TV House of The Dragon

[Sanity Check]

What does this comment even mean...? Are you familiar with what the series is based on or?

This series isn't "filler" or anything. The first series was ruined and the sooner we all move on to better things the better. This one looks like it's just the right thing for it IMO.

I skimmed through biographies of Daemon Targaryen and some of the other characters on wiki sites.

And come to a kneejerk conclusion that nothing particularly eventful will occur in the timeline.

There appear to be no major pivotal events or big surprises.

Sad if true man.

 

[xi0]

I skimmed through biographies of Daemon Targaryen and some of the other characters on wiki sites.

And come to a kneejerk conclusion that nothing particularly eventful will occur in the timeline.

There appear to be no major pivotal events or big surprises.

Sad if true man.

Did you actually read anything there in-depth or did you just look at it?

Because even if you hadn't bothered and knew nothing, the suggestion that a production company would spend the amount of money they are in order to make a series where "nothing particularly eventful will occur", much less it being a successor show to GoT sounds pretty absurd, doesn't it?

 

[Sanity Check]

Did you actually read anything there in-depth or did you just look at it?

Because even if you hadn't bothered and knew nothing, the suggestion that a production company would spend the amount of money they are in order to make a series where "nothing particularly eventful will occur", much less it being a successor show to GoT sounds pretty absurd, doesn't it?

I read content like this (warning: link could contain spoilers):

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Daemon_Targaryen

Where it appears that not much happens aside from a few generic family squabbles.

There aren't any interesting or unpredictable plot twists as the original GoT series had.

Nothing unexpected or particularly remarkable happens.

It looks like a series of filler eps.

But hopefully I'll end up being wrong on that.

 

[xi0]

I read content like this (warning: link could contain spoilers):

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Daemon_Targaryen

Where it appears that not much happens aside from a few generic family squabbles.

There aren't any interesting or unpredictable plot twists as the original GoT series had.

It looks like a series of filler eps. But maybe I'll end up being wrong on that.

You're reading a synopsis though, not a screenplay. Daemon is just one part of it.

It's not filler at all, it's the the beginnings of a civil war that reverberated throughout Westeros and Essos for generations.

Through the main series we constantly hear about the Targaryen dynasty without seeing it, this series will be the height of it basically. This series should be monumental if they're giving the kind of care to the material that the first episode already showed. And unlike GoT the story has an ending and the showrunners aren't egomaniacal douchebags that don't even bother to hide their disdain for the genre. Condal loves the world and GRRM and Sapochnik is a very talented filmmaker. HBO and GRRM really couldn't have done much better there.

The only thing that could really compare to the Dance of Dragons would be Aegon the Unworthy and his Great Bastards which led to the Blackfyre rebellions - Brynden Rivers (Bloodraven), Aegor Rivers, Daemon Blackfyre, etc. Would love for them to do a series about that at some point too.

 

[Sanity Check]

You're reading a synopsis though, not a screenplay. Daemon is just one part of it.

Its true that its only an outline. Much can change with editing and adaptation to live action format.

I've spent hours reading character bios and outlines from warhammer 40k, comic books, manga, etc.

(I think I figured out the ending of warhammer 40k a few years ago reading through summaries and character bios.)

I'm interested to see how they make the story interesting and surprising.

One thing should be acknowledged: Matt Smith's accent is jarring. It totally kills immersion in a fantasy setting to hear that modern day british accent.

Wonder if it will become a bigger or smaller issue as the story progresses.

 

[xi0]

Its true that its only an outline. Much can change with editing and adaptation to live action format.

I've spent hours reading character bios and outlines from warhammer 40k, comic books, manga, etc.

(I think I figured out the ending of warhammer 40k a few years ago reading through summaries and character bios.)

I'm interested to see how they make the story interesting and surprising.

One thing should be acknowledged: Matt Smith's accent is jarring. It totally kills immersion in a fantasy setting to hear that modern day british accent.

Wonder if it will become a bigger or smaller issue as the story progresses.

Everyone in the show has a british accent though. It's just the same old trope really. The cool thing is hearing my High Valyrian and that the dragonkeepers seemed to only speak it.

If you spoiled yourself then they're already working at a deficit as far as how surprising it can be.

