I have a feeling Mushroom turns out to be the most reliable
The story also originally popped up as a series of shorts in the Rogues and Dangerous Women books, which I believe predate The World of Ice and Fire.
Spoilers Game Of Thrones’ Spinoff ‘House Of The Dragons’ ordered to series
- Thread starter Enterprise is Great
- Start date
The story also originally popped up as a series of shorts in the Rogues and Dangerous Women books, which I believe predate The World of Ice and Fire.
Again I reiterate that neither of the two main factions of the Dance have really formed yet. I can't say more without spoiling everything. There are also many, many battles with dragons - the war is to a large extent an explanation of why there are no more dragons by the beginning of Game of Thrones, along with so few Targaryens. Almost all the dragons (and most of the Targaryeans) are going to die. Most of the Targareans who are going to die aren't even born yet!
I don't see this as a major spoiler, since Game of Thrones more or less gave this aspect away. We know it's going to be senseless bloodshed which will result in no real "win" for anyone.
Right...which just makes think...so what?
All I want is interesting characters and only Rhaenerys fulfills this. I wish I could say the same about Daemon but that's mostly my Matt Smith bias talking and his performance can only do so much with what's not there. My only other interest going into this show is Sonoya Mizuno and she's been a nonentity so far (I'm sure that'll change but we're already three episodes in...).
Won't know till it happens but Alcock, Considine and especially the 2 together has been my favourite thing about the show so far.
I don't understand the logistics of the crab war and the last battle was stupid. Daemon dodged a million arrows, took out half an army and when he does get hit the whole army spill out knowing that the caves are how they win the war.
GoT was better when they had no budget for battles.
Also why is Daemon touching the lad full of greyscale
Robb Stark has dialogue.
GoT S1: A weak-willed king of questionable legitimacy dies during a succession crisis, leaving multiple would-be successors claiming they're the rightful heir to the throne (including a beautiful young woman in a blonde wig who's on all the posters), leading to a civil war. Also, the metaphor for climate change is coming.
HotD S1 so far: A weak-willed king of questionable legitimacy causes a succession crisis when he vacillates between multiple would-be successors who all believe they're the rightful heir to the throne (including a beautiful young woman in a blonde wig who's on all the posters), leading to a civil war. Also, the metaphor for climate change is coming.
Game of Thrones, to be reductive, was "the War of the Roses plus dragons and ice zombies." So far, House of the Dragon seems like it is, to be reductive, "the Anarchy, plus dragons."
So, yes really.
So did Drogo, Nedd and many others and they still were story devices - well made ones of course and one of the main reasons that GoT became this massive hit because we were used to fan favorites having massive plot armor but not in this case. Besides Rhaenerys i don't see any fan favorites forming in this show, i hope it happens but if not - well, i have wasted more time on other things that were not productive.
I can understand the frustration here. Part of the issue really is Martin never constructed this to be a "story" - he constructed it as a fantasy narrative involving history. The events take place over like two generations (including all of the backstory) which means a lot of the characters given focus now will not really be important to the narrative after the end of season 1.
To provide a Game of Thrones analogue, this show is as if they decided to make the first part of Season 1 of GoT about Robert's rebellion before time-skipping ahead to what was actually the core narrative of the series.
Robb and Ned do not die to further the plot, they die because it's the logical conclusion of their character arcs, and because it works within the themes that GRRM wanted to explore. They're both "good" characters who do what they think is right, but they aren't in a society where you are rewarded for doing the "honorable" thing, hence they face deadly repercussions for stupid decisions (Ned for always telling the truth, and Robb for breaking his word regarding a betrothal).
Do people really find Milly Alcock beautiful? It might be the crappy blond wig, but all I can think when she's onscreen is how big her overbite is/how she lacks a chin. I was actually kinda impressed they didn't get someone attractive for the role and just went with acting talent.
Regardless, you may have a bit of a point, but tonally, House of the Dragon is much more tightly focused. Game of Thrones involved a lot of court intrigue, but that was never all it was. There was all the stuff north of the Wall, which is complexly absent here (I dunno what climate change metaphor you think is coming, but I think you'll be let down). There were the various characters (like Arya and Brienne) who were keeping entirely away from other nobility through most of the show.
