of revenue for financing debt. The only good thing in the constitution, the bill of rights, was put there at the insistence of the constitution's opponents, who knew exactly what would happen without one. The constitution, according to its own mission statement, has been a total failure, since the "union" was ripped apart in the 1860's. And the only way to keep it together was for the northern states to invade, devastate, and subsequently occupy the southern states. If the union were a marriage, it would be a highly dysfunctional and abusive one.

 

Lots of people.

 

The Supreme Court, which you already cited as some kind of authority, doesn't agree. They routinely cite the non-constitutional writings of the founders as a source of legal construction. The idea that you can interpret a legal document without actually considering the intent of the people who drafted the document is not a legal theory that I'm aware of, and it certainly isn't the legal theory adhered to by the same court you just held up as an authority on issues of constitutional interpretation.

Look, I get the desire to put Brewskier in his place. He is probably the worst possible representative for American conservatism that I can think of. But don't let your desire to rebut his racism cause you to attack the perfectly valid points he makes from time to time. We can acknowledge that the founders were flawed without having to ignore the extensive writing they did outside the context of the constitution.

 

For the same reason they didn't include a right to gay marriage or abortion in the bill of rights: Because no legal document can exhaustively describe and explain every possible scenario, define every term, or clarify every ambiguity that might arise in the course of its interpretation.

Virtually all legal contracts will leave things unsaid because not everything can be said in one document. That is why the law is generally divided into two equally important components: The letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

How did they risk their lives to compose the constitution? It was ratified several years after the American revolution was won.

The constitution is a fairly authoritarian document, something the early opponents of the constitution argued quite vigorously. And the only reason the constitution has a bill of rights is because the opponents of the constitution insisted on its inclusion. If left up to the proponents of the constitution, there would be no constitutionally protected right to free speech, arms, due process, etc.

I suppose that depends on how you define the ownership of other men. If the government has a claim on my labor, or if it can command me to fight in its wars, then I'm not sure how that is different from having an ownership interest in my person.