Did you have the same criticisms for Game of Thrones that you have here? Because I honestly don't see why you're down on it...

 

[Sanity Check]

Did you have the same criticisms for Game of Thrones that you have here? Because I honestly don't see why you're down on it...

GoT had a good plot with surprising twists and turns.

The story of how Hodor got his name for example was great.

The timeline of the new series appears to be linear with no surprises.

That's what I think they'll have to overcome, for it to do well.

 

[xi0]

GoT had a good plot with surprising twists and turns.

The story of how Hodor got his name for example was great.

The timeline of the new series appears to be linear with no surprises.

That's what I think they'll have to overcome, for it to do well.

I just don't see how that is remotely the case... both stories have a lot of the same appeal. This story has just as much of the "game of thrones" the first show lost sight of.

There's more opportunity for things like Hodor's name in this story because the show isn't based on an existing narrative. Fire & Blood is a history book without full details. It's also told from multiple, biased sources like how real history works. The intrigue for someone like me who read it or anyone that knows what happens, is how the finer details will be laid out, as well as what the real truth is when it comes to certain events. We had an example of this in the first episode already with Daemon's supposed "heir for a day" comment. People have long theorized that he never said it, as the source for this was Septon Eustace, a figure that was blatantly pro Greens/Hightower and whose accounts of events was blatantly anti-Daemon. Sure enough, the show gave no hard evidence to suggest he ever said it.

The only thing it'll have to do to overcome the first series is competent writers and direction. At the end of the day, seasons 5-8 weren't much more than a slow-motion high-budget descent into trash TV that not only disrespected the audience, but also disrespected the quality it achieved in the first few seasons.

 

[Sanity Check]

At the end of the day, seasons 5-8 weren't much more than a slow-motion high-budget descent into trash TV that not only disrespected the audience, but also disrespected the quality it achieved in the first few seasons.

I really enjoyed seasons 5 - 8 of GoT.

They set the stage for Jon Snow being an unstoppable, invincible, warrior on a battlefield. As well as a very weak character who caved in under the lightest amount of peer pressure.

Daenerys developed into a character who solved all of her anxiety and life problems by burning everything to the ground. Until she did it one time too many, to the wrong people.

There was some real character development there.

 

[xi0]

I really enjoyed seasons 5 - 8 of GoT.

They set the stage for Jon Snow being an unstoppable, invincible, warrior on a battlefield. As well as a very weak character who caved in under the lightest amount of peer pressure.

Daenerys developed into a character who solved all of her anxiety and life problems by burning everything to the ground. Until she did it one time too many, to the wrong people.

There was some real character development there.

Those 2 were complete abortions of character development. Jon Snow and Dany having nothing to do with defeating the Night King, despite prophecy and their entire arcs building up to that moment.

Jon Snow was resurrected with no consequences, despite the show itself showing that that's not a thing.

Dany going from an abolitionist revolutionary to an authoritarian mass-murderer in the span of a few episodes.

If you think that's real character development then I have to wonder what you even got out of the show up until that point.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 26, 2022, Original Post Date: Aug 26, 2022 ---

The way in which Jon went to a smaller version of Ned, faults and all, to someone who put the realm first even if it meant doing dishonorable things was true development.

The show then decided to make him an ineffectual dullard that was completely useless outside of killing his nazi aunt when D&D decided they were done with her.

 

[Sanity Check]

Those 2 were complete abortions of character development. Jon Snow and Dany having nothing to do with defeating the Night King, despite prophecy and their entire arcs building up to that moment.

Jon Snow was resurrected with no consequences, despite the show itself showing that that's not a thing.

Dany going from an abolitionist revolutionary to an authoritarian mass-murderer in the span of a few episodes.

If you think that's real character development then I have to wonder what you even got out of the show up until that point.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 26, 2022, Original Post Date: Aug 26, 2022 ---

The way in which Jon went to a smaller version of Ned, faults and all, to someone who put the realm first even if it meant doing dishonorable things was true development.

The show then decided to make him an ineffectual dullard that was completely useless outside of killing his nazi aunt when D&D decided they were done with her.

