Lando is not representation
***Spoilers for Solo: A Star Wars Story!!***
Disclaimer: the only Star Wars media I've consumed is the movies: episodes 1-8, Rogue One, and Solo.
There are already a lot of posts -- maybe too many -- about Lando Calrissian and whether or not he is pansexual according to the movie Solo: A Star Wars Story. So here's one more! Obviously everyone seeing this movie will go in with slightly different context, so that's a thing that needs to be taken into account. However, I don't think there would be as much heated debate if the media hadn't set up expectations of queer representation in this film.
Queerbaiting is what happens when writers and/or actors and/or anyone else involved in a creative work talk about a character as if that character were queer, usually to make potential queer audience members more interested in consuming the work, but the actual work contains no evidence for the character being queer. To quote my friend Martin, "I don't think we need evidence for a character to be canon gay. But it's not representation if the character never does anything gay or is not out as gay in the show/movie." This extends to other non-straight sexualities, e.g. bisexual, pansexual, and asexual.
In the film, Lando is described as someone who evidently either sleeps around a lot or has slept around a lot. The droid L3-37, whose behavior is very noticeably feminine coded, says that Lando has feelings for it. Given that droids exist in a context outside traditional human gender, none of the words we currently use to describe human attraction really apply; however, if a droid is programmed to exhibit characteristics which most people watching the movie would associate with the Western cultural concept of femininity, then a man being attracted to that droid isn't visibly queer and therefore is not visible representation.
Pansexuality is not about attraction to aliens, or machines, or anything that isn't human. Pansexuality is not promiscuity. Pansexuality refers to attraction experienced by humans for other humans. Yes, definitions of words can adapt and change due to context, but the adaptation of meaning is meaningless if it's not driven by the people to whom the word actually applies.
Personally, I have no idea what Lando's sexuality is, because in the movies, it's never been made crystal clear. I don't need to know; I've assumed that in the Star Wars universe, queer people are as widely accepted as straight people are, and therefore a queer character's sexuality doesn't necessarily shape them in the way that it would if they were a real person existing now. However, it's irresponsible to say "here's a pansexual character, this is great representation, stop bothering us now" as though that's enough. It's not.
Other brief thoughts: sorry Woody, I can't think of you as anyone other than Haymitch, even with that haircut; Han was way too altruistic to be believable, but other than that the actor did a good job with the role; this movie is essentially pure fluff, very low stakes, and I like it; it's always slightly weird seeing Emilia Clarke as a brunette -- and with bangs! Also she gets the best outfits, as on GoT.
Oh, and Thandie Newton is amazing in everything she does *heart eyes emoji*