It's basically just going to be the politicking, war, and some light incest. So elements of Game of Thrones, but not the totality.
This is true but it's also more of a bug than a feature for me. One of the things I really appreciated about Game of Thrones was that it was a story about many different cultures crashing into each other and having to figure out how to live or compete with each other -- the remnants of the Valyrians in House Targaryen, the Andal ruling class, the Dornishmen, the Ironborn, the people of the Vale, the Northmen, the Free Folk, the Night's Watch, the Braavosi, the Dothraki, the Qartheen, the Unsullied, the Meereenese, etc. So far, House of the Dragon feels far too myopic in its focus on the Valyrian/Andal ruling class of Westeros.
The Night King and his White Walkers -- they're a metaphor for global climate change, the inhuman existential threat that requires political cooperation to defeat but which is beyond the capacity of politics to manipulate. Episode one has Viserys telling Rhaenyra that a Targaryen must be the ruler of Westeros if humanity is ever to survive the coming of the White Walkers. In other words, episode one tries to give a sense of additional stakes to everything in House of the Dragon based upon events that we already saw concluded (disappointingly) in Game of Thrones.
I mean, okay? Whether or not House of the Dragon uses every element from Game of Thrones is not really the point; the point is that House of the Dragon is just doing variations on stuff we already saw from Game of Thrones.
Probably - conventional wisdom is that as an attacker you need at least a 3:1 advantage in manpower to ensure victory. Against an enemy in a defensible, well entrenched position all bets are off and there's enough evidence in our military history to prove it. Castles are a prime example of this and sometimes it did take years for them to be taken through a siege, the Coalition forces had major problems getting Al Quaeda whenever they retreated into their caves thus negating their air dominance of the US ( sound familiar?).
Daemon had just about enough of it and the letter from Viserys pushed him over the edge and he made a giant risky move and nearly paid for it with his life.
FWIW, given what I know about the core narrative of the Dance, I do think the writers will have to flesh out the narrative a lot in seasons 2-3 (and onward, if they make more seasons).
The central problem with what Martin wrote is it's from the unreliable narration of a Maester. He tries to do the best possible within his society to untangle which of the three primary sources is accurate, but he's noble-born, and has some inherent bias which is quite obvious because of this. The historical accounts focus on the dragon battles, how the nobility betray one another, and such, and they gloss over the huge collateral damage to the smallfolk. I think once the Dance really gets going in Seasons 2/3, we'll either need a character who was lowborn (like Davos) or someone who is highborn but "slumming it" (like Arya or Brienne) in order to really see the human impact of the war.
The Others will play absolutely no role in the narrative. That scene was added with the blessing of GRRM (he apparently always had a headcanon that was why Aegon the Conqueror came to Westeros) but this story is not about anything north of the Wall at all. Even the Starks are only involved a bit tangentially.
This is a fair criticism. But big-budget media projects are risk averse, which is why we get so many sequels/remakes/extended universes these days. People liked Game of Thrones, before the last few seasons shit the bed, so HBO is giving them more of what they said they liked. It makes more sense than like doing a buddy comedy set in Pentos or something as the next project in the franchise.
I'm still hoping we'll one day see what Arya discovers across the Sunset Sea.
Beware - cynic speaking.
Once HBO starts to scrape the bottom of the barrel and Maisie Williams career is gone ( does she even have one that's visible?) you can bet they'll talk about doing that idea, the same as with Kit Harrington trying to get a Jon Snow show off the ground.
It makes me actually a bit sad that some actors can't escape that one massive hit they had early in their careers that overshadows all they are doing later on, only very few can escape this and broaden their career.
Maisie has had a couple other British TV shows since GoT ended and I believe is focusing more on a fashion line/modelling with her boyfriend who is a designer than acting right now
Maisie Williams grew into a fantastic actress, but unfortunately she also transitioned from being a cute little kid to a woman who is assuredly not the "Hollywood type."
Usually women like her don't really get far in acting unless they happen to transition into comedy, which is really unfortunate.
I thought it was the most exciting of the 3.