Daenerys was always a mass murderer. She solved all of her biggest life problems by literally killing people. The only difference with king's landing was one of semantics and context. Daenerys grew up hearing stories about how terrible the people of king's landing were and how they all deserved to die. According to her cultural reinforcement and upbringing she was killing the evil bad people who deserved to die. Just as she had done throughout the story.

You have to admit the people of king's landing were miserable and disgusting people. They treated Cersei horribly during her walk of shame. They tolerated years of Joffrey who was a terrible leader. Then years of Cersei, who may have been even worse. The second they got a good ruler in Daenerys they killed her off. Why? Because they're morons who don't deserve to have nice things.

Had they tolerated Daenerys and overlooked her faults they would have gone on to live in a golden age. The harsh reality of it is Daenerys was the only character in the story who cared about freeing slaves and helping the poor. No one else would have lifted a finger to help them. Daenerys was their only chance, only they were so used to life under brutal tyrants that couldn't recognize the opportunity.

Jon Snow started out 10/10 warrior and 10/10 resistance to peer pressure. He refused to hear input from the night's watch, if I remember correctly. So, they killed him off. After dying and being resurrected, Jon Snow's resistance to peer pressure reduced to 1/10. He utterly crumbles and caves in to peer pressure from everyone who wanted him to kill Daenerys without much prompting.

Jon Snow is an archetype of a great warrior who is fearless on a battlefield. Who also happens to crumble to the slightest peer pressure like a little girl. That makes for a great contrast and story IMO.

 

[xi0]

Daenerys was always a mass murderer. She solved all of her biggest life problems by literally killing people. The only difference with king's landing was one of semantics and context. Daenerys grew up hearing stories about how terrible the people of king's landing were and how they all deserved to die. According to her cultural reinforcement and upbringing she was killing the evil bad people who deserved to die. Just as she had done throughout the story.

What she was told did reinforce her feelings towards some noble houses, but as a conqueror she would have had to have someone to rule over. How she would have treated those that were against her is up in the air, but to say that she would have felt justified to kill common people over nothing is complete bullshit. Otherwise why do what she did in Slaver's Bay?

You have to admit the people of king's landing were miserable and disgusting people. They treated Cersei horribly during her walk of shame. They tolerated years of Joffrey who was a terrible leader. Then years of Cersei, who may have been even worse. The second they got a good ruler in Daenerys they killed her off. Why? Because they're morons who don't deserve to have nice things.

The point of the walk of shame was Cersei being deservedly punished, but for something that wasn't even remotely among her worst crimes.

Jon killed off Dany... wtf do the common folk have to do with what happened to her?

Had they tolerated Daenerys and overlooked her faults they would have gone on to live in a golden age. The harsh reality of it is Daenerys was the only character in the story who cared about freeing slaves and helping the poor. No one else would have lifted a finger to help them. Daenerys was their only chance, only they were so used to life under brutal tyrants that couldn't recognize the opportunity.

Again, she set them on fire before she ever lorded over them. The common folk had no say with what happened to her. All Dany would have had to have done was fed them better and they wouldn't have cared who ruled over them. The bell of surrender rang and she decided to commit genocide and wanted to go around the world doing more of it. Jon killed her because of that, not anyone else.

Jon Snow started out 10/10 warrior and 10/10 resistance to peer pressure. He refused to hear input from the night's watch, if I remember correctly. So, they killed him off. After dying and being resurrected, Jon Snow's resistance to peer pressure reduced to 1/10. He utterly crumbles and caves in to peer pressure from everyone who wanted him to kill Daenerys without much prompting.

Jon Snow is an archetype of a great warrior who is fearless on a battlefield. Who also happens to crumble to the slightest peer pressure like a little girl. That makes for a great contrast and story IMO.

Jon was absolutely not resistant to peer pressure, Jon's entire story was about his desire to be accepted. Jon deserted the Night's Watch once he heard Robb was going off to war and changed his mind when Pyp, Grenn, and Sam ran after him. Jon personally beheaded Janos Slynt not only because it's what Ned would have done, he did it because of how he'd be perceived by the men under him. Resistance to peer pressure is simply not a major factor in Jon's story at all. Jon as a leader has to be a conciliator, which requires listening to others. That's part of the job, not a character flaw.

