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

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

game of thrones 2

Emilia Clarke, best known for her role as Daenerys Targaryen from Game of Thrones, will be in the upcoming Han Solo movie.

The Star Wars young Han Solo spin-off project has been steadily collecting cast members and preparing for filming this past year. Now, Star Wars.com has announced a new addition to the film's lineup: Emilia Clarke, AKA Game of Thrones' mother of dragons herself.

"Clarke's role will round out a dynamic cast of characters that Han and Chewie will encounter on their adventures. Clarke joins Alden Ehrenreich and Donald Glover - previously cast as Han Solo and Lando Calrissian, respectively - in the highly-anticipated film, which is set prior to the original Star Wars trilogy," wrote the blog post.

Since this movie is of course pre-Leia, it seems fit to assume that Clarke will play some sort of love interest for Han, though who exactly we don't know.

The untitled Han Solo movie, helmed by directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, is set for release in 2018.

Source: Star Wars

Permalink

She wasn't happy enough to help ruin Terminator?

We have a new Queen Latifah.

Steven Bogos:

Since this movie is of course pre-Leia, it seems fit to assume that Clarke will play some sort of love interest for Han, though who exactly we don't know.

Um, really? I'm not ruling it out, but it seems a bit presumptuous to assume that a female character is necessary linked to the protagonist. What's to stop her from being an Imperial officer or something?

American Fox:
She wasn't happy enough to help ruin Terminator?

If we're pinning the "ruining" of Terminator on female characters, we can give that prize to Kristina Loken. If we're pinning it on actresses who played Sarah Connor, we can give it to Lena Hedley.

Though that's more guilt by association than anythingelse.

This is titled poorly.

I hope she gets a role that doesn't require heavy physical action, because I did not buy for a minute that her chicken-bone arms could carry an anti-material rifle, let alone fire it in Terminator Geneysis.

Hopefully it isn't one where she has to act.

Hawki:

Steven Bogos:

Since this movie is of course pre-Leia, it seems fit to assume that Clarke will play some sort of love interest for Han, though who exactly we don't know.

Um, really? I'm not ruling it out, but it seems a bit presumptuous to assume that a female character is necessary linked to the protagonist. What's to stop her from being an Imperial officer or something?

My mind immediately went to love triangle. In Empire, Han did reference history between he and Lando that did cause something of a rift. I would not be surprised if Han ended up with her.

Saelune:
This is titled poorly.

I was hoping I'd see the dragon mother sic her dragons on some TIE fighters.

Saelune:
This is titled poorly.

It annoys me more than it should that it's titled "Game of Thrones Daenerys" and not "Game of Thrones Emilia Clarke".

SirDeadly:

Saelune:
This is titled poorly.

It annoys me more than it should that it's titled "Game of Thrones Daenerys" and not "Game of Thrones Emilia Clarke".

But remembering acters and actresses are separate from their screen personas is hard! That's why I consistently refer to Infinite Warfare's villain as Grand Admiral Jon Snow.

SirDeadly:

Saelune:
This is titled poorly.

It annoys me more than it should that it's titled "Game of Thrones Daenerys" and not "Game of Thrones Emilia Clarke".

It's the apostrophe being in the wrong place that kills it for me. :(

008Zulu:

Hawki:

Steven Bogos:

Since this movie is of course pre-Leia, it seems fit to assume that Clarke will play some sort of love interest for Han, though who exactly we don't know.

Um, really? I'm not ruling it out, but it seems a bit presumptuous to assume that a female character is necessary linked to the protagonist. What's to stop her from being an Imperial officer or something?

My mind immediately went to love triangle. In Empire, Han did reference history between he and Lando that did cause something of a rift. I would not be surprised if Han ended up with her.

Wasn't he miffed about the Falcon, about Han winning it? I don't recall any other issues being brought up, and the impression I got that Lando being pissed was at least partly an act - acts like a jackass to get Han at ease, so his guard will be down when he hands him over to Vader.

Or heck, maybe it will be a love triangle. Well, if Emilia Clarke can handle Jorah and Dario competing for her, Han and Lando should be a walk in the park.

She's adorable but she's not that good in anything other than GoT. And even that is a mixed bag. She knows how to do the naive, sad and vulnerable girl, but she's not very good at acting tough. Maybe because of her cute baby face. I don't know.

She plays Mara Jade? I know, I know... Canonically it makes absolutly zero sense, but bring her to the screen already!

Hawki:

Wasn't he miffed about the Falcon, about Han winning it?

During their approach to Cloud City, Han said something along the lines of 'That was a long time ago, I'm sure he's forgotten about it.' Losing the Falcon isn't something you'd forget. Some random girl 10-15 years ago, maybe?

Given the title and the fact GoT seems to follow winter/summer patterns that would actually be explainable by an unusual ecliptic (if I recall correctly) as well as Westeros being a very low fantasy setting prior to magic's reawakening, I'd say GoT would lend itself well to a sci-fi twist and the ongoing theme with lost knowledge of the Old Valyria may well somehow tie into that.
Given that, after seeing the title reference the character rather than the actress, I were worried we'd see a GoT/SW crossover. One that I'm sure didn't feature in G.R.R.M.'s original idea. I guess the actual info puts me somewhat at ease but still, for a moment there, I were getting in a huff about everything being ruined forever already.
Also, as someone pointed out already, much as Hollywood doesn't seem to have many ideas as to what to do with their female characters besides tacking them on as love interests to the protagonist (the Cling-On Warrior achievement from Redshirt comes to mind...), I personally would very much like to see more high profile (protag or not) female characters feature in fiction without having romance as their primary theme and occupation. Furiosa pulled it well, and if you want romantic involvement in your lady badass, I'd say Zoe from Firefly is an example where it was handled pretty well.

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

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

"Even further"? It reached its nadir with Phantom and the prequels (maybe also with the Greedo scene for those who can't see the original cuts). Anything and everything is surely an improvement.

Also, what's one actor got to do with the potential quality of an IP? Has Clarke vowed to destroy the franchise from within and no else noticed?

I'm not keen on a young Han story at all, but the Marvel films did well under Disney, so for the moment I'll, er, trust in the Force/the House of Mouse.

Darth Rosenberg:

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

"Even further"? It reached its nadir with Phantom and the prequels (maybe also with the Greedo scene for those who can't see the original cuts). Anything and everything is surely an improvement.

Also, what's one actor got to do with the potential quality of an IP? Has Clarke vowed to destroy the franchise from within and no else noticed?

I'm not keen on a young Han story at all, but the Marvel films did well under Disney, so for the moment I'll, er, trust in the Force/the House of Mouse.

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.

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.

She's not an actor who can elevate poor or mediocre material (such as most of Daenerys's post-season 1 plots and every major feature film she's been in so far), but she can be servicable when propped up by decent material (such as Daenerys's season 1 plot). We'll see.

What a shame. As much as I'd like to blame her failings in the show on the source material, I was never actually bored when reading her sections. Just frustrated at the lack of momentum. She bores me on the show and the only thing that stops that is when more interesting characters are interacting with her. I suppose that does sound like it could be partially the source material, but her acting certainly makes it worse.

Maybe she'll be decent. They made what is IMO a perfect casting choice with Donald Glover, so maybe they have something in mind that will cater to her strengths.

Petter Jonsson:
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 [1] 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.

[1] 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.

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

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.

American Fox:
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.

The actress has a real name.

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...

Hawki:

-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.

Petter Jonsson:
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.

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

rembrandtqeinstein:
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.)

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

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

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here