Game of Throne's Daenerys Will be in The Han Solo Movie

[Darth Rosenberg]

Frankly I found TFA considerably worse to watch than the prequels, not because of its level of quality (in that respect, TFA is hundreds of miles better, no denying there), but because of A) an utter lack of originality story-wise and B) having reduced the Star Wars franchise to a bog standard gritty sci-fi universe.

I disagree with both. I feel TFA needed to be exactly what it was for one major reason; it gave Star Wars its soul back... After the prequels [footnote]I personally feel Phantom is a genuine candidate for the hyperbolic moniker of worst film ever made - not just for its almost childishly risible direction, editing, acting, and writing, but because of the IP's history. It wasn't just any shitty new film, it was a malformed byproduct of a colossal egoist surrounded by yes-men busy selling toys to more children trashing his own legacy. I see the destructive digital tampering with the original trilogy as being a part of that.[/footnote] fans needed to know that the films were back in the land of the clinically sane and technically capable.

I don't think Abrams is an especially talented director at all (I do really like Super 8, and I'd say MI:III is the best MI) and TFA certainly has some odd mistakes (ironically it needed a little more politics, as it sets out the state of the galaxy rather terribly), but I do feel he understood SW needed to really touch base to its '77-'83 roots as opposed to just present a wholly new story out of the gate, that was also a direct follow-up to Jedi.

Regardless of all the overlap (which isn't new to the series given they already got through two whole Death Stars in just three films. history repeating itself has always been a part of SW DNA), I still feel Kylo Ren and the focus on Rey and Finn was enough to give it enough of its own character (Rey's no Nomi Sunrider or Mara Jade, but I still got a kick out of seeing a female Jedi Force adept/user in the cinematic SW 'verse). Plus, I'd say the action scenes are easily superior to any of the soulless plasticy nonsense in the prequels - the Falcon's escape from Tattooine Mrk.II, alone, swiftly brought back a sense of spatial invention and hijinks from the originals. Ditto the saber fight in terms of physicality harking back to the originals, as opposed to the silly CG leaps and dance choreography of the prequels.

TFA was a necessary rebirth. Or a cleansing rite... Star Wars is Star Wars again, and from the next film on we should have the 'new' narrative with the younger characters going forward.

...if they just do a full on Empire to TFA, then I'll be less positive, but still be thankful the prequels are a fading memory (one fanboyish concern I personally have is over the new continuity's possibly iffy approach to the Force. I'd like to just sit the whole creative team down and replay them sections of Yoda and Kenobi from A New Hope and Empire as a reminder).

My original statement was hyperbolic, I'll admit, and I don't think Clarke's performance will bring down the movie in any major sense. I do, however, think that she's a bad actress and that her presence won't improve the film at all.

As someone else remarked it depends on what the film/role requires of her. I've missed the last two seasons of GoT, and don't remember seeing her in anything else, but I don't think she's a particularly great or bad actress. She may just depend on the role more than other actors, but 'She's mostly excellent as Daenerys in the seasons I've seen' doesn't tell me much about how she'd fit into the SW 'verse.

Her American accent sucks, though, so I at least hope they let her keep her own.

 

[Zydrate]

...Okay? Did we need a whole article slot for this?

 

[Hawki]

I'm more or less with Jonsonn here. Taking TFA as a film, it's at least better than Phantom and Clones. Writing is better, directing is better, cinematography is better, etc. That said, I can't help but greatly loathe it. It's the film that:

-Symbolizes the great retcon of the EU. Now, personally, I think we had a good deal with the EU. If you wanted to learn about the universe, fine, here you go, if not, you can watch the six main films and have an ending with Return of the Jedi that needs no continuation.

-Symbolizes that Star Wars is basically a product for Disney now. Not that a product can't be genuinely good, but even with their flaws, the prequels were something that Lucas wanted to tell, and they weren't afraid to do their own thing. Not that they always succeeded, but the prequels aren't OT 2.0. Speaking of which:

-It's testament that you don't need originality in a film to succeed. All you need is to repeat the beats of A New Hope with a bit of RotJ, and you can make nearly a billion dollars in a month. Not that A New Hope was ever a shining beacon of originality, but it's a film that takes its cues from other sources, whereas TFA is entirely self-referential, with The Empire 2.0, Death Star 3.0, Cantina Scene 2.0, Rebellion 2.0 etc. Oh sure, they have different names, but they all serve the same function narratively.

And for the argument of "oh, Star Wars needed to get back to its roots," I call BS. The idea of "going back to your roots" is one of the most grating suggestions in fiction for me, because it basically means you're out of ideas and can't push the story/setting forward. Also, people have enjoyed The Clone Wars, Rebels, The Old Republic, and numerous other works that did their own thing within the setting. The argument that Star Wars fans only want the original trilogy and nothing else dosn't hold water.

There's lots of things that TFA in of itself fails in (Rey's a Mary Sue, the duel with her and Ren is absolutely terrible, the Falcon monster scene is unneeded, the worldbuilding is far too vague in some areas, etc.), but at the end of the day, it being a Star Wars film does more harm than good in my eyes. Is it technically the worst film produced in the series? No. But if I was given a choice of having to remove one of the seven main films from the canon, you can bet that TFA would be the one facing the firing squad.

 

[fix-the-spade]

She wasn't happy enough to help ruin Terminator?

She didn't ruin Terminator, Terminator 3 ruined Terminator thirteen years ago, Sarah Connor Chronicles killed the franchise off and Salvation pissed on the corpse. Genisys was just the last imagined twitches as the bloated corpse ruptured and natural gas escaped.

Unfortunately, this being Disney movie I expect she will just be the love interest and she will get killed off in the laziest way possible to explain her absence away. It's Disney, they rarely do the unexpected with their franchises.

 

[Broslinger]

The actress has a real name.

 

[Kameburger]

I wish... that they would stop using the word highly anticipated. Because I feel like it implies that audiences aren't saying to themselves, "please stop! please don't! Why would you do this? NO!!!" I really freaking hate this idea...

 

[Ninjamedic]

-It's testament that you don't need originality in a film to succeed.

I'd put the Marvel onslaught and the general viewing habits of cinema goers nowadays as the testament to be fair, TFA is only the next logical step.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

How wonderful, I can't wait to have Star Wars ruined even further.

Force awakens didn't ruin star wars FURTHER it just didn't add anything. JJ and his memberberries did some stuff right like the xwings swooping across the water was still awe inspiring.

That said FA was bland, generic, corporate committee written, pablum with a star wars coat of paint. IMO Guardians of the Galaxy is THE star wars of the 21st century.

 

[Ukomba]

Is she going to be Bria Tharin or something? I guess after what they did to Jan, she could be their Salla.

 

[Hawki]

IMO Guardians of the Galaxy is THE star wars of the 21st century.

Eh, I kind of think Guardians is the weaker film. TFA suffers from emulating A New Hope too much, but if it was the first installment in its setting, I'd be more receptive to it. Guardians suffers from every tired cliche there is in fiction, sci-fi or otherwise, and giving it a different name wouldn't change that. If anything, it feels like the 21st century equivalent of Farscape, but without the good writing or creativity.

(And yes, I know the Guardians IP technically pre-dates Farscape, even if the film doesn't.)

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

At first I was excited. A Star Wars film with NUDITY! But then I remembered, it's Disney. I has a sad now.

 

[pookie101]

to me the best thing that ever happened to star wars was disney buying it which is something i never thought i would ever say.

without his wife reigning in his ideas lucas was able to continue to edit the original series and make the hideous prequels