The only thing that happened to Jon after being resurrected was him talking less, there were no stakes or consequences. Just look at what it did to Beric and Lady Stoneheart... the entire handling of the concept was a joke in the show.

 

[Sanity Check]

What she was told did reinforce her feelings towards some noble houses, but as a conqueror she would have had to have someone to rule over. How she would have treated those that were against her is up in the air, but to say that she would have felt justified to kill common people over nothing is complete bullshit. Otherwise why do what she did in Slaver's Bay?

Is it fair to say that Daenerys attitude went something like the following.

Daenerys: "We Targaryens brought law, order and civilization to the filthy savages of King's Landing. And all they did is kill my poor father as a thank you. They deserved it."

Its not as if it was entirely unprovoked. This point is covered multiple times throughout the story. But somehow it appears that people don't get it?

They don't get that burning king's landing was revenge for the mad king?

All Dany would have had to have done was fed them better and they wouldn't have cared who ruled over them.

Daenerys is the only character in the era with vision and the influence to cause real and lasting change. She was the only one who cared about freeing slaves and helping the poor. With Daenerys as leader, real progress would have been made in the sciences, arts and society. Civilization would have taken many steps forward. With anyone else as leader, they wouldn't have accomplished anything aside from reinforcing the same boring old traditions and flawed cultural standards.

None of the characters in the story understand what was truly at stake, or what they lost by pressuring Jon Snow to kill her.

None of them can see past their own small petty grudges and revenge. Daenerys is also guilty of this when she burns King's Landing. In that sense, they're all equal and guilty of the same failing.

Jon was absolutely not resistant to peer pressure, Jon's entire story was about his desire to be accepted. Jon deserted the Night's Watch once he heard Robb was going off to war and changed his mind when Pyp, Grenn, and Sam ran after him. Jon personally beheaded Janos Slynt not only because it's what Ned would have done, he did it because of how he'd be perceived by the men under him. Resistance to peer pressure is simply not a major factor in Jon's story at all. Jon as a leader has to be a conciliator, which requires listening to others. That's part of the job, not a character flaw.

The only thing that happened to Jon after being resurrected was him talking less, there were no stakes or consequences. Just look at what it did to Beric and Lady Stoneheart... the entire handling of the concept was a joke in the show.

I don't remember the motive behind Jon Snow being killed.

Did it have something to do with him refusing to bow to peer pressure?

That's a good point about Jon Snow feeling like he has to try harder and do more to compete with Robb, etc.

But TBH I don't remember much of what happens.

 

[xi0]

Is it fair to say that Daenerys attitude went something like the following.

Daenerys: "We Targaryens brought law, order and civilization to the filthy savages of King's Landing. And all they did is kill my poor father as a thank you. They deserved it."

Its not as if it was entirely unprovoked. This point is covered multiple times throughout the story. But somehow it appears that people don't get it?

They don't get that burning king's landing was revenge for the mad king?

No, because Dany never knew her father and didn't seek the throne in order to get vengeance for him. Dany wasn't so naive to think that the reasons for the rebellion against him was completely unjustified. But still, her birthright still existed, and her having the means meant she could justify wanting the throne back.

It is unprovoked though... what did the people of King's Landing do against her? Kill the Lannisters all you want, just like you did the slave masters... don't kill the average person. They had nothing to do with her family's downfall, that was Aerys II himself and the sycophants around him that did nothing to end his reign and crown Rhaegar instead.

Dany is going to have a rude awakening when she comes to Westeros. In the books most of those that would have supported her will be backing Aegon (Young Griff). Like Stannis she will see she can't take the throne by force without a cost to HER realm, so she'll go North to protect it, like any other decent leader.

Daenerys is the only character in the era with vision and the influence to cause real and lasting change. She was the only one who cared about freeing slaves and helping the poor. With Daenerys as leader, real progress would have been made in the sciences, arts and society. Civilization would have taken many steps forward. With anyone else as leader, they wouldn't have accomplished anything aside from reinforcing the same boring old traditions and flawed cultural standards.

None of the characters in the story understand what was truly at stake, or what they lost by pressuring Jon Snow to kill her.

None of them can see past their own small petty grudges and revenge. Daenerys is also guilty of this when she burns King's Landing. In that sense, they're all equal and guilty of the same failing.

I'm not going to act like Dany wasn't unique, she's a revolutionary. But the reason why she can get shit done isn't only because of that and the loyalty she inspired, it's because she has dragons.

Jon Snow had to kill her, she had lost her mind (inexplicably, but that doesn't change what had to happen).

I don't remember the motive behind Jon Snow being killed.

Did it have something to do with him refusing to bow to peer pressure?

That's a good point about Jon Snow feeling like he has to try harder and do more to compete with Robb, etc.

But TBH I don't remember much of what happens.

It was due to his attitude towards the Wildlings and elements within the Night's Watch that thought he was betraying what the order stood for. Oh and also racism.

If you want to focus on peer pressure, then yes, his support of the Wildlings in order to protect humanity as a whole is a refusal of him to back down. But there's more nuance to it given that he lived among them and saw they were just like anyone south of The Wall. But like I said, there's examples of him being rigid in his thinking for the better as well as being malleable for the better.

It wasn't competing with Robb really, it was finding a place he belonged. Life at The Wall was harder than he thought and he realized he had it pretty good at Winterfell. He wanted to support his brother in avenging their father like any normal person would have. Little did he know that Robb made him his heir before he died... well little does anyone know. But that will be a big factor in the story going forward, unlike it being shown in the show and then completely forgotten about in the dumpster fire the show became.

 

[Sanity Check]

No, because Dany never knew her father and didn't seek the throne in order to get vengeance for him. Dany wasn't so naive to think that the reasons for the rebellion against him was completely unjustified. But still, her birthright still existed, and her having the means meant she could justify wanting the throne back.

Jon Snow had to kill her, she had lost her mind (inexplicably, but that doesn't change what had to happen).

Time stamp 1:30 above proves all.

Daenerys: "The mad king. You're here to remind me of my enemies lies."

It was 100% Daenerys taking revenge for her father.

 

[xi0]

Time stamp 1:30 above proves all.

Daenerys: "The mad king. You're here to remind me of my enemies lies."

It was 100% Daenerys taking revenge for her father.

Did you listen to anything after that?

"I'm not my father"

I don't really care how it seems like the TV show was written, it was shit.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 27, 2022, Original Post Date: Aug 27, 2022 ---

I'm not saying Dany won't go mad and there won't be consequences... I'm saying that the tv show version of events was so shitly written, that I don't care what it showed or what it happened to get "right" accidentally.

Jon killing Dany is an invention of David Benioff and DB Weiss, not GRRM.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 27, 2022 ---

The "Bells" making her snap makes no sense either. The only character in the story with a connection to Bells and trauma from it is Jon Connington, a very important character that doesn't exist in the show. So it's just as likely that they stole that motif from what will happen with him and gave it to Dany, all the while cutting episodes and it not making a lick of sense.

 

[Sanity Check]

Did you listen to anything after that?

"I'm not my father"

I don't really care how it seems like the TV show was written, it was shit.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 27, 2022, Original Post Date: Aug 27, 2022 ---

I'm not saying Dany won't go mad and there won't be consequences... I'm saying that the tv show version of events was so shitly written, that I don't care what it showed or what it happened to get "right" accidentally.

Jon killing Dany is an invention of David Benioff and DB Weiss, not GRRM.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 27, 2022 ---

The "Bells" making her snap makes no sense either. The only character in the story with a connection to Bells and trauma from it is Jon Connington, a very important character that doesn't exist in the show. So it's just as likely that they stole that motif from what will happen with him and gave it to Dany, all the while cutting episodes and it not making a lick of sense.

It sounded to me like Barristan Selmy was pleading with Daenerys not to seek revenge for her father's death.

While Daenerys remained completely unswayed by his weak and pathetic efforts. Everything Selmy said there was super lame and fake news sounding. "Mad King burn people and laugh." As if rulers like Ned Stark hadn't spent generations decapitating and punishing people in all sorts of horrible ways.

Daenerys referring to the Mad King title as the "lies of my enemies" indicates she does not believe a single word said about her father going crazy and needing to be put down. She believed he was wrongfully deposed & wanted revenge from day 1.

If you think the tv series got it wrong that's a fair point.

I would guess there are other foreshadowings of Daenerys seeking revenge in the tv series that went unnoticed.

What would be awesome is if the mad king wasn't mad at all. What if were all revisionist history from the Lannisters and noble houses who were upset an immigrant Targaryen king sat on their throne. That would be quite the twist. The nobles in the tv series are guilty of so much scheming and plotting. To see them pretend to be too moral to depose a Targeryen, if it aligned with their own self interests. Is the type of thing that should set off alarm bells in pplz heads.

 

[xi0]

It sounded to me like Barristan Selmy was pleading with Daenerys not to seek revenge for her father's death.

While Daenerys remained completely unswayed by his weak and pathetic efforts. Everything Selmy said there was super lame and fake news sounding. "Mad King burn people and laugh." As if rulers like Ned Stark hadn't spent generations decapitating and punishing people in all sorts of horrible ways.

Daenerys referring to the Mad King title as the "lies of my enemies" indicates she does not believe a single word said about her father going crazy and needing to be put down. She believed he was wrongfully deposed & wanted revenge from day 1.

If you think the tv series got it wrong that's a fair point.

I would guess there are other foreshadowings of Daenerys seeking revenge in the tv series that went unnoticed.

What would be awesome is if the mad king wasn't mad at all. What if were all revisionist history from the Lannisters and noble houses who were upset an immigrant Targaryen king sat on their throne. That would be quite the twist. The nobles in the tv series are guilty of so much scheming and plotting. To see them pretend to be too moral to depose a Targeryen, if it aligned with their own self interests. Is the type of thing that should set off alarm bells in pplz heads.

He was counseling her on her "rights", and what she could feel righteous about doing. The Dany there isn't executing hidden criminals without a trial... so what makes you think she'd burn thousands of people who have no say in who rules over them?

She was clearly swayed since she changed her mind about executing the Sons of the Harpy without a trial... Regardless, the scene is a show invention. But it exists to show that Dany is able to be reasoned with, unlike her father. The revenge angle is for the downfall of her family, not necessarily her father.

There's too much info from too many varying sources and his reign was too recent to say it was a fabrication. Clearly the Lannisters had no issue with him until it was convenient for them to betray him. Hence Jaime only stabbing him in the back when his father's army was at the gates.

 

[Sanity Check]

He was counseling her on her "rights", and what she could feel righteous about doing. The Dany there isn't executing hidden criminals without a trial... so what makes you think she'd burn thousands of people who have no say in who rules over them?

She was clearly swayed since she changed her mind about executing the Sons of the Harpy without a trial... Regardless, the scene is a show invention. But it exists to show that Dany is able to be reasoned with, unlike her father. The revenge angle is for the downfall of her family, not necessarily her father.

There's too much info from too many varying sources and his reign was too recent to say it was a fabrication. Clearly the Lannisters had no issue with him until it was convenient for them to betray him. Hence Jaime only stabbing him in the back when his father's army was at the gates.

Daenerys wanted someone to burn in revenge for her father.

And as is typically the case, the poor are the easiest target.

Daenerys couldn't have gone after the Lannisters as it could have united the noble houses against her. Tyrion also would never have allowed his brother to be held accountable that way.

 

[xi0]

Daenerys wanted someone to burn in revenge for her father.

And as is typically the case, the poor are the easiest target.

Daenerys couldn't have gone after the Lannisters as it could have united the noble houses against her. Tyrion also would never have allowed his brother to be held accountable that way.

Nah, it's horseshit. The starting point is when the series was good and made sense (based on the book), but then we end up talking about her conclusion which was rushed and just straight villainous. You're attempting to interpret a character that was butchered with shit writing. It's useless IMO. If/when Dany lays siege to King's Landing, Cersei won't even be on the throne then most likely, it'll be her own nephew (ostensibly).

No it wouldn't have, Cersei had no support outside of King's Landing. Yeah Tyrion didn't since he freed Jaime.

We've kind of gone off on a wild tangent unrelated to this series and I'm honestly tired of talking about GoT because it's a nonsensical mess.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 27, 2022, Original Post Date: Aug 27, 2022 ---

In other news, the show was picked up for Season 2. Not really surprising, as HBO is betting a lot on it. Thankfully it broke viewership records for a premiere on